kegage
Green Belt
- Thread Starter
- #21
Langeshwert Wrote:
See, here's a problem. Binds are done with steel, not rattan. If you don't practice binds with steel, then you're missing the whole "feeling" of swordsmanship
I disagree, the feel may be different, but the rudimentary physical aspects, body, arm positions, and reactions, are the same. You cited in a earlier post that your group adopted Marine Corp training philosophy for your training. Well, our local group of fighters have also adopted a philosophy from the Marines, except from Marine Corp Force Recon; Adapt, Improvise, and Overcome.
Langeshwert Wrote:
Understanding the bind is crucial. If you're doing it with rattan and adjusting the techniques to suit rattan, then you're not doing swordsmanship. You're doing sword-hilted rattan stick fighting. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not call it something it's not. Swordsmanship involves SWORDS, not sticks. I think we can all agree on that.
Sorry, wrong again, I very much consider myself a skilled and experienced Swordsman as well as a whole bunch of other types of weaponsman. Not a sticksman. To help give you an idea of how important I, and many others I know, consider the feel of a weapon to be, every rattan weapon we have made is not only based on an existing period weapon in style, but we also duplicate the weapon it the dimensions, weight and balance. Just because I use rattan for practicing doesnt mean that my skills go away, or are even diluted, if I pick up a real sword. Besides, personally, I dont normally use a bind in the first place. I prefer to be disengaged. Keeps em guessing.
Langeshwert Wrote:
I have the same problem with using only wooden wasters. Wasters are tools, but they are not swords. Swordsmanship boils down to "how can I use a sword to save my life in an earnest encounter with sharps?", not "how can I use rattan/wood/boffers/padded weapons to win a match?"
The silly, automatic, reply to this is: Who, in their right mind, is going to take a boffer dagger to a real knife fight? That doesnt, however, mean that the skill and experience they have from practicing knife fighting with a boffer/practice knife is not going to, just assist them, but will most likely be the reason the can at least hold their own, or even win in a real fight. I dont know about you, but I really dont want to have to use my training and skills in a real encounter. Already been there and done that too.
The assumption in the your statement above, and several others that I have seen in this tread, seems to indicate that because we have rules that restrict target areas, the materials used to make, and the way we use our weapons, all for safety purposes, our research, practice, and training is about sports play and winning matches, not about historical recreation/reenactment and as a marshal art. What exactly does it take for any marshal activity to be considered a marshal art as opposed to a sporting activity, or to be considered a legitimate research organization? The manuals that you refer to are utilized just as much by our combatants as they are by yours for the weapon systems they are about. Our practice sessions are just as serious as any dojo or practice hall, if a bit more informal, with the number one goal being the improvement of form, technique, skill, and teaching those who wish to learn. There are more than just a few in our organization that do treat it as a sport, and most are happy with the very basic skill levels they achieve, but dont usually go much farther than that, but even they are taught historically accurate techniques during their training.
Dont get me wrong, I am not insulted, but I am getting a little frustrated. In an earlier post I pointed out some of the concessions both of our organizations have had to make to historical and practical realities for the sake of safety. So, I could easily make the leap that you seem to be making. Your website mentioned your group has tournaments, just like we do, and listed the rules for those tournaments. Does that mean that your practice with padded weapons and wasters is about winning matches? I didnt think so. But if not that, then, why do you have tournaments? Could it be for the same reasons we do, and the reasons they did historically?
Langeshwert Wrote:
I'm not invalidating the sporting aspect of swordplay. The ancients used this stuff for sport as well, but it was created for killing.
Which is also my point. The main reason we do combat the way we do is to try a recreate combat as close as we can to the reality of combat with out people actually dying or getting seriously hurt. That means that combat has to be done as close to the same speeds, and as close to the same force that real combat had. We know that if we used real, or even close to real, weapons in our combat people would get seriously hurt and die. The SCA has been doing this type of combat for forty-one years and no one has ever died or received a life threatening injury from combat. There have been some serious injuries, but a vast majority of those were due to things like stepping in a hole while running across a field.
Langeshwert Wrote:
Now here I disagree completely. Any study of related weapons (bucklers, duelling shields) shows a multiplicity of techniques. Groups like Hammaborg try to adapt these to larger shields such as the viking shields featured below. One can certainly see where both Talhoffer and I.33 were adapted to fit a different weapon. There's a lot going on there, despite the simplicity of the techniques.
I said that: The wider and the longer they get the more restrictive they become.
I also said that: The smaller they are the more versatile they are in the ways they can be used. I watched the clips you posted, and you are right on how they interpreted and the extrapolation they used in the use of those shields. I know some serious Vikings that wholeheartedly disagree.
Langeshwert Wrote:
If you haven't studied the surviving manuals on rotella/targe/buckler to the point of having internalized them, then no reconstruction means anything outside of the artificial restraints of SCA combat, regardless of the amount of experimental practice put in. For that matter, neither would any of my attempts at shield combat mean anything without similar study.
For rotella/targe/buckler you may have a point, but not for the other shield styles. I know for a fact, having been proven on my body, if you use the techniques described in the manuals for heater, kite, rectangle, or other similar styles you will, move the areas of the shield designed to protect you out of the zones they were designed to protect, leaving those areas vulnerable to attack. The arm movement for these shields are radically different from the round and center-grip shields.
Langeshwert Wrote:
With all due respect, if you're not revising your interpretations every couple of years, then you're not doing research into historical combat. Thinking that you're certain of how a given weapon was used without extensive textual, technical evidence to back you up is unwise, to say the least. All you can truly say is "this is how I've made it work for me, given what I know now".
Dont assume we dont, we do. Not everything written in those manuals is all the knowledge there is on the subject. We cover aspects of single and melee combat that are not touched in the manuals you cite. Also, they are accurate for the way the people who wrote them taught, and for their culture and period, and do not necessarily apply to all others, or even other cultures in that period.
In short, it can quite often be an experimenting game. A. works in some situations, but not in all. B. works here and here, but not in this and that. Why not? What alternatives seem to be plausible? What movement and footwork seem to work best. Lots of slow-work. Lots of evaluating and reevaluating.
Langeshwert Wrote:
In a few years you will learn more, and may perhaps radically change your perspective on various weapons as more material becomes available. I know my interpretation of German Longsword has undergone a lot of change in the past year, as I understand the manuals better, and as I bout more. Please know that I'm not condemning your research as invalid. Experimentation via bouting is very important, and I applaud the hard work you've done. Just remember that we're just at the tip of a very large iceberg.
Sounds familiar. See the above.
Langeshwert Wrote:
The best is truly yet to come.
Yeah, Gulf Wars is in the first part of March. I can hardly wait.
Kevin
See, here's a problem. Binds are done with steel, not rattan. If you don't practice binds with steel, then you're missing the whole "feeling" of swordsmanship
I disagree, the feel may be different, but the rudimentary physical aspects, body, arm positions, and reactions, are the same. You cited in a earlier post that your group adopted Marine Corp training philosophy for your training. Well, our local group of fighters have also adopted a philosophy from the Marines, except from Marine Corp Force Recon; Adapt, Improvise, and Overcome.
Langeshwert Wrote:
Understanding the bind is crucial. If you're doing it with rattan and adjusting the techniques to suit rattan, then you're not doing swordsmanship. You're doing sword-hilted rattan stick fighting. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not call it something it's not. Swordsmanship involves SWORDS, not sticks. I think we can all agree on that.
Sorry, wrong again, I very much consider myself a skilled and experienced Swordsman as well as a whole bunch of other types of weaponsman. Not a sticksman. To help give you an idea of how important I, and many others I know, consider the feel of a weapon to be, every rattan weapon we have made is not only based on an existing period weapon in style, but we also duplicate the weapon it the dimensions, weight and balance. Just because I use rattan for practicing doesnt mean that my skills go away, or are even diluted, if I pick up a real sword. Besides, personally, I dont normally use a bind in the first place. I prefer to be disengaged. Keeps em guessing.
Langeshwert Wrote:
I have the same problem with using only wooden wasters. Wasters are tools, but they are not swords. Swordsmanship boils down to "how can I use a sword to save my life in an earnest encounter with sharps?", not "how can I use rattan/wood/boffers/padded weapons to win a match?"
The silly, automatic, reply to this is: Who, in their right mind, is going to take a boffer dagger to a real knife fight? That doesnt, however, mean that the skill and experience they have from practicing knife fighting with a boffer/practice knife is not going to, just assist them, but will most likely be the reason the can at least hold their own, or even win in a real fight. I dont know about you, but I really dont want to have to use my training and skills in a real encounter. Already been there and done that too.
The assumption in the your statement above, and several others that I have seen in this tread, seems to indicate that because we have rules that restrict target areas, the materials used to make, and the way we use our weapons, all for safety purposes, our research, practice, and training is about sports play and winning matches, not about historical recreation/reenactment and as a marshal art. What exactly does it take for any marshal activity to be considered a marshal art as opposed to a sporting activity, or to be considered a legitimate research organization? The manuals that you refer to are utilized just as much by our combatants as they are by yours for the weapon systems they are about. Our practice sessions are just as serious as any dojo or practice hall, if a bit more informal, with the number one goal being the improvement of form, technique, skill, and teaching those who wish to learn. There are more than just a few in our organization that do treat it as a sport, and most are happy with the very basic skill levels they achieve, but dont usually go much farther than that, but even they are taught historically accurate techniques during their training.
Dont get me wrong, I am not insulted, but I am getting a little frustrated. In an earlier post I pointed out some of the concessions both of our organizations have had to make to historical and practical realities for the sake of safety. So, I could easily make the leap that you seem to be making. Your website mentioned your group has tournaments, just like we do, and listed the rules for those tournaments. Does that mean that your practice with padded weapons and wasters is about winning matches? I didnt think so. But if not that, then, why do you have tournaments? Could it be for the same reasons we do, and the reasons they did historically?
Langeshwert Wrote:
I'm not invalidating the sporting aspect of swordplay. The ancients used this stuff for sport as well, but it was created for killing.
Which is also my point. The main reason we do combat the way we do is to try a recreate combat as close as we can to the reality of combat with out people actually dying or getting seriously hurt. That means that combat has to be done as close to the same speeds, and as close to the same force that real combat had. We know that if we used real, or even close to real, weapons in our combat people would get seriously hurt and die. The SCA has been doing this type of combat for forty-one years and no one has ever died or received a life threatening injury from combat. There have been some serious injuries, but a vast majority of those were due to things like stepping in a hole while running across a field.
Langeshwert Wrote:
Now here I disagree completely. Any study of related weapons (bucklers, duelling shields) shows a multiplicity of techniques. Groups like Hammaborg try to adapt these to larger shields such as the viking shields featured below. One can certainly see where both Talhoffer and I.33 were adapted to fit a different weapon. There's a lot going on there, despite the simplicity of the techniques.
I said that: The wider and the longer they get the more restrictive they become.
I also said that: The smaller they are the more versatile they are in the ways they can be used. I watched the clips you posted, and you are right on how they interpreted and the extrapolation they used in the use of those shields. I know some serious Vikings that wholeheartedly disagree.
Langeshwert Wrote:
If you haven't studied the surviving manuals on rotella/targe/buckler to the point of having internalized them, then no reconstruction means anything outside of the artificial restraints of SCA combat, regardless of the amount of experimental practice put in. For that matter, neither would any of my attempts at shield combat mean anything without similar study.
For rotella/targe/buckler you may have a point, but not for the other shield styles. I know for a fact, having been proven on my body, if you use the techniques described in the manuals for heater, kite, rectangle, or other similar styles you will, move the areas of the shield designed to protect you out of the zones they were designed to protect, leaving those areas vulnerable to attack. The arm movement for these shields are radically different from the round and center-grip shields.
Langeshwert Wrote:
With all due respect, if you're not revising your interpretations every couple of years, then you're not doing research into historical combat. Thinking that you're certain of how a given weapon was used without extensive textual, technical evidence to back you up is unwise, to say the least. All you can truly say is "this is how I've made it work for me, given what I know now".
Dont assume we dont, we do. Not everything written in those manuals is all the knowledge there is on the subject. We cover aspects of single and melee combat that are not touched in the manuals you cite. Also, they are accurate for the way the people who wrote them taught, and for their culture and period, and do not necessarily apply to all others, or even other cultures in that period.
In short, it can quite often be an experimenting game. A. works in some situations, but not in all. B. works here and here, but not in this and that. Why not? What alternatives seem to be plausible? What movement and footwork seem to work best. Lots of slow-work. Lots of evaluating and reevaluating.
Langeshwert Wrote:
In a few years you will learn more, and may perhaps radically change your perspective on various weapons as more material becomes available. I know my interpretation of German Longsword has undergone a lot of change in the past year, as I understand the manuals better, and as I bout more. Please know that I'm not condemning your research as invalid. Experimentation via bouting is very important, and I applaud the hard work you've done. Just remember that we're just at the tip of a very large iceberg.
Sounds familiar. See the above.
Langeshwert Wrote:
The best is truly yet to come.
Yeah, Gulf Wars is in the first part of March. I can hardly wait.
Kevin