Focus in the medieval treatises

[Sven1]

I'm just trying to point out to you that you can't make such broad general statements.

I can, i did and it's absolutely correct:

----I didn't disregard it. I said this: "So sure, ANY kind of combative exchange, whether one-on-one or in mass formation, follows "rules" to some extent or another. So it doesn't really mean a lot to say this about the fechtbucher."

Again:

In solichen Acht Alß die gewonheit und daz recht lert in dem lande dar Inn sie kempffen sullen oder nach dem alß sie miteinander gewillkürt haben

"concering that, as is (general) custom and law in the country the fight is to take place in or as they have aggreed upon previously"

This was the answere to your question:

---Then what are those "specific" rules?

--Ok. Paulus Hector Mair has sections on fighting with sickle, with a thresh-all, and with the limb of a tree. Are there rules for that any more specific than the "prison-yard shanking" that I mentioned? Is it your assertion that ANY one-on-one combative exchange followed preset specific rules? Because if they are specifically "unspecific", then they don't really have much relevance to this discussion.

Oh boy. PHM knew nothing about fencing and duel practice, thas why he romantized it so much and had to do so much research. That guy in the progession of his commisioned works had the I33 leather gloves first turn into maille gauntlets and then into plate gauntlets , nuff said. I love it how it's always that source that is called to proove all and any preconcieved notions people have.

---Paulus Hector Mair devotes a fair amount of space to describing fighting with "peasant weapons." Far more than just a "tidbit." Joachim Meyer, who most people accept as writing for the fechtschule environment, also recommends practicing regularly in armour.
Obviously armour wouldn't have relevance to the fechtschule contests and this is likely a reference to using his methods on the battlefield. This is more than just a "tidbit" or "nifty trick of dubious origin." Do you want another "tidbit"? How about Jorg Wilhelm Hutter? He seems to almost certainly have been associated with a Landsknecht troupe, so it would be safe to assume he expected his Longsword method to have application on the battlefield. But wait....there are "specific rulesets" even on the battlefield, so I guess this still proves your point?

Only speculation and far-fetched at that...

---That PHM/Anon thought that the sections were related? That they were acquired for the collection at the same time and therefore bound together? That they originated from the same locale and so where bound together? That they were the only works in someones collection at an early point in time and were therefore bound together for convenience? I could go on speculating about what this says about it's "context." Is your speculation any more valid?

Only speculation and far-fetched at that...

[bigdummy]

There is no middle ground. Easy as that. The context of all german fechtbücher is ritualized combat with a specific ruleset, ...

Now, please debate me on the above quote if you can or just let it be. You are wrong, I'm right. Ende Gelände.

I'll take that challenge.

There is no single specific ruleset for all german [language, I assume you to mean, though maybe I'm giving you too much credit] fechtbücher. If you don't recognize that your statement above is pure bullshit then your command of the English language may be insufficient to understand the meaning of the phrase "a specific ruleset". Either that or you are a Troll or you are just an idiot.

BD

[Sven1]

There is no middle ground. Easy as that. The context of all german fechtbücher is ritualized combat with a specific ruleset, ...

Now, please debate me on the above quote if you can or just let it be. You are wrong, I'm right. Ende Gelände.

If you don't recognize that the above is pure bullshit then your command of the English language may be insufficient to understand the meaning of the phrase "a specific ruleset". There is no single specific ruleset for all german [language, I assume you to mean, though maybe I'm giving you too much credit]. Either that or you are a Troll or you are just an idiot.

I'm gonna reformat my post so it's easier for you to understand:

I was simply pointing out that there was a lot more going on in the fechtbucher than he thinks.

This is what you were doing:

There is no middle ground. Easy as that. The context of all german fechtbücher is ritualized combat with a specific ruleset, ...

Wow! You really need to go back and review "all german fechtbucher", because this statement is totally wrong!

--break--

Now, please debate me on the above given quote (Talhofer Gota 1457) if you can or just let it be. You are wrong, I'm right. Ende Gelände.

--break--

There is no single specific ruleset for all german

Oh boy, and you dare call me stupid. Here is the quote AGAIN, and it contains everything I am saying:

In solichen Acht Alß die gewonheit und daz recht lert in dem lande dar Inn sie kempffen sullen oder nach dem alß sie miteinander gewillkürt haben

"concering that, as is (general) custom and law in the country the fight is to take place in or as they have aggreed upon previously"

So there you have it, framework and possible modification - translating to specific and not-so-specifc rules.

Now please, go be fat somewhere else....

[Michael Chidester]

Sven, you must keep in mind that when you make a general statement about the Fechtbücher, you're describing some 69 manuscripts, 4 incunables, and 14 books spanning a period of three hundred and sixty-six years (1320-1686)--and that's limiting the scope only to Germanic-language manuals that cover individual combat tactics and are based on or roughly coeval with the Liechtenauer tradition of longsword fencing. If we threw in other languages, expanded the scope to include all military manuals, or lengthened the time period in question, the list would get much longer.

When you say that all Fechtbücher have a particular quality, you're almost wrong by definition due to the incredible diversity of these 87 texts. You're talking about Sebastian Heußler's rapier and cloak fencing as much as you are Sigmund Ringeck's mounted fencing gloss; your statement must apply equally to the longshield fencing of Gladiatoria, the street brawling of Johann Georg Pascha, and the dussack play of Jakob Sutor von Baden.

Your statement simply can't meet this level of rigor, so I'd advise you to reformulate it and dramatically limit its scope.

[bigdummy]

So there you have it, framework and possible modification - translating to specific and not-so-specifc rules.

That does not equate to your statement, and your quote isn't even relevant.

Now please, go be fat somewhere else....

You have me at a disadvantage. Since you just chose to insult me with a schoolyard taunt, please have the courtesy of describing your own physical appearance, your full real name, and the group you belong to. All I know about you is that you are an asshole, but there are billions of those in the wide world. It seems like I need to make a note of who you are, I'll look forward to being fat in your physical presense, so I can learn more about what you are like in person.

BD aka Jean Chandler from SDA NOLA, aka "the fat guy", in New Orleans, Louisiana.

[bigdummy]

Mind you, as I just told you privately, I have nothing against the Troll species myself, not being of Christian blood, and I don't mind an insult from a friend. From a stranger, Troll or otherwise... a comment like that has to come with a smile. It's an obligation where I'm from. So I'll get the smile from you one way or another.

BD

[admin]

Okay guys, this is supposed to be a forum for grown-ups. Insults have been traded on both sides, but insulting someone based on their physical appearance whilst hiding your own identity is very very low and I will not tolerate it again. You are in my forum and the only rule here is to not piss me off. Okay 'Sven'?

All the quotes and counter-quotes above are not helpful to the discussion anymore. This is not a court case or episode of Jerry Springer. Let's try and clarify what people are actually trying to say (and accept that we don't HAVE to agree - different opinions are fine..).

Sven - you seem to be making the assertion that you believe all German fighting books are primarily aimed at duelling, either knightly duelling or judicial duelling. Is that correct? Do you put a time period against that assertion - ie. are you only talking about the pre-1500 sources or something like that?

If you are saying that all *medieval* German treatises are aimed primarily at knightly or judicial duelling, then how do you see I.33 fitting into that? Or Leckuchner's messer treatise? Or the advice about fighting several peasants in 'Doebringer'? Or the multiple-opponent stuff in Talhoffer, or his mounted lance vs. mounted crossbow?

Even if we ignore the additional small sections I list above, the problem I have with your assertion is that fighting with messers, swords and bucklers or longswords in shirts doesn't really seem to fit into any medieval duelling tradition that I am aware of. Gentlemen fought knightly and judicial duels in armour (I don't know of any exception to that, except when a gentleman had to fight a commoner). Common people fought judicial duels to very specific rules and with specific clothes, as shown in Talhoffer and Kal. So the only other type of duel that seems to be applicable to these fights in shirts are street fights, which there were no rules that we know of (or do you?). If two commoners had a fight outside a pub with messers then they may have observed some social conventions, but I don't think that classes as a formal duel with strict rules... Even more than this, we know that fencing schools were often scenes of brawls and riots - that is why they were banned in English and French cities until the 15th century.

[Keith P. Myers]

Hey Guys!

Don't feed the troll! Rewarding impolite behavior only encourages such behavior.

Keith

[Cutlery Penguin]

Are you serious! Or are you just a troll? Because I'm beginning to think you are now just trolling for trouble. And I refuse to feed trolls!

Keith

He;s been trolling here from his very first post.

[Wolfgang Ritter]

where do you think the above quote is from? ->

In solichen Acht Alß die gewonheit und daz recht lert in dem lande dar Inn sie kempffen sullen oder nach dem alß sie miteinander gewillkürt haben

You've been referring to this Talhofer quote over and over again to state:


In solichen Acht Alß die gewonheit und daz recht lert in dem lande dar Inn sie kempffen sullen oder nach dem alß sie miteinander gewillkürt haben

"concering that, as is (general) custom and law in the country the fight is to take place in or as they have aggreed upon previously"



So there you have it, framework and possible modification - translating to specific and not-so-specifc rules.

Okay I've checked the Thott edition. Mind you, but your quote is located where? Rhetorical question, sorry. It's located on plate 9r within the part of the explicite rules for judicial combat. So it prooves exactly that: there was a ruleset that for certain cases a duel could be fought to win a lawsuit.
Within this decisive fight there are certain rules how to prepare and perform such a duel. That's it.
It's not a "general" custom beyond the ruleset fpor a judicial combat as you added in your translation. It's related to one part of the manuscript, i.e. the judicial duelling.

That doesn't make the whole corpse od german fencing manuscripts a fencing system framed by a ruleset. That's plain rubbish.

Talhofer - or other authors as well put down their fencing system in books, some for educational reasons, some maybe more as a possibility to memorize certain things better. Most of them contained certain aspects of ritualised fighting like in a more sportive context of a tournament, where you fight to the first blood or simply get the opponent out of the barriers; most of them are full of nasty and lethal moves for fighting in earnest, i. e. to the death. Those moves work within barriers - in a judicial duel - just as well as in self-defence on the streets.
It might even work in a military conflict, at least to a point where a one-on-one situation appears. The long sword blossfechten certainly doesn't help that much within a Gewalthaufen etc. but who claimed that?

So again I really don't understand what claim about the ruleset and framework is all about?

But given the fact that practically all your postings around here come across the same way, I think as well that you're up for nothing else but trolling.
You seem to be german or at least living in a german speaking country. The scene there is not so big, would you mind explaining your whereabouts or is it all a big mystery?

[Wolfgang Ritter]

Und? Kommt da noch was?