Hmmm... I've done very little work with sword and dagger(I mostly do longsword), but I've got a few relevant manuals to add:
Joachim Meyer, 1570 "Grundtliche Beschreibung". Meyer was a 16th century German master who taught a variety of weapons, primarily longsword and rapier(also dagger, dussack{a wooden training weapon that was sometimes used in "first blood" styles duels, where the object was to produce a bleeding head wound), and staff). This would be useful since it teaches a lead foot rapier style that still makes wide use of the cut, and includes a few longsword techniques. Meyer in general seems to be written with the begginner as well as the learned practitioner in mind, so it includes a variety of helpful comments.
Vincentio Saviolo, "His Practice: An master teaching a variation of the Italion method in England, near the end of the 16th century. It teaches a lead foot rapier style, with dagger shown later on. This is good because it sets out a series of sequences that you can practice, and it still makes use of the cut.
A quick warning on Talhoffer. On it's own, Talhoffer sucks. It's great as a supplement to other stuff, since it has so many pictures, but on it's own I've seen people doing some pretty strange stuff with it. I was, at one point. Ringeck and Meyer are both much better for main practice guides, and there are translations availiable for them in modern languages, easily available on the internet(there's actually full English translation of Ringeck, and a partial one for Meyer, in addition to full transcripts of them in modern German). German versions of them can be found at http://www.freifechter.org . Ringeck can be found at the HACA(The second part of the translation has some mistakes, so be careful), and Meyer can be found at http://swords.partbypart.com.
ttt
ttt
I don't think Pete's Marozzo manual is going to be available for awhile because he pulled the sale of it while awaitng publication with Paladin.
When I took the Marozzo class at WMA2001, I got to handle a 16th century original of Opera Nova in great shape. Pretty cool.
ttt
About Systema...sambo was definitely the system used by Spetnaz. However, systema seems to be related to Russian folk styles and their seems to be a few of those (of which ROSS seems to be the most famous and official example, but not the only one). So any of those styles for knife work would be a good idea I guess...good point.
Even if fencing is watered down, it is a fun sport. Like how Kendo is watered down, but those who have done kendo say it is fun as well...
sovann,
Hah! No sir, no Master's degrees here... I think everyone on this post would describe themselves as "students" of armed combat, nothing more. We're all here to learn, that is all.
P.S. Liked the Biblical references in your profile--Elizabethan Master George Silver had some cool things to say on the subject--basically, how the knowledge of swordplay allows one to protect one's body, just as God protects our souls from hell and the devil.
Good Lord! Do you guys have Master's degrees in armed combat?!?!?!
I have never said that Talhoffer's work "sucked", except as a lone source for learning. It's great as far as seeing illustrations of specific techniques, and observing how the Liechtenaur tradition varied and mixed with others. But compared to most other fechtbuchs, it is simply not very good as an initial learning source, since while it illustrates a wide variety of techniques, it provides no context as to their execution, and sometimes even whether they are succesful or not.
As far as whether or not Talhoffer's techniques have "Failed me time and time again", well,they didn't(or rather, my interpretations of them didn't) when I was just starting out. When I started working with another group(not based on historical sources, they were more an eclectic shinai fighting group with a method they had codified.), I consistently failed at what I was doing, up until the point where I found Ringeck commentaries at the HACA, and I threw my previous interpretations out the window. Then I began to succeed a bit more(as an example, I began looking at Plate 3 as a result of the Zornhau, rather than as a static guard one would use to threaten an opponent with a thrust, which I usually failed at.) Eventually I left the group I was working with at the time, since they had several rules I found constricting(they didn't think I should do short edge cuts, for one), and it was a while to travel to get there as well.
Now when I consider my own initial interpretations, and when I saw the interpretations made by modern fencers who have only seen Talhoffer, they really do seem sort of silly. It's not because the techniques in Talhoffer are silly. It's because the context they are presented in makes it extremly hard to understand exactly what is being shown.
Now as Ye Lunatic pointed out, it's true that all of the historical texts are lacking in being only books. In general it's also true that they were not meant as "learn it yourself" guides(with a few exceptions: Di Grassi pretty much states as much, and Silver was probably intended, if not for the rank beginner, at least for someone with no clue about the system the LMOD used), but they weren't all as equally hard to understand. Take, for example, Ringeck, Dei Liberi, or Von Danzig. They all lay out a comprehensive method, not only describing techniques, but what they are used for, what their importance is in the system, and what fundamental attributes and skills are needed as a foundation. You'll learn what footwork goes with the techniques, what they can counter, and what fundamental skills are needed to use the techniques. Certain fundamental concepts, such as how to match footwork with cuts, Absetzen, and the Winden, are almost impossible to decipher from Talhoffer, and it would take mad inspiration, to find where these are being used. Once somebody has an idea of what the fundamentals of the Liechtenaur tradition are, Talhoffer becomes an invaluable source. Without that though, Talhoffer is one of the most difficult sources to get any information of value from.
ChrisD,
Thank you very much for clarifying your position as to just what it was about Talhoffer's work that you don't like. The points that both you, mellow_peril, and Jason Couch brought up about the considerable difficulty in deciphering Talhoffer's system were very good (while I initially wasn't completely sure, I thought that Talhoffer's presentation of his curriculum may have been the problem, though I was still concerned about the possiblity that you were dismissing his fighting system as a whole). I would agree that Talhoffer can be problematic in that sense--it is often pointed out that Talhoffer's predecessor Liechtenauer deliberately "recorded the secrets of his fighting techniques in the form of cryptic verses," as Donald J. LaRocca put it. Talhoffer's book contains some of Liechtenauer's writings. The fact that we're dealing with "secret" techniques in the form of "cryptic verses" should tell us something here. I now see where you are coming from.
I also agree to some extent with mellow_peril about the fact that there are some folks with no previous MA training who do a decent job at the historical fencing stuff (though I still maintain that such folks are usually, if not always, taught by individuals that had some sort of fencing/MA background). I have also seen some sports fencers who were just not able to "break out of the mold" when it came to their work on earlier styles of swordplay. One could draw a comparison here with western sports wrestlers who take up BJJ--if they cannot "break out of the mold", they'll consistently have their backs taken by the Jiu-Jitsu men. The confining rules of their sport can be a detriment, if they allow it to be. One has to "untrain" or "unlearn" (sorry, don't mean to sound like Yoda) certain things in a situation like that, and that can sometimes be difficult. However, there are nevertheless many wrestlers who have been able to do the above, and they often become extremely dangerous BJJ competitors. Once they discard the aspects of wrestling that don't apply to BJJ (sorry, don't mean to sound like Bruce Lee), they can use their already formidable skills at takedowns and sense of balance on the ground to great effect. Likewise, sports fencers, FMA stickfighters, and kendoka can apply their learned sense of timing and distance, as well as many specific techniques, in reconstructed Medieval and Renaissance European arts.
This has been a most useful conversation, for which I thank you all. Kai, check this stuff out.
Kai,
Thanks for the tips on posting--I'm certainly not the most "computer savvy" guy out there...
Peace,
TFS
Ye Loon,
"Longsword" is sort of an ambiguous term. Generally, it refers to what was then called a bastard sword (what modern writers sometimes label as a hand-and-a-half sword). The German term is "langen Schwert". This is the type of sword seen in the 1467 edition of Talhoffer's "fechtbuch". What is confusing, however, is that in the earlier 1443 edition, the fencers in the "langen Schwert" section are wielding much longer swords--zweihanders, I'd dare to say (they have blunt ricassos but no parrying hooks). John Clements is always stressing how the techniques of the bastard sword are not completely interchangable with the techniques for the 2-hander, but there's obviously some overlap. In any case, longsword is usually synonymous with bastard sword.
ChrisD,
Your statements about Talhoffer bordered on the unprofessional, in my opinion. To say that Talhoffer "sucks" is utterly reckless (unless you simply meant that Talhoffer is hard to understand, as Jason Couch suggested). It sometimes amazes me how a group of people will start to experiment with a particular fencing manual, run into a bunch of brick walls research-wise, and, after their attempts at applying the techniques have failed (for whatever reason), they simply dismiss it as worthless. I do not mean that as a slight against you personally, Chris--but I have seen people make similar comments about various fencing masters and books before.
The problem with something like Talhoffer's work is that it is so comprehensive--the man taught the use of the bastard sword, the sword and buckler, the pollaxe, the fechtmesser, the dagger, a host of lesser-known weapons, and wrestling. This was fairly common in his time. Commenting on the fighting manual by the Italian master Fiore dei Liberi, who taught a similar cirriculum to Talhoffer's, Luigi Barbasetti noted, "It is strictly a methodical manual, with profuse explanatory illustrations which are necessary to an understanding of this rather complicated manner of combat. It is complicated because of the freedom from all convention, and the singleness of purpose: to overcome the opponent, in any way whatsoever." Think about that. Barbasetti was one of the most famous fencing masters of his time--a man who taught not only in his native country, but also in Vienna. If a man with his training and experience thought that such older styles of swordplay were complicated... well, that's really telling us something. One of the reasons I suggested to Kai that he begin with something like modern foil fencing is that, you have to learn how to crawl before you can walk (pardon the cliche). In other words, learn and master the basics of attacking and parrying and moving--learn about timing and distance. Start with foil to learn the mechanics of thrusting and parrying, and then move onto saber to gain an understanding of cutting attacks. Study something like FMA in order to learn non-linear footwork, and traps and disarms. The important thing here is to gain some genuine competence in some WELL-ESTABLISHED martial sports and arts, before going on the life-long experiment of reconstructing long-dead styles of combat. There appear to be far too many practitioners of WMA today who have clearly never had any formal fencing or martial arts training, and for such folks to just launch into an uncritical examination of Talhoffer and other masters--it's bound to be full of problems (and it's full of problems for the rest of us, too!). Please know, Chris, that I am NOT accusing YOU of having no formal training--I was merely making a general statement about many people I have seen who obviously DON'T have any. I should also stress that I am not saying that a person with no formal training won't learn anything useful from, say, John Clements and the HACA gang--but I still feel that having some sort of background in established martial sports and arts is a tremendous asset. We know that Clements fenced for many y
Ye Lunatic: By "longsword" I mean the weapon designed to by used primarily with two hands, shorter than the zweihander, that is referred to as "langes schwert", in the German Fechtbuchs. That's what I mainly work with, and "longsword" is the closest English term that I think is most equivalent.
About whole debacle I seem to have started about Talhoffer. I said that ON IT'S OWN, the Talhoffer fechtbuch sucks. I also said that as a supplement to other learning, it's great. I stand by these statements, although I'll admit they might have been better phrased. I've done, and seen done, a lot of silly stuff from using Talhoffer as an instructional. Talhoffer was probably never intended as anything resembling an actual instructional for fencing, and it really doesn't work well as one. I'm certainly not qualified to say that Talhoffer himself, or his style, sucks. At the moment I'll take any factual knowledge I can get like a starving man takes food. But I don't think I'm being unprofessional by saying that the Talhoffer fechtbuch isn't good as something it wasn't even remotely intended as.
I'm sure both of us can look at Talhoffer, and from a brief examination of the captions and illustrations, and determine how many them were being executed. But we've studied things other than Talhoffer, and have some idea of the particular descriptive idiom. If you have nothing other than Talhoffer available(and Talhoffer is both easily available and fun to look at, so a lot of people have tried to use it as a manual), than I'd reccomend it. But otherwise, I think I'd actually be remiss if saw somebody trying to learn from Talhoffer without having any other sources on the German traditons, and passed without noting that Talhoffer isn't a good choice for a main learning source.
So, to sum up:
Talhoffer as a supplement to other knowledge, as an illustrative resource, as analysis of changes across to the Liechtenaur tradition, etc: GOOD
Talhoffer as a primary instruction manual: BAD
(in comparison to other contemporary sources)
Jason Couch...good point.
ChrisD...Ok, you meant a bastard sword. You just call it a longsword, no big deal. I have not often heard it called a longsword in many books, but names change with the times.
"I've done, and seen done, a lot of silly stuff from using Talhoffer as an instructional"
I have seen the same silly stuff from guys reading modern martial arts manuals, no to mention other historical manuals and even some clowns (supposed SCA Landsknechts in Maryland) screw shit up from reading history books. But I see what you are getting at.
"Talhoffer was probably never intended as anything resembling an actual instructional for fencing, and it really doesn't work well as one"
I think the same can be said for Joachim Meyer, Achille Marozzo, Fiore De Liberi, The Solothurner Fechtbuch, Cammilo Agrippa, Capo Fero, Jacob Sutor and many others. I believe that most people living in the times those manuals were written (especially the people that those manuals might interest) had some basic knowledge of a blade. I don't think any of those manuals are good stand alone, nor do I think they were intended to be. One of the worst ways you can learn a martial art is from a book, I believe many of these manuals were meant as study guides and supplementation under a fence instructor. Just my hypothesis. Like I said, can we really be 100% sure that when we mimic these techniques that we are getting them right?
Hi guys.
I agree with ChrisD that the Talhoffer manual alone does not lend itself well to use as a sole source in reconstructing a historical martial art. It is presented as a series of techniques rather than a complete system, more of a highlights package than an instructional IMO.
"It is strictly a methodical manual, with profuse explanatory illustrations which are necessary to an understanding of this rather complicated manner of combat."
While the Fiore manual is definately methodical and provides profuse explanations Talhoffer does not. This does not mean Talhoffer is useless or that the man himself was not skilled. It simply means that centuries later the documents we have wrt his teachings are less insightful when it comes to recreating historical martial arts than other existing manuals.
I agree with TFS that if someone is interested in historical combat and has no existing historical fencing schools nearby then taking up modern fencing etc. will provide useful tools.
I would just like to balance out what TFS said by saying:
1) I have seen a few people with no previous MA/Fencing experience doing very good reconstruction of martial arts from historical sources
2) I have seen people with a strong sports fencing background doing very bad reconstruction that more resembes modern sport fencing with rapiers than 'true' historical fencing
I think a teachers previous experience can hinder as well as help the quality of their interpretation. It's can be easy to say Technique X in Capo Ferro is just like Technique Y I learnt in sports fencing, missing out on important differences and concentrating on the similarities.
So there are pitfalls to be avoided in either approach I would say.
Reconstructing historical martial arts is a difficult task. Its suited to people who are willing to be corrected/proved wrong/shown a better way and are willing to constantly review & alter their interpretations as their knowledge improves. It is not suited to people who are convinced that they know the 'one true way' or people who refuse to alter their interpretations in the face of irrefutable opposition.
ChrisD,
You repeatedly state that Talhoffer's work "sucks", that you've seen and even participated in interpretations of Talhoffer that looked "silly", and that it is not a good main learning source for modern students. You do not, however, really say why these three points are supposed truisms. Could you perhaps give me some specifics about why you feel the way you do? Did certain techniques (as interpreted by you and/or your group) fail you time and again? Or is it merely the method of presentation of the techniques in the book that you find lacking? I'm really most curious to know.
Ye Lunatic made a good point--ALL of the fight books are lacking, in a sense, because they are books. Books are a useful supplement, but they are not a good way to actually learn something as complicated as martial art.
Sydney Anglo ["Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe"] goes into detail about the various types of presentation found in early European fight manuals, showing why some were better than others, but also that they were all limited to some degree, by virtue that they were merely books, and a book can only show so much anyway. Anglo's book is really quite good in respect to explaining all of this.
Also, are you an "independent", or do you study with a particular WMA group?
mellow_peril-
That is an excellent comparison to make for this discussion. Fiore is pretty explicit in both illustrations and writings. First you do A, he counters with B, you do C to counter his counter, etc. Whereas Talhoffer is basically a random collection of techniques that you must link together on your own.
Talhoffer also neglects mentioning those underlying postures and movements that Fiore bases his techniques on, like the iron gate, the boar's tooth, etc. Fiore's "keys" concepts are helpful also, whereas, again, with Talhoffer you are getting random snapshots and little else. Probably less of an impact with the grappling and dagger than with the sword work, though.
Jason
Wow... Thank you again TFS... There's a lot to cover here so it hard to say more than just to thank you for your time with this. It seems that I am somewhat on the right path with this...
I find it interesting that ultimately, it comes down to experimentation, context and sparring to try to discover the ways the masters of fence were fighting... I like that, I've never enjoyed the esoteric 'word fighting' as me and my friends call it... Where you ~say~ you do this and then you counter by ~saying~ you'd do this very easy looking counter.
Thank you again, looks like I have a lot of reading and studying to do.
PS: I found it's easier for large posts to type them up in notepad first and save them, in case they mysteriously disappear...
ChrisD..."I mostly do longsword"
What do you mean by "longsword"? Do you mean a broadsword? A long Rapier? A bastard sword? A two-hander?
"A quick warning on Talhoffer. On it's own, Talhoffer sucks"
What do you mean? I would have to whole-heartedly disagree. I find Talhoffer to be amazing. I don't believe that a 21st century person can just pick up one of the manuals and instantly know exactly what they are doing and why without quite a bit of research and experimentation, and even then much is conjecture. Battlefield sword arts (not to mention shield, and poll arms) have been dead for centuries, we can only look at these manuals and surmise. I believe the Talhoffer manual would have been quite useful as a reference guide if you were living in 15th century Swabia and being trained by a master of arms. Also, remember that Talhoffer was traslated from Swabian to German in 1887, and then translated into English fairly recently. There may be much lost in the translation.
Ye Lunatic-
One trend I've noticed in the WMA community is that "longsword" is pretty much a default term nowadays. Another is that the standard has become the longsword wasters put out by Christian Darce over at Purpleheart Armory. If not him at least, then wasters of roughly same size, weight, dimension, etc. Most of the groups these days tend to call that type of weapon longsword for simplicity's sake.
Not to put words in ChrisD's mouth, but he may have just been referring to the ease of use of Talhoffer for a beginner, rather than making a comment on Talhoffer's abililty or the effectiveness of his fighting style. Before Rector translated it, the plates, while of excellent quality, probably raised more questions than they answered. After the translation, well, it can still be cryptic simply because the text is terse. I say this coming from the wrestling and dagger side of the manual, since I don't practice the sword as a general rule.
Nothing more funny than having a discussion with someone about one of the plates when they put an aikido-like or other art-influenced explanation on a plate that is completely unwarranted. Instead of, say, a duck under, they will postulate getting into the position shown by a three spin movement with six included wristlocks. Which I think may be part of what ChrisD was getting at.
Jason