Focus in the medieval treatises

The practice of martial arts, research, interpretation and modern equipment. Ancient to c.1900.
Open to public view.

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby bigdummy » 20 Feb 2012 15:18

Wolfgang Ritter wrote:I find it rather odd, that we discuss in length if or if not the manuscripts were written for nobles.
I'd say of course: Either that or rather very wealthy citizens.


Some of them seem to be notebooks on many different subjects, not necessarily written FOR anybody except the person or people compiling them. While some Fechtbucher are beautiful works of art, others are little more than scribbled notes without any illustrations. Lumping them all into one category is problematic. I think we should be careful of making such sweeping assumptions.

I may should look it up, but I'm pretty sure Ott was wrestling trainer to the austrian archduke, Kal was employed by a noble for more than 20 years; IIRC RIngeck as well; Talhofer was at least partly employed by nobles; Leckküchner dedicatesd hisa whole messer treatise to a noble.
So why the discussion at the moment?!?!?
That doesn''t contradict by any means the fact, that masters may have given lessons to commons, be it on
purpose or for guilds etc. we have records for that as well, just reminding of the company of the


Well, it goes a bit further than that. We know some of the Masters were themselves members of guilds. Joachim Meyer was trained as a messerschmidt (a knife maker), as were apparently many of the Federfechter- and was a citizen on the burgher rolls of at least two towns, Basel and Strassbourg. Conversely, the Marxbrüder, with whom Talhoffer is believed by some to be linked due to his inclusion of the Lion of St. Mark in his coat of arms, were closely associated with the Furriers guilds. Some Federfechter documents denouncing the Marxbruder explicitly conflate them with furriers. The Guild of St. Luke, also associated with fencing, was the painters Guild in the Low-Countries.

At one point Talhoffer was a citizen of Zurich where he was fined for a brawl among his students.

People here don't seem to understand that there was a distinction in the 15th Century between burghers and aristocrats. Some people lived in both worlds, but generally speaking aristocrats did not want to be burghers or live within the territory controlled by a town because that put them under the authority of Town Law. This meant for example that you could be imprisoned and tortured by town authorities as part of a lawsuit. Not something you would want to expose yourself to if you didn't need to be.

Marxbrüder or the Federfechter. We have records that they had a lot of different jobs, I think it was Kal who was working as a gunner, but I may mix him up. Leckküchner was looking to become a priest, i.e. establishing a parrish.


Yes in fact you could flip the connections on their head: many of these guys at one time or another had noble clients, it was obviously an ideal outcome for someone becoming a professional fencer. But was that the rule or the exception in the fencing community they came out of? What WAS the actual context of that?

But at least until the 16th century there was a clear mindset regarding the fashion and social setting of commons - and that was to imitate nobles. A sort of civilian self-esteem developped in small paces and it took until the 16th century for civilian citizens to realise, that niobles were financially relying and dependant on them, which meant power to the patrons....


This timeline is a little bit late. The Lombard towns defeated the Holy Roman Emperor in the 12th Century. Most of the freie Reichsstadt (Free Imperial Cities) of the HRE, and their equivalent in Flanders, Hungary, Bohemia and Lombardy had rebelled against their own overlords by the end of the 13th Century. Cologne for example captured their own Prince-Archbishop Siegfried of Westerburg at the Battle of Worringen in 1288, only releasing him when he conceded to their almost full independence. The Cologne Guilds took over in 1396 and in the 15th Century they fought successful campaigns against Archbishop Dietrich of Mörs and Duke Charles the Bold, at the time arguably the richest and most powerful Prince in Europe.

By the 1422 there were over 75 Imperial Free Cities in the Holy Roman Empire alone, which included most of the major towns associated with the KDF: Augsburg, Strassbourg, Frankfurt am Main, Nuremburg, Basel, Bremen, etc. etc. As well as dozens of others in regions outside of the HRE such as Danzig, Zurich, Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent, Prague, Bratislava, Amsterdam, Krakow and so on. These towns were powerful, independent political actors, legally and militarily the equivalent of Princes in their own right. The Hanseatic League fought successful campaigns against England and Denmark in the 14th and 15th Centuries, the Prussian Confederation, in concert with the Kingdom of Poland defeated the Teutonic Order by 1466. Augsburg in particular was a very powerful town whose merchants were already financing elections of Holy Roman Emperors and Popes by the late 15th Century.

By contrast, in Bavaria where Talhoffer spent a lot of his career, was a region where the Princes had a lot of power and the towns were relatively weak. Central Europe in this time period was an extremely complex place, in some zones (Saxony, Flanders, Swabia) the towns were dominant, in others the Feudal system reigned, or local prince-prelates of the Church.

Having a mindset where a "knight" is still regraded as the role-model for fighting abilities (as well as behaviour, please don't forget the "Vorred vor der Zedel"!) it is of no surprise for me that the manuscript concentrate on knightly arts of fighting, i.e. fighting in armour.


This I agree with but thinking of fighting in terms of chivalry or knights is not the same thing as actually being one. Some modern soldiers use Spartan imagery on their tanks, it doesn't make them Spartans. Similarly, most of the merchant halls in the cities on the Baltic in the 14th - 15th Centuries were called "King Arthurs Court" (Artushoff) but it did not make the Merchants who ran them (and ran the cities, along with the craft Guilds) nobles, in fact they had denied membership to the nobles in Danzig, Elbing, Torun and Breslau (Wroclaw) by the end of the Prussian -Teutonic war in 1466.

Oh and yes, I definitely want to see and participate in more armoured combat;-)


On this, at least, we agree.

BD
Last edited by bigdummy on 20 Feb 2012 17:14, edited 11 times in total.
"In the case of an ailing social order, the absence of an adequate diagnosis... is a crucial, perhaps decisive part of the disease." -Zygmunt Bauman

"With any luck we'll be in Stalingrad by winter. " - Anyonymous German soldier
User avatar
bigdummy
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 19:32
Location: New Orleans

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby bigdummy » 20 Feb 2012 15:19

admin wrote:
Sven1 wrote:From the early mortal combat to the then anachronistic sport-duel for first blood, these were always focused on 1 on 1 fighting, never war. That is why the whole spectrum of "war" is not reflected therein...


But you are wrong... As various people have shown above, the medieval German (and Italian) treatises also talk about street self-defence, fighting multiple-opponents, fighting mis-matched weapons (such as lance vs. crossbow!), robbing people and even siege engines...

I do not dispute that *most* medieval German treatises seem to focus a lot of content on knightly and judicial duels (these were two very separate and different activites), but that is certainly not the entirety of their content. You must know that...

What context do you think 'blossfechten' with longswords fits into? Civilian duelling? Street fighting? It is not knightly or judicial duelling. I am genuinely interested in your answer.



me too, and I'd also like to say, I'm glad to see we are having a serious discussion of the context of the fencing systems we have been studying, it's been overdue that this subject be revisited I think, and some of the assumptions a lot of people have held at least questioned.

BD
"In the case of an ailing social order, the absence of an adequate diagnosis... is a crucial, perhaps decisive part of the disease." -Zygmunt Bauman

"With any luck we'll be in Stalingrad by winter. " - Anyonymous German soldier
User avatar
bigdummy
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 19:32
Location: New Orleans

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Michael Chidester » 20 Feb 2012 16:52

I love all of these facts you keep pulling out, Jean. When are you going to write a book on this so we can all see the big picture?

Sven1 wrote:No I don't, contrary to you I actually can read these, understand their tone, history, purpose etc.

I just wanted to say that I found it particularly amusing that he directed this comment to Keith Myers, a man who has personally translated more Germanic manuals than all but a handful of people in our community.
Michael Chidester
Director, Wiktenauer Project
Member, Western Martial Arts Coalition
Lifetime Member, HEMA Alliance
User avatar
Michael Chidester
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 23:20
Location: Brighton, MA

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby bigdummy » 20 Feb 2012 17:03

Michael Chidester wrote:I love all of these facts you keep pulling out, Jean. When are you going to write a book on this so we can all see the big picture?


I did write a book, on the Medieval Baltic, it's out but it's still in development. If you like I can send you a copy to look at. I can't claim to really understand the period or the place yet but I've learned enough to say it was every bit as complex and sophisticated a society as our own is today. and a lot different than I expected.

Speaking of which, I noticed just now reading up on Talhoffer,that in his capacity working for one of those Bavarian Princes, the Prince-Archbishop of Salzbourg, Johann II. of Reisberg, he was apparently an agent of the Vehmic court. I guess you knew this already since you commented on the blog post last year, but it is news to me. The Vehmic court is one of those very interesting but difficult to explain phenomena. Sort of a vigilante organization, but a semi-official one by Talhoffers time, which was tasked with the enforcement of certain laws, some written some unwritten, by the community. The rulings of the Vehm (or Fehme, depending on the region) were carried out with violence. In fact they only had one punishment, death. So it's possible Talhoffer if he was a freischöffe or friegraf of the Vehmic court may have been in charge of investigating or even executing malefactors condemned by the court. In fact members of the Vehm were obligated to carry out it's sentences. Put's Talhofers context, and HEMA, in an interesting light I had never thought of.

Food for thought, for me anyway...

BD
Last edited by bigdummy on 20 Feb 2012 19:38, edited 3 times in total.
"In the case of an ailing social order, the absence of an adequate diagnosis... is a crucial, perhaps decisive part of the disease." -Zygmunt Bauman

"With any luck we'll be in Stalingrad by winter. " - Anyonymous German soldier
User avatar
bigdummy
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 19:32
Location: New Orleans

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Sven1 » 20 Feb 2012 17:38

Keith P. Myers wrote:
---Excuse me sir! But you do not know me! It is somewhat insulting to make a comment like "contrary to you I actually can read these..." You originally said "the context of all german fechtbücher is ritualized combat with a specific ruleset." I challenge you to show where ALL fechtbucher provide ANY "ruleset", especially a "specific" ruleset!


Please, I don't believe that one can infere that this is what I meant by what I wrote so far.

I will also refer you to two specific fechtbucher...those by Joachim Meyer and Paulus Hector Meyer. These were certainly not focused entirely on a judicial duel or anything particularly "ritualized" unless you consider the fechtschule competitions to be "ritualized"...which I think would stretch that definition.


Oh yes, I consider "sport" to be the most ritualized form of "comabat" of all, certainly. That's why I wrote anachronistic sport-duel for first blood as I refered to fechtschule stuff.

But one-on-one combat does not equate to "ritualized combat with specific rulesets."


Yes it actually does. Just because the ruleset is not explicitly mentioned does not mean these things are not supposed to happen under very specific such: 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 (TALHOFFER, Thott 1459)

Wolfgang Ritter wrote:I may have been unclear in my writing, but Talhofer manuscripts depict duel situations between nobles for whatever purpose, tournament, feud or whatever; even if the fight seems to be a highly stylised idealisation of the several stages of a duel, the Leutold von Königsegg depiction may serve as an example for that.


You should probably reconsider that example, that "duel" probably never took place.

On the other hand he explains - for example in his 1459 manuscript certain rules for a judicial duel, where the fighters might as well be commons, even women.


What I said above were tendencies for what duels for certain classed would look like most likely. Certainly commoners could duel in harness, bu it's a rather unlikely scenario.

And don't "challenge" me to whatever, would you? What's your purpose for posting? Making up a conflict? Gee, with the words of WIlliam Shatner: get a life!


I will. But first I'll have to inform you that you probably don't understand what "challenging" means here, that it is a perfectly courteous expression and only an invitation to substantiate your claim that Talhofer ever stood in for someone in a duel. Or are you reacting like this because you can't do so? :twisted:

admin wrote:[
But you are wrong... As various people have shown above, the medieval German (and Italian) treatises also talk about street self-defence, fighting multiple-opponents, fighting mis-matched weapons (such as lance vs. crossbow!), robbing people and even siege engines...


Of the top of my head I don't remember where that mismatch was to be found in Kal, help me out here? But you are all missing the point by pointing out this completely insignificant single "tricks" that are intersperesed in the fechtbücher. Especially the CW which basically is 3 "fechtbücher" with a possible hausvatterbuch origin etc.
The bellifortis part in Talhoffer is a copy (sic!) and he himself probably never saw any of those gadgets irl, let alone in action. To (re)classify Talhofer would be an endeavor of several new threads.

What context do you think 'blossfechten' with longswords fits into?


About anybody could agree to that, be he commoner, knight or duke. Nobles of course would prefere armour since bloß would probably not be considered appropriate but it would be pefectly legal.
Last edited by Sven1 on 20 Feb 2012 18:15, edited 1 time in total.
You may call me asshole if you wish.
Sven1
Corporal
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 20 Jul 2011 13:42

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Michael Chidester » 20 Feb 2012 18:03

Sven1 wrote:I will. But first I'll have to inform you that you probably don't understand what "challenging" means here, that it is a perfectly courteous expression and only an invitation to substantiate your claim that Talhofer ever stood in for someone in a duel. Or are you reacting like this because you can't do so? :twisted:

I know of evidence for this that's been uncovered but hasn't been published yet. Don't know if that helps.

Sven1 wrote:Of the top of my head I don't remember where that mismatch was to be found in Kal, help me out here?

The match between lance and crossbow is actually in Talhoffer. Kal has longsword vs. spear and sword vs. dagger.

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb ... /image_273
Michael Chidester
Director, Wiktenauer Project
Member, Western Martial Arts Coalition
Lifetime Member, HEMA Alliance
User avatar
Michael Chidester
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 23:20
Location: Brighton, MA

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Sven1 » 20 Feb 2012 18:14

Michael Chidester wrote:
Sven1 wrote:I will. But first I'll have to inform you that you probably don't understand what "challenging" means here, that it is a perfectly courteous expression and only an invitation to substantiate your claim that Talhofer ever stood in for someone in a duel. Or are you reacting like this because you can't do so? :twisted:

I know of evidence for this that's been uncovered but hasn't been published yet. Don't know if that helps.


:twisted: :D
Sven1 wrote:Of the top of my head I don't remember where that mismatch was to be found in Kal, help me out here?

The match between lance and crossbow is actually in Talhoffer. Kal has longsword vs. spear and sword vs. dagger.

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb ... /image_273


So you are referencing the Kampffechten parts?
You may call me asshole if you wish.
Sven1
Corporal
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 20 Jul 2011 13:42

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Keith P. Myers » 20 Feb 2012 20:25

Oh yes, I consider "sport" to be the most ritualized form of "comabat" of all, certainly. That's why I wrote anachronistic sport-duel for first blood as I refered to fechtschule stuff.

---But Ringen competition is not fought to "first blood."

Just because the ruleset is not explicitly mentioned does not mean these things are not supposed to happen under very specific

---Then what are those "specific" rules? Because it seems to me that even a "prison yard shanking" could be said to follow some sort of rules....such as do it when the guards aren't watching, make sure his friends aren't around, etc. And I don't think we would refer to a "prison yard shanking" as "ritualized combat." 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.


But you are all missing the point by pointing out this completely insignificant single "tricks" that are intersperesed in the fechtbücher.

---Allow me to quote you again: "the context of all german fechtbücher is ritualized combat with a specific ruleset" Maybe your statement should not be so generalized and sweeping in its assumptions. Clearly there were other contexts represented. And I still say those "rulesets" were not as "specific" as you seem to think. Both Meyer and Mair may have had the fechtschule environment in mind, but they certainly intended for one to be able to use the methods and techniques shown in the context of a "back alley" exchange or a "battlefield" exchange as well. Meyer advised practicing in armour regularly, and Mair showed fighting with peasant weapons such as the sickle.

---Also let me point out that saying things like "contrary to you I actually can read these, understand their tone, history, purpose etc" with no apologies is not going to win you friends or engender polite conversation on any forum.

Keith
Keith P. Myers
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 178
Joined: 15 May 2011 22:46

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Wolfgang Ritter » 20 Feb 2012 20:56

@Sven1: I'll give it a last try:
I know perfectly well, that the duel of Leutold von Königsegg and his (unnamed) opponent never happened - or at least - did not happen the way depicted. It is rather obvious that Talhofer used the possibility of describing a duel to show the different weapons and stages of a duel. Nevertheless it shows a combat between two nobles. That's why I wrote about an idealisation in the first place.
Nevertheless it is clearly a descripton of a duel situation between nobility.

On the other hand, Talhofer explains in the Thott manuscript the reasons for a judicial duel and how it proceeds, you might want to give it a read. I can't recall it correctly it is either about the franconian or the swabian law. But still it is not restricted to nobles. It contains for example the famous plates of the man in the pit against the woman with a stone in a towel.

A little bit earlier Talhofer states: "How wider fröhlich daran / spricht Hanß talhofer der guot man. Daz muß er für die warhait jehen / Wann eß ist im ouch wol eben dick und offt beschehen" - which I would take as his statement that he was in several situations where he had to fight for his life. I take that as enough evidence that he did not only train and worked as a fencing coach, but of course fought himself.
You might state that it's not a proof of Talhofer fighting as a stand-in in a judicial duel, I'm okay with that. But frankly, I find it rather odd to think he didn't fight in a judicial duel - given the variety of jobs, employers and interests he had over an impressing timespan of a couple of decades.
But since it seems you find enjoyment in nitpicking in semantics, it wouldn't surprise me if you happen to have a different understanding.
Wolfgang Ritter
Major
 
Posts: 750
Joined: 17 Mar 2006 11:23
Location: hovering in nirvana

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby bigdummy » 20 Feb 2012 21:02

Or maybe for a perfectly honest reason, who knows :)

Could you provide a direct translation of this?

How wider fröhlich daran / spricht Hanß talhofer der guot man. Daz muß er für die warhait jehen / Wann eß ist im ouch wol eben dick und offt beschehen"


sounds like a good one, but I'm afraid to garble it. What does beschehen mean?

BD
"In the case of an ailing social order, the absence of an adequate diagnosis... is a crucial, perhaps decisive part of the disease." -Zygmunt Bauman

"With any luck we'll be in Stalingrad by winter. " - Anyonymous German soldier
User avatar
bigdummy
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 19:32
Location: New Orleans

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Sven1 » 20 Feb 2012 21:16

Keith P. Myers wrote:
---But Ringen competition is not fought to "first blood."


C'mon...

---Then what are those "specific" rules? Because it seems to me that even a "prison yard shanking" could be said to follow some sort of rules....such as do it when the guards aren't watching, make sure his friends aren't around, etc. And I don't think we would refer to a "prison yard shanking" as "ritualized combat." 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.


You say you understand the language, so why doo you disregard what I write:

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"


Ok? The rules are specific in that they have a certain framework but may be altered, so they are specifically unspecific - get it?

Maybe your statement should not be so generalized and sweeping in its assumptions.


The generalization is spot on, the interspersed tidbits of nifty tricks of dubious origin don't play a role. CW at some point may have been bound by PHM/Anon - now what does that say about it's context?
You may call me asshole if you wish.
Sven1
Corporal
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 20 Jul 2011 13:42

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Sven1 » 20 Feb 2012 21:25

Wolfgang Ritter wrote: you might want to give it a read.


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


A little bit earlier Talhofer states: "How wider fröhlich daran / spricht Hanß talhofer der guot man. Daz muß er für die warhait jehen / Wann eß ist im ouch wol eben dick und offt beschehen" - which I would take as his statement that he was in several situations where he had to fight for his life. I take that as enough evidence that he did not only train and worked as a fencing coach, but of course fought himself.
You might state that it's not a proof of Talhofer fighting as a stand-in in a judicial duel, I'm okay with that. But frankly, I find it rather odd to think he didn't fight in a judicial duel - given the variety of jobs, employers and interests he had over an impressing timespan of a couple of decades.
But since it seems you find enjoyment in nitpicking in semantics, it wouldn't surprise me if you happen to have a different understanding.


Now you are meandering around. From that you still can't infere, so specifically, that Talhofer stood in for someone. nitpicking is what this is about (to answere your earlier question on about why I post) but certainly not on my part. It is you and Keith who jumped on the bandwagon of nitpicking when you pointed out the occasonal tricks in order to establish that the fechtbücher have war scenario relevance etc.
You may call me asshole if you wish.
Sven1
Corporal
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 20 Jul 2011 13:42

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby bigdummy » 20 Feb 2012 21:37

Sven1 wrote:You say you understand the language, so why doo you disregard what I write:

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"


Ok? The rules are specific in that they have a certain framework but may be altered, so they are specifically unspecific - get it?

All that really says is that they have to agree on how to conduct the fight beforehand, it doesn't refer to any specific rule set.

The generalization is spot on, the interspersed tidbits of nifty tricks of dubious origin don't play a role.


This is just your opinion, which you haven't given reason to assume is of any more validity than anyone else's here.

In fact to the contrary because making broad generalizations about so complex a subject does not inspire confidence, and dismissing people you don't seem to know much about implies a certain impatience or arrogance which is not normally associated with wisdom.

If you are going to make bold, sweeping statements and issue challenges right and left, you should back your claims up with data and not just glib dismissals. Either that or adopt a more moderate / nuanced tone.

BD
Last edited by bigdummy on 20 Feb 2012 22:27, edited 2 times in total.
"In the case of an ailing social order, the absence of an adequate diagnosis... is a crucial, perhaps decisive part of the disease." -Zygmunt Bauman

"With any luck we'll be in Stalingrad by winter. " - Anyonymous German soldier
User avatar
bigdummy
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 19:32
Location: New Orleans

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Wolfgang Ritter » 20 Feb 2012 22:05

Sven1 wrote:
It is you and Keith who jumped on the bandwagon of nitpicking when you pointed out the occasonal tricks in order to establish that the fechtbücher have war scenario relevance etc.
Excuse me, where did I tried to establish that? I didn't wrote a word about that. I was commenting on crertain statements in this thread, that*'s it.
Nonetheless I do believe the various german manuscripts cover several purposes: fighting one-on-one in duel situation - both to the death as well as under tournament circumstances; fighting one-on-one in a judicial duel; apart from all that, the fencing system depicted in the manuscripts works under sheer self-defence system as well.
Or do you really think the fencing system and techniques depicted in "all" the german fencing manuscripts have no relevance for non-duel-related fights?
Wolfgang Ritter
Major
 
Posts: 750
Joined: 17 Mar 2006 11:23
Location: hovering in nirvana

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Michael Chidester » 20 Feb 2012 22:39

bigdummy wrote:Could you provide a direct translation of this?
How wider fröhlich daran / spricht Hanß talhofer der guot man. Daz muß er für die warhait jehen / Wann eß ist im ouch wol eben dick und offt beschehen"

That actually looks like a pretty innocuous phrase: "...then counterstrike merrily. Thereupon speaks Hans Talhoffer: The good man must speak up for the truth-–even when it seems obvious and happens often, etc." It's part of a longer passage, translated by Jeff Hull thusly:

Jeffrey Hull wrote:Thus here is the key to Rightful Art, according to all the masters, the sundry hands of converging ways; which is also consigned to memory; and which is the right grounding:

Thus firstly, when you will fight in earnest with someone, then look out for how you and he agree what hour thereafter; thus by all means you act according to pressing need; and keep that to yourself and tell nobody what you have in mind or would do, since the World is so false. And by all means, the gauntlets serve to your vantage; sword and gambeson and leggings and whatever you will that is customary; yet mark how you and he agree upon that – and so then abide by it. Even if the sword has no other right, then it has that which is one’s own and free will. Thus when you come within the barriers and will begin / attack, then let any foe say and do what he will; and cower not within yourself; and have the earnest in mind; and whatever he says unto you, do not react to it; and fight earnestly for yourself thusly; and let him have no rest and become no threat; and follow the art, thus fear not his strikes; and would he draw you into meetings of the blades, then counterstrike merrily.

Thereupon speaks Hans Talhoffer: The good man must speak up for the truth-–even when it seems obvious and happens often, etc.
Michael Chidester
Director, Wiktenauer Project
Member, Western Martial Arts Coalition
Lifetime Member, HEMA Alliance
User avatar
Michael Chidester
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 23:20
Location: Brighton, MA

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Mink » 20 Feb 2012 22:41

Wolfgang Ritter wrote:Or do you really think the fencing system and techniques depicted in "all" the german fencing manuscripts have no relevance for non-duel-related fights?

To be fair, their context could be ritualized one-on-one combat (which was Sven1 original point), yet the skills described could still be relevant for non-duel fights...

The question seems to become rather more general than just the medieval German books, given that most other sources also focus predominantly on one-on-one combat with balanced equipment. The most widespread counter-example being unarmed vs. dagger...

Regards,
--
Vincent Le Chevalier
User avatar
Mink
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 282
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 16:11
Location: Paris, France

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Keith P. Myers » 20 Feb 2012 23:15

Wolfgang Ritter wrote:
Sven1 wrote:
It is you and Keith who jumped on the bandwagon of nitpicking when you pointed out the occasonal tricks in order to establish that the fechtbücher have war scenario relevance etc.
Excuse me, where did I tried to establish that? I didn't wrote a word about that?


I didn't either! I was simply pointing out that there was a lot more going on in the fechtbucher than he thinks. He seems to like making broad generalizations! :wink:

Keith
Keith P. Myers
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 178
Joined: 15 May 2011 22:46

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Sven1 » 20 Feb 2012 23:19

Keith P. Myers wrote: 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:

Keith P. Myers wrote:
Sven1 wrote: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! :shock:


Now, please debate me on the above quote if you can or just let it be. You are wrong, I'm right. Ende Gelände.
You may call me asshole if you wish.
Sven1
Corporal
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 20 Jul 2011 13:42

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Keith P. Myers » 20 Feb 2012 23:33

C'mon...

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


You say you understand the language, so why doo you disregard what I write:

----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."


Ok? The rules are specific in that they have a certain framework but may be altered, so they are specifically unspecific - get it?

---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.


The generalization is spot on, the interspersed tidbits of nifty tricks of dubious origin don't play a role.

---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? :roll:

CW at some point may have been bound by PHM/Anon - now what does that say about it's context?

---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?

Keith
Keith P. Myers
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 178
Joined: 15 May 2011 22:46

Re: Focus in the medieval treatises

Postby Keith P. Myers » 20 Feb 2012 23:35

Sven1 wrote:This is what you were doing:

Keith P. Myers wrote:
Sven1 wrote: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! :shock:


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


Are you serious! :shock: 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! :evil:

Keith
Keith P. Myers
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 178
Joined: 15 May 2011 22:46

PreviousNext

Return to General Martial Arts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests

cron