A comparison between sword and buckler in different MS

[Andreas Engström]

I'd be wary if dismissing "crook" in favour of "crutch", they are both terms used to describe a vertical stick used for support, but a crook is one of the symbolic items used by a bishop as a symbol of his authority. Assuming this symbology is historic then "crook" would he more likely in an ecclesiastical manuscript.

Heh. If I may further confuse you, krücke/krucke has oodles of more meanings.
It can be (in some sort of vague order of common usage):

• a crutch
• a shepherd's crook
• a bishop's staff
• a cane
• a fire-poker
• any sort of forked support used in house-building or similar
• a fiddler's bow
• the curved beams that are used as the "ribs" of a wooden ship
• the arabic (modern) numeral 2 (yes, really)
• the crank of a grindstone
• a garden tool for hacking weeds
• a type of cutting tool used by a turner at the lathe
• various other bent or forked tools used for, among other things, dredging canals, raking salt from evaporating pans, separating cinder and scum from molten metal when extracting it from the ore, etc.

Caveat: some of these meanings are probably later than I:33, though they are all medieval/renaissance.

-Andreas

[Magnus L]

I'd be wary if dismissing "crook" in favour of "crutch", they are both terms used to describe a vertical stick used for support, but a crook is one of the symbolic items used by a bishop as a symbol of his authority. Assuming this symbology is historic then "crook" would he more likely in an ecclesiastical manuscript.

So, the English translations of Krucke and Krump can have similar meanings, but does it apply to the German words as well? I do not know myself, but that is what I would compare. As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) Krump is an adjective, whereas your crook examples above are nouns, right?

[Andreas Engström]

So, the English translations of Krucke and Krump can have similar meanings, but does it apply to the German words as well? As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) Krump is an adjective, whereas your crook examples above are nouns, right?

As can be seen from my previous posting, yes it does apply. A "krücke" is usually something that is bent ("krump"), most commonly a stick of some sort with a bent end. So the nouns are nouns to which the adjective applies.

-Andreas

[Andreas Engström]

Although one should also remember that "krump" doesn't only have the literal meaning of bent or crooked; used in a less literal sense it can also mean crippled or malformed, among other things.

-Andreas

[Andreas Engström]

Also remember that as fencing terms, these words may have (and may always have had) slightly or completely different meanings. Several masters explicitly say that by "krump" they mean "with crossed arms". Nothing more, nothing less. And this meaning of the word isn't listed at all in any dictionaries, or anywhere outside of fechtbücher that I'm aware of.

-Andreas

[Magnus L]

Thanks for this good summation of the similarities between Krump and Krucke. It seems like I was wrong when stating that they are not that closely related.

So let me formulate my argument against the "new Krump" like this instead: The textual description of the action should not be violated just to reach similarities between actions whose names might be related.

Until I get a description of this "new Krump" that agrees with the texts in the manual I am hesitant to accept it as correct.

[Andreas Engström]

So let me formulate my argument against the "new Krump" like this instead: The textual description of the action should not be violated just to reach similarities between actions whose names might be related.

Until I get a description of this "new Krump" that agrees with the texts in the manual I am hesitant to accept it as correct.

I quite agree.

-Andreas

[Cutlery Penguin]

I'd be wary if dismissing "crook" in favour of "crutch", they are both terms used to describe a vertical stick used for support, but a crook is one of the symbolic items used by a bishop as a symbol of his authority. Assuming this symbology is historic then "crook" would he more likely in an ecclesiastical manuscript.

So, the English translations of Krucke and Krump can have similar meanings, but does it apply to the German words as well? I do not know myself, but that is what I would compare. As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) Krump is an adjective, whereas your crook examples above are nouns, right?

Indeed, but crook can also be used as both a verb and an adjective. However as we're discussing semantics of a language that is not the one it was written in I'm not sure how relevant it is.

[Cutlery Penguin]

So let me formulate my argument against the "new Krump" like this instead: The textual description of the action should not be violated just to reach similarities between actions whose names might be related.

Until I get a description of this "new Krump" that agrees with the texts in the manual I am hesitant to accept it as correct.

I quite agree.

-Andreas

Seems fair to me.

[B. Cross]

Matt, I am sorry if you were under the impression that I do not listen to your opinions on the matter. It is just that your opinions – because they are not arguments, but rather opinions of interpretation (IMO, of course) are absolutely against logic and what I have practiced and studied from quite some time, and what my instructor has practiced and studied for a lot longer.
I’ll show you when I have the time to record a convincing material on the subject. And ‘widely accepted views’ is not very accurate when we are only a handful of people studying those manuscripts.
Sean, an active parry and a strike are not that different.

Matt, Shotokan and Wing Chun, which I have trained, although not enough to build a definitive opinion, are created in different circumstances, in different times, by different cultures and for different tasks. Fiore and Lichtenauer were in more or less the same cultural zone of Western Europe, more or less at the same time, using the same tools for the same tasks.
Herbert, I am sorry to have put doubt in your level of knowledge and understanding, but when you said the krucke was not an action and a strike that led me to do so. But we may assume that the fact a person has written a book or gives lectures does not mean that said person is incapable of mistakes in his understandings, is it not?

Ariella, Lichtenauer says that four are sufficient in his Zettel. The Zettel are not a handbook that covers all of fencing. That is way Ringeck says in his Glosa – use only these four guards, but later on mentions also schrankhut and nebenhut.
For the vocabulary, I could quote a friend of mine, a fencer and mathematician – ‘In mathematics, there are numerous different terms and vocabularies, yet the math is the same’

I wouldn't tolerate the abilites as a researcher and teacher of HEMA of my good friend Herbert to be questionned, were I in a bad mood (any possible disagreement on the interpetation of this I.33 manual cast aside : at least he was confident enough in his to have it published). Fortunately, I'm not, and I am confident that he will consider all this with spirit and an open mind (which he did apparently). And I'd be happy to discuss all this over a few drinks.

In the same way I do not tolerate the abilities of my instructor as a researcher and a teacher. And I try to not go personal.

The only way for to convince you is either meet you in person and show you what I mean, or do a good enough video presentation of that. When I can do either, hopefully both, I’ll come back to the issue.

[Cutlery Penguin]

The only way for to convince you is either meet you in person and show you what I mean, or do a good enough video presentation of that. When I can do either, hopefully both, I’ll come back to the issue.

No, that isn't true. I'll try to explain.

Some years ago I presented a fairly radical interpretation of a well known system that disagreed in a few significant ways with the commonly accepted interpretation at the time.

A lot of the things that have been said to you were said to me.

"Where's the proof?"

"When you make extraordinary claims you need to back them up with extraordinary evidence."

And so on.

I went to great detail to explain exactly why I had come to the conclusions I had using direct quotes from the relevant material to explain my reasoning. It went on for quite some time on a number of forums.

I didn't persuade everyone. Sometimes people have too much invested in what they are doing to be able to step outside and see it completely objectively, but the process of justifying it with direct, objective, incontrovertible proof not only helped my solidify my thoughts, but they did persuade a number of people that there might be something to what I was saying.

So if you want to convince people that their commonly held belief is in actual fact wrong, the way to do it is to show them the proof. Not to say that it seems logical to you, but to quote the relevant sections of text, to allow them to try to disprove it and deal with each and every objection individually until either the evidence shows you to be right, or indeed possibly wrong.

The scientific method looks for ways to disprove it's own theories, not to back them up. It is only when a theory has shown it can't be disproved that it becomes acceptable.

Give it a try, either way we'll all come away more educated.

[admin]

It is just that your opinions – because they are not arguments, but rather opinions of interpretation (IMO, of course) are absolutely against logic

Which logic? How is this a matter of 'logic'? This is a matter of *evidence*, which you seem incapable to producing.
How is saying that Fiore and Liechtenauer are different styles (which incidentally all the leading teachers that I know would agree with) against 'logic'?
You say that they are the same style yet provide precisely NO evidence.

I’ll show you when I have the time to record a convincing material on the subject.

You will show me that Fiore and Liechtenauer are the same style? Your only evidence so far has been to say that they both hit things and thrust... Yet you choose to ignore the fact that half of Fiore's entire longsword section is based on a kind of parry that you did not recognise and can hardly be found in any German source! Truly, do you expect us to take you seriously?

Matt, Shotokan and Wing Chun, which I have trained, although not enough to build a definitive opinion, are created in different circumstances, in different times, by different cultures and for different tasks. Fiore and Lichtenauer were in more or less the same cultural zone of Western Europe, more or less at the same time, using the same tools for the same tasks.

Bobo, either you are not bothering to read and understand what people are writing, or you are unable to understand.

If you believe that because two martial arts are from a similar place and time that they MUST be the same (despite lots of evidence to the contrary and no evidence to support it) then you are monumentally unintelligent.
If you want to use two different styles from similar times and places then take Saviolo's sword vs. Silver's sword, or Wylde's smallsword vs. Angelo's smallsword, or Wing Chun vs. Hung Gar, Hutton sabre vs. Waite sabre, or the various different styles of kenjutsu.

Regarding your last point - if your final excuse is that you can not make your point clearly on a forum (which the rest of us manage to do quite well to each other) then the logical conclusion is to not try and communicate those matters on forums.

A word of advice - a little humility and the ability to listen to people far more knowledgably than you and admit when you are wrong would benefit you a great deal. The only person you are harming with your willful ignorance is yourself.

[admin]

Having thought about it, this thread can not do any more good, so I'm locking it.

If someone desperately wants it unlocked then I will do so, but at this stage it is just going in circles.