A lot people look at the old treatises as windows on the past, but they're not really windows so much as little keyholes that only give us limited views on what the general past may have been like. Over academizing is a big danger in classical swordsmanship.
It may be worth pointing out that Lichtenauer's techniques aren't just advanced techniques, they're _secret_ techniques. His own manuscripts were very cryptic in a way that only his own students should be able to understand them. Later masters of that style made much clearer manuscripts (which tend to be the ones we actually rely on), but I believe some of them also made intentional errors in the drawings in order to confuse non-students.
Martijn Vos Ya and maybe in the wording to confuse those who aren't students maybe actual falsehoods to further confuse someone. Like parrying with the flat.
+christhefishhunter That would actually he hilarious. "To end him rightly, take apart your own sword and then try to fight. This is great advice, I swear!".
meta technically means deconstructing the subject in question in order to understand it better and use it in your advantage. Liechtenauer is in fact very meta, he just focused in countering what was more commonly used. If you meant anti-meta, like it is used in a league of legends context, which is coloquial and an incorrect use of the term, then yes, we could say he was.
As someone who is only just starting to learn Liechtenauer's techniques, it's interesting to know that these techniques are not normal German longsword skills, but awesome German longsword skills. Thanks.
Very interesting points, Matt, also I beg to differ in some sense, although I clearly do not have the experience you possess, but having learned primarily Liechtenauer, I have some points to add. First of all, from our (HEMA-practitioners) point of view, we actually do not really know what the "normal" swordfighting style (or styles) looked like, since we have only the I.33 predating Liechtenauer and that does not really deal with the longsword. Furthermore, the vast majority of later sources refer to Liechtenauer as _the_ grand master, and mostly derive their style from his, in many times starting out with reiterating the same principles (or even the very same verse) that Liechtenauer has set down and are seen in 3227a. For me, this shows that Liechtenauer's system was so effective that it very quickly replaced the one(s) that were used and made it to be the foremost (if not unique) fencing style. Also regarding "normal" fencers for Liechtenauer, I am with Amaritudine, I think by this name he referred to self-taught fencers or students of "lesser" masters who did not really have that complex and well thought-out system in their fencing such as Liechtenauer had. All in all, I think referring to Liechtenauer as _the_ norm of German school of fencing is completely valid as it was pretty widespread in its age and later masters clearly considered it as a solid foundation, even if they evolved the system themselves. Sorry for the wall-of-text :)
You put it so right. Most HEMA masters are almost like, the far sighted leading the blind. Trying to recreate a dead art from a handful of manuals, anf yet claiming that you are superior to other arts with direct lineage, is soo otrageous and absurd!
While there is no question that Lichtenauer was widely popular in Germany. At the same time though, there are plenty of German manuscripts outside the Lichtenauer, such as Hugo Wittenwiler's writing, Fechtregeln, Fiore-based Die Blume des Kampfes, and the Nuremburg group (which seems somewhat related to German longsword in general, but lacks stuff such as the master-strikes and is clearly not in the Liechtenauer tradition). Of course, likely none of these were completely "common" fencing - we'd be unlikely to find an actual manuscript teaching common fencing, since the people who fenced in a common style would tend to be illiterate.
I haven't done the research to add any insights, but it's my opinion that your points of contention are almost entirely compatible with his statements and that I don't sense your conflict. The key is that he is explaining it's genesis; so everything leading up to this period and maybe fifty years after, while you're focusing on the "golden age" of this school of swordsmanship. It's all amazing insight into such a artful subculture where athletes, nerds, and scholars meet together.
I have only just started learning g and researching but I feel I have already came to the same conclusion, so much so I just said the very same, albeit more simply, before I saw your comment. Teachings prior to his have been lost to time, his is the earliest that remains and all that follow derive from his techniques, so it became the normal.
Hear, hear. As a Liechtenauer person, spot on. I would suggest that the generic style features: cuts which follow through from a high guard to low (not necessarily terminating in Longpoint), strong parries at the half point of the blade, OR rapid tapping 'weak' parries/deflections in rare cases. I would suspect false edge cuts are used, but less often, more likely as accompaniment with true edge cuts. Just some idle suppositions on the 'hints' you've mentioned; this could make a really good, but ultimately speculative, paper and presentation.
If you look at japanese/chinese fencing schools, they all have secret techniques. Which makes sense, if I go to a master to learn fighting I want to have an advantage above other fighters, may they be learningbydoing deadbeats in the street or trained fighters from a competing family. I would expect any european fencing school to be the same. Keep in mind that I talk about more 1-1 fighting, not battle. Battle is about units, not ones ability to fight one against one, which is another point people tend to forget when talking about fencing. Battle has nothing to do with individual fighting, it´s two completely different roads.
Awesome perspective. I'm a novice fencer and I started by reading Liechtenauer's first manual thing you're talking about. And it really did seem from the wording of everything that it's intention was to defeat less knowledgeable opponents or peasants and such. Or to grant you a way to deal with certain common techniques. I don't know I'm a noob but it's super duper fascinating and I love reading the old manuals and trying to glean some sort of deeper understanding of fencing
Isn't that one of the main points of all ancient fencing treatises? To someway provide tricks and advanced techniques that are superior to the common general fencer?
I was first trained in the sword, and continue to use to this day, a technique of switching ones hands (and, if necessary stance) during combat. When I suddenly (often while in a block) switch to my left hand, it tends to trip people up. Most people are used to fighting against a right handed opponent, but an opponent who can switch hands and fight (almost) equally well from either hand, tends to give me the upper hand.
I will give my two cents though I do not practice HEMA, but I have some experience in martial arts in general. I can see why Lichtenauer devised a system to fight against the common fencer, but I do not think that we should take the meaning of the word common for granted. AFAIK, different martial arts styles developed around the world and even in the same country or cultural environment, where one would normally expect people to fight using very similar tools or weapons, different styles rely on different ideas and principles. If we look, for example, at Japanese martial arts, there is not a "given" way to swing a katana, but there is certainly a group of techniques which might be considered a common set of basics which are practiced in nearly every school. In the light of this fact, I would say that Lichtenauer's common fencer might be simply a beginner or inexperienced fencer, who would attack or defend according to a set of basic techniques, which was considered basic knowledge at the time. Therefore, I do not think we're talking about a "common style", which would imply a sort of "standard fencing" practiced at least in the Empire (Lichtenauer could not possibly have witnessed any single style practiced in Europe), but a standard set of basics, which could have been the average knowledge of the average ruffian. Hope it helps
You have a good point I think. While teachings prior to his have been lost, it is entirely possible that there was no standard at all, and thousands upon thousands of different styles just handed down with no structure other than "the basics". He simply could have built his techniques based upon fighting against those moves which he observed to be most common between other styles.
@@Gkitchens1 yes. And given the state of the means of communications at the time of his writings, it would have been nearly impossibile (and imho nor desirable) to even think of a standard method
I reckon that the 'common fencer' or 'ordinary fencer' might refer basically to some un-trained or self-taught hack or thug - some ruffian who's got a weapon, but has limited or no formal schooling in how to use it properly. Kind of like the difference between a brawling street tough and a professional boxer, or other trained martial artist. The untrained fighter is still very much a threat if they attack you in the street, but knowing a proper system of fighting allows you to counter their assault and exploit the weaknesses and gaps in their knowledge.
Yes, but at many points in the high medieval and renaissance periods, it was much more expected of a man to be a competent martial artist and fighter than it is today.
@@CoffeeSnep And at many points in the high medieval and renaissance periods, many people didn't have the option to be taught how to fight. Having a trainer is not something any man can just get.
@@Chroma710 for the peasantry this could be true. During the Renaissance it was part of "being a man" to know how to use weapons like swords and bows for the city dwelling burghers. They didn't all have access to formal schooling on the subject but some degree of training. During war time this extended to the peasantry as well as they would undergo drilling from the more experienced soldiers on the usage of spears and whatever other weapon they had. Not a whole lot mind you, but enough to be competent. It would be foolish to enlist men to fight for you with no idea how to fight. They wouldn't even be good cannon fodder.
That is very truth, and a paradox of modern HEMA fencing is that all fence like "masters", all use fechtbuch wisdom, but there is very little information, in manuscripts, about fencing versus another uncommon fencers.
Hi,i recently found your channel and it really fascinating and correct you obviously have done a lot of research on your content reading fighting manuscripts etc.So thank you for making those videos! I would actually like to ask you something,i know you are more "specialised" in swords in medieval Europe but i would like to make you a question about ancient Greek Hoplites and if you know it will be nice if not not a problem:So how did the typical greek hoplite fought?i have seen many takes on that one some say only the first row fought with spears underarm other say first row with spears over arm and others say that the first row fought with spears underarm and the second and third covered them with spears overarm,i want to make clear that i am asking for hoplites in phalanxes formation and not phalangites with sarisa which is a different story? Thanks for your time please reply even if you don't know so i know you saw that.
I'm not sure I'm really well qualified to talk about fitness. My main advice to getting better at fencing is to do as much fencing as possible. Extra exercise like running, cycling, swimming, weights etc can all be useful, so long as it doesn't reduce the amount of time you spend fencing.
He was way before my time in HEMA (and evidently there's a lot of baggage to him), but J. Acutt (I'm sure you remember him) published two papers on common fencing in 2014 and 2016. Have you read his papers, and if so do you trust his methodologies and/or translations? I have a feeling you haven't, but I wanted to ask since I saw the paper on r/HemaScholar. I'm skeptical based on his history, but it looks like he did some research. I honestly don't know what to think.
I'd like to hear your thoughts if there's any way a practicioner of Lichtenauer's longsword could defeat the renaissance technique taught by Hutton in 1892?
Interesting thoughts. I'm starting in sword training again (the last time was pre-HEMA) but using HEMA and I'm using Lichtenauer via Ringneck via Lindholm/Svard. I compared with Guy Windsor's Swordsman's Companion and I found the interpretation of the Lichtenauer to be more in line with what I learned 30-35 years ago (which may be based on some kendo/katana techniques, but worked practically with rattan). Yep, SCA, but I haven't been to a SCA event since that time and from what I've heard, it isn't the same SCA these days. (Let's skip technical issues, I'll note that I weighted and balanced my weapons as closely to what was known at that time.) Going from that point of view: the "master blows" are not meant as super secret uber attacks to take out the common lot or other schools, but simply are using "master" to mean primary. Comparing with the Italian school as presented by Guy Windsor, the German (Lichtenauer) school via Ringneck/Linden/Svard seems to me to be more basic or elemental in philosophy, though admittedly a lot of the "basics", like precise footwork, are left unstated. In fact, the entire point appears to be to master and internalize the style for the purpose of simply fighing "your fight" instinctively and not really caring what method or school your opponent is using.
I was, for quite some time, a WingTsun practitioner - which is a form of hand to hand combat / self defense / martial art. From those three things its the least a martial ART because it does not really have a set techniques or forms you follow like in other systems. Its a lot more of a sort of concept or system in the truest way; that actually can be applied on top of many other martial arts. The moment I first saw some people fencing the Liechtenauer Methods I noticed that it follows pretty much perfectly the WingTsun principles.
I think these are good observations.but I am not sure how "secret" and exlusive the Lichtenauer verse really was. Doebringer mentions that Lichentauer didn't invent the "system" (perhaps the verse?) so it might be hard to say how "special" these techniques really were. Also, the verse was still being recorded a few hundred years after the first mention (Deobringer) so while it might have been "special" and secret circa 1380, it might have been very common knowldege 150 yeas later when it was being quoted in the Goliath (among others) and Longsword was still a very relevent weapon. Without more documentation of "average" techniques we will never know.
It is a complex issue. Also to consider that there are some quite marked differences between different masters in the Liechtenauer tradition - they did not all do all techniques exactly the same. Equally, some 16thC German sources are not showing exactly the same fencing system as shown in earlier sources such as Talhoffer or Kal. And also we have the problem that most of the German books are from the Liechtenauer tradition, yet we know there were a few other prominent longsword traditions in Germany, quite separate to the Liechtenauer lineage (but most of which were not apparently interested in making books).
scholagladiatoria I find that to be a terrible shame--arts being lost to history due to pride or simply nobody codifying any of the techniques in surviving forms--like languages that died out with the last native speakers. Makes me shudder to think that if people like Huo Yuanjia had never existed, it's not a stretch to think that many of Asia's martial arts could have been lost forever to history. Some people go on and on for volumes about how awesome and amazing [insert] Asian martial arts and swords are--but nobody would have ever known jack about them if not for certain individuals in history making a decided point to preserve the history and the arts.
Great points, especially regarding the ethos or philosophy of combat that is explicated in 3227a (Dobringer). Unfortunately, this ethos is really not at all suited to modern HEMA competitive fighting, in my opinion (and I say this as an avid JLT practitioner and competitive fencer).
I'm afraid not really, because it is not documented! We can only say what specific masters/treatises taught in the medieval and renaissance eras, though as you get later in period it becomes more possible to say how common fighters were probably trained and how they fought. By the 17th century you see some drill manuals for common soldiers start to appear and in the 18th and 19th centuries these increase in number for cavalrymen with swords, officers with swords, sailors with cutlasses and infantry with bayonets. But for the medieval period we only have a small number of treatises which probably represent the fencing systems of expert swordsmen.
scholagladiatoria if anybody can reconstruct it, it's probably HEMA, although I'm surprised that there isn't one castle or cloister or library with some instructions. Maybe historians focus is too much on personalities and not enough on the technical side of medieval warfare
TheKloLektuere actually, I'd say SCA would be closer to your Joe Average Man At Arms technique while HEMA would be closer to the sort of rigorous technique-based training an aspiring knight would be put through (though from a much younger age... 7 I believe). Sort of like, one is advanced brawling with weapons that's probably closer to common knowledge, the other is the martial art. If that makes any sense haha
I have a question. I recently found HEMAC fact sheets on the internet and found one on Lichtenauers system. They mentioned the master strokes "breaking" certain guards. My question is on the meaning of "break". Would that be "to put the opponents blade in check in a bind/clear the blade off the line" or would breaking a guard have some other meaning?
FutureUSMC12 It means that four of the master-hews had their respective guards against which it was very easy to score a hit (Zornhau being something of a "joker" as it is said to be effective against all guards) on the opponent. This, of course does not mean that if your opponent assumes a guard and you strike him with the appropriate master-hew you will _always_ score a hit, but if you have the right tempo (basically all master-hews are considered indes techniques) your strike will threaten your opponent with a clean hit. For example, Scheitelhau is breaking the stance Albeer, as it is pretty easy to hit the opponent in the head when he has his swordpoint on the ground in a low stance.
Adding onto that, it prevents the opponent from making viable counter-attacks from their guards to their respective quadrants, such as how zwerchhau cuts off overcuts from tag.
Just to time in with my two cents.... Was wondering if the fact that it symmetrical is some thing that also makes it different and not normal (as opposed to fiore or harlian) thoughts?
In a way longsword can never be truly symmetrical, as you have one hand at the top of the grip and the other at the bottom, so your angles from one side are never exactly the same from the other side. But yes it is true that the German treatises seem to show more symmetrical guards than the Italian treatises. More than that though, some of the German guard positions are only really shown in Germanic areas - in French, English, Spanish and Italian art we see guard positions which look more like Fiore and Vadi.
So, in that sense, Liechtenauer would make a good additional study once you've learned your fundamentals from, say Meyer, or even an Italian lineage such as your own studies? Would you say this is correct?
Matthew Brown I certainly think that the Liechtenauer-based sources are predominantly for people who already know how to fence, yes. They are certainly not beginner manuals.
Meyer would be a bad example since he is a hundred years and some later than our Liechtenauer sources which are at least a generation or two after the man himself, and actually a descendent system. It is to bad we don't have a beginners manual, but they wouldn't have bothered to write that stuff out as every man at arms already knew the basics well enough to teach them.
scholagladiatoria Then why are the "master blows" so basic? Sword on shoulder with diagonal cut at 45, vertical cut or horizontal cut? Sword in front with point up and towards enemy with the same three blows (which are three of the five "secret strikes")? Given that I was taught both of these guards and all three of these strikes long before "HEMA" was a gleam in anyone's eye means that they aren't "super secret advanced kung fu master techniques to defeat the masses of scum". They give all the appearance of the three most natural blows from the two most natural guards.
kamaeq They are only meant to counter the basic four guards or strikes, not make a swordsman undefeatable. Most of the sources that mention the five master hews usually are quick to disclaim this.
That actually makes a lot of sense Matt. So many Lichty techniques, while still making physical sense, are very, very non-intuitive. In all the years before the treatises were widely available, when people were playing greatsword through experimentation through common-sense experimentation and looking at kendo, etc, did anyone come up with anything remotely like a zwerchau and other Lichty school techniques?
Actually, the principles of Jigen Ryu seem to be quite similiar to those of striking in the Vor or even Indes, and the mechanic of their primary strike looks a lot like the Zornhau to me.
@@TheMissingno Well, not really, Shietelhau only needs a single edge, Zornhau only needs a single edge, Krumphau can be performed with the long edge. Its just the Zwer and Shielhau which make use of the false edge. And to my knowledge there is a lot of crossover between the two. If you look at kenjutsu demonstrations there are often Zornhau-ish techniques which cut through your opponents cut to give point or chop the head. Though I havent seen anything like a Zwer or Shielhau, rightly so
Can anyone maybe help me? I am writing some fiction and I want to be able to describe something akin to lichtenauer in terms of a "look" or style or traits that maybe set it apart from other schools. Is it possible to characterise it and sum it up in loose terms at all? This vid was very helpful already but now I'm looking for some thing physical I can use to generalise.
There are two schools of longsword that have surviving manuals: German and Italian. However, even the Italian school has traces of Liechtenauer's teachings. The guy was pretty famous. Anyway, when comparing the two styles, German is typically seen as more aggressive, because there it's believed you need to seize the initiative and force the opponent to defend and create openings. Liechtenauer in particular has the Master Strikes, which are five techniques that break the concept of fencing time or tempo, because they allow you to attack and defend at the same time. Italian school is seen as more generalist, a bit more focused on counter attacking as opposed to leading the attack, and has a lot of grappling in it, which makes it well suited for fighting both outside armor and while wearing various degrees of protection. German system, in contrast, is more about specialization, sharply dividing fighting without and with armor.
Does it make sense then, to make a "reverse engineering" research, to understand what would constitute "common fencing", so that we could have a Basics manual, useful for new fencers in our hobby?
So two part question: 1. Is there any evidence to suggest this is the same with Fiore. (I expect there is, but don't study Fiore) 2. Do you think it is possible to reconstruct with any certainty what " common fencing" looked like by drawing from the sources we have. Or would that be a bit of a stretch. I apologize if these are repeat questions.
Afqwa question 2 was really more focused on whether or not we can reasonably defend such a conclusion. For example if we limit our selves to instances where an approach is described as one used by a common fencer. This is perhaps overly stringent, but you get the idea.
Afqwa there's certainly a place for "seems right to me," and frankly most of what I do is based on a combination of this and trusting that my instructors have done the research to back it up. That said, I think a reasonable defense would be a combination of experimental and textual evidence. I expect common fencers were in some cases quite competent, so whatever it is should work reasonably well, but if we don't have some sort of evidence from the period to back up what we're doing then it's just conjecture.
Yes definitely for Fiori. His was secret, and only written down because he was requested to do so by his patron. As for 'common' fencing, go visit a Live Action Roleplaying group (Larp). With no official training, they will have their best fighters. But those will never stand up to someone who has Fiori or Liechtenaur, et al, training.
Which would mean that Lichtenuer is a relatively new school, more toward late 16th early 17th, as opposed to the more common schools of 14th through 16th century longsword schools. Perhaps.
If Liechtenauer's tradition and Fiore's system aren't the "common" kind of fencing, what is? Is there some other fencing style from the 14th/15th century that we don't know about?
ZarlanTheGreen Thank you, but I have been to that site before...and it never fails that the closest group is always further than I can travel. That is what I mean by more...so they could be spread out and reach more people.
LaughingOwlKiller I'm so glad that HEMA is finally getting noticed and rediscovered over here, and since I first got started learning the arts in 2007, schools have been popping up across my state (CA). Hopefully we'll continue this rise in popularity and really start to make more breaks into popular culture as Eastern Martial Arts did around the turn of the century, and more schools will open up across the world, and historical Western martial arts of all kinds will be rediscovered and taught as many Eastern martial arts are today.
Meister-Hau does not come from the word "Master = Meister" but from the word "meisten = most" it described the most common strikes. Thats why pretty simple strikes such as the Zornhau or the Kronhau are part of the Meisterhäue.
something to think about: it has been my understanding that the use of the term "common" in medieval times was fairly different that it is today. Common today indicates a lack of rarity while in medieval times it was much more typically used to mean "unrefined" "base" or "crude" this was probably due to the view nobility had towards the common people. I'm not saying you are wrong because the word common could have been used the same as in modernity, I'm just pointing out that it was not always so and there could be an entirely different interpretation here. it could be meaning "bad" fencers and not typical. there is a lot more to being good or "not bad" than simply knowing these techniques.
So do we have any sources on what the "normal" longsword fencer fought like? Can we only infer from what masters said they would do and how to react to it?
I think it depends on geographical area and time period. For mid-16thC Germany Meyer and Mair probably show pretty standard German longsword fencing. The Liechtenauer lineage seems to have become 'standard' in Germany, but cannot have been for at least the first generation or two, and of course there are variations between the different teachers within that lineage. Outside of Germany it's harder to say - certainly there were different styles of longsword use, just as there were different styles of rapier, sabre, sword and buckler, smallsword etc. Because we have relatively few medieval sources from outside Germany we only really get snapshots of other systems. We know Fiore dei Liberi, Vadi and the Bolognese masters, and they are each distinct from each other, even though they share features. So it seems likely that there were lots of different styles across Europe and sometimes styles could be quite different even when from a similar area and time period. For example Swetnam and Silver were both English masters around 1600-1615, yet they are really very different to each other.
Well it's easy enough to assume for starters that the Zornhau (Wrath Strike) was a technique that was used by the common people, as it was very simple (a diagonal strike from the shoulder). It's mentioned in some schools that they avoid use of the move because the authors feel it is too peasant-like, and not noble enough.
Some of the meisterhau can be, for example the zornhau or the zwerchau can defend and offend in one tempo, but they do not always do that - the meisterhau can also be two tempo actions, like parry-riposte.
Jonathan Allen Do you have a video to show this difference of meisterhau in slow drill and sparring you described? Because, based on sparrings as well as drills, meisterhau works better as one tempo action than two tempo action. Not all of them, but especially above mentioned zornhau and zwerchhau seem to us even in sparring as very good one tempo actions. I do not want to say that we do it better, I just want to show different point of view. I completely agree with your last sentence: When you change speed and power, techniques work differently.
BallermusicProd No, there is plenty of 'normal' stuff in the German treatises, but the very raison d'etre of early Liechtenauer lineage teachings is that it is not normal.
A bit late, here are my two cents... A student of liechtenawer already knows a thing or two about common fencing - the followers of liechtenawer explain that - a common fencer relies on parries, whereas one who knows the Recital exploits that by going around it. Also a follower of the system will not parry "normally" and will attack in indes with some special attacks, parry and attack at the same time, surprising the commoner. I bet that the common style of fencing is alot more based on a parry riposte flow, and not too much on feeling and complicated windings...and that works really really well. Liechtenawer made a compilation of techniques he learned/gathered while travelling and maybe also with his own flavor in order to "break" the normal fencing and to surprise even. I tell you that if a normal fencer knew all the triks in the Recital he would be on par with the master. Yet i also think that a student of liechtenawer also knows the common basics as a common parry to the side may be the only thing that saves your head in a fight. And yes, today the german style, to be understood as liechtenawer (i also follow it) has become the basic way..and yes a fight between two people who know the same stuff..is sometimes weird..they kind of know what to expect and then, inserting a bit of common might surprise :D. Fiore for example seems more "normal or common" to me altough its not quite the case, but its a very pragmatic system. I think a follower of the german system should at least try to understand the italian system as well and viceversa, might shine a new light upon the Art.
Evil Merlin Are albion swords any good? For a Layman who's interested in getting a decent Longsword into his collection, what are the sources to be recommended?
LutzDerLurch Honestly there are very few swords (as in functional, accurate swords) as well done as the Albions. Yep, you pay a lot for them, but they are worth it. As for sources, all depends on what you are wanting. Era? Country? etc.
Evil Merlin I hope to add a longsword, plain but beautiful, to my collection, and also a rapier or similarly hilted backsword, fit for the early 1600s.
LutzDerLurch Albion only offers medieval swords but at a high quality in terms of design and construction. I got two Kingmaker at home. There were only two things I disliked: 1) they did not sharpen them enough so that they looked sharp but were still like a butter knife 2) They rust very fast. They do so on the first sign of neglect (fingerprints; moist wall...). I have other blades made of carbon steel that are far less bitchy. If you want to look for other swordmakers check myarmory.com If you want something really fancy look for temple swords. They are awsome but beyond my budget.
I'm still very new to all this, but as I understand it, the "normal" sword fighting technique is lost to time, because this is no longsword teachings that predate his still in existence, and later manuals are based on his, so it became the "new normal" after his techniques spread. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. So if the old way is lost and teachings followng his bases from his teachings, it is normal then, isn't it? The only problem is that bow, you're following his techniques which are based on fighting against the older way which is now non-existant and unknown. Is it effective against someone else using the same teachings? This is something I cannot know as I've only just begun.
hang on! they constantly describe what to do against your own technique, so how would it not work against someone who does the same style? and fiori describes going to germany etc. The whole point is that it ceases to be interesting (to an extent) what your opponent does, because you give him few options. (hence, if he knows something clever, you already know the counter-counter)
They? The earliest Liechtenauer source - so-called 'Doebringer' assumes your opponent will be a common fencer and do things that the author tells you not to do. Later German sources are a completely different matter. Fiore does not describe going to Germany, he describes learning from both Italian and German masters, but all his known locations were in Northern Italy (where there were plenty of Germans). Though I do not see how Fiore is relevant here, as he describes a quite different system to the earliest Liechtenauer lineage sources.
scholagladiatoria Is Fiore really that different than Liechtenauer? Can you explain specifically how that is? Also in competition/ tournaments is one system more successful than another?
scholagladiatoria Well you talked about the 'tradition' and that corpus of manuscripts is actually quite large... and quite consistent. so 'döbringer' starts off with a lot of general tactical advice... and they do talk about striking to the targets and not to the blade so that 'wechsler' can't 'Durchwechseln', one of the concepts that is very much part of the art in many manuscripts (folio 18v and19v for instance) and particularly prominent in this very work. don't have quite the time to go through the entire manuscript. but he starts showing exchanges from about the 20s of the folios. the thing is that he is talking a lot more about a general idea of attcking and keeping going than about a back and forth. this does not mean that the other guy has never seen anything like this. the system should work well against uncoordinated fighters as well as trained ones.. he also mentions using strikes (like zwerch) against various Huten in the tradition and uses their usual names, so that is to examples of opponents using parts of the teachings just in döbringer. so yes, with 'they' i was taking it a little broader than just döbringer. meaning to include ringeck for instance. And the (my) second paragraph is really the crux: döbringer tells you to do things which would work by keeping the opponent from doing whatever he wants, regardless of who he is, and he goes in great detail about this concept and how all the strikes should be aimed at the man, not his sword, you should strike first, etc etc
***** yes, but looking on from a different perspective can be highly misleading, rather than facing directly toward the opponent where you can see what you're presented with
I think of this a bit like how self defence instructors talks today. They use very similar language about what you should do and what to not do. And are often talking about not being the usual brawler. But I would still say that if you want to represent todays self defence fighting styles, you should still do the secret, hidden, master techniques of self defence instructors and not the common drunk bar fighter techniques.
Good point: It's worth keeping in mind that the average person will always be mediocre. Because of this, a good teacher will always be telling the students not to do things that you see most people doing -- because most people are doing it *wrong*, not because the teacher is trying to be special.
Nice point. In some asian martial arts there are specific fighting styles designed to defeat the more basic styles. An example you can see in youtube: Sanatan Shastarvidya sword
What I've seen of Sanatan Shastarvidya not half of it would work. Sadly, since it would be nice with more cultural diversity in swordsmanship, not just katana and now the growing western arts community.
RaineAlgessar Well, as with many fighting styles they are to complicated to be pulled of in the heat of battle. You truly need to be master to do so. Nidar Singh Nihang gave up his old life to save this part of indian martial culture. It is a pity that we did not have such guys to save our martial arts. Besides, I have seen him declassing the badass Silat Bela Diri instructor Maul in an uncoreographed empty had fight. Wihtout really getting involved in a a martial arts its hard to judge if its effective or not. Think of throws. Some slamms look awsome, but do not require much strength as the enemies bodyweight is used against him. On the other side, the chokeslam in WWE looks so easy, but works only because the "enemy" is actually helping.
edi I am of the opinion that martial arts should be simple and clean. If you need to be a master to execute a technique in combat, it is not a good technique. I have not watched much of the unarmed combat of Shastarvidya, but I think it looked very similar to other martial arts. As it should; then it likely works. WWE is american wrestling? If so I'm kinda glad you brought it up. Because that is what the sword part of Shastarvidya kinda looked like, in the sense that the techniques only worked if the opponent cooperated. I may be wrong, but if another school with other techniques were to be used against it, Shastarvidya would fall apart. That is atleast my impression from what is shown in the videos. I can very well be wrong.
Jonathan Allen Outside a few high schools? Folkstyle wrestling is a prominent sport in American high schools. Even in the NCAA, where many wrestling programs have been cancelled, wrestling is still big where it remains.
While I agree with this, to a degree, We dont really know how many other people fought, or if there were other styles at the time that we dont have record of. As to the Germanic tradition there are glosses that talk about things like Krumphau against Krumphau, that suggest that you may come to blows against other people who have some advanced techniques with the sword.
Do you get tired of the pettiness of the internet? In some of your videos you seem almost frustrated or exasperated like in your mind you're saying "C'mon people! Do I really need to say this?"
I wonder if Fiore is a common fencer? I have studied both traditions, and from my experience the techniques of Kunst Des Fechten works a lot better than Fiore’s longsword. Just from personal experience, and who knows, I may have been just fighting against really bad fencers.🤷🏼♂️
I think early Liechtenauer sources are not very good for longsword beginners. Late German sources like Meyer cover a lot more of the basics and are explained in clearer language. The Italian longsword sources also tend to cover the basics more clearly IMHO. But frankly nearly all pre-1600 treatises were intended to be read by people who already knew something about fencing. So I would say the best thing for a beginner is always to attend a reputable fencing school and learn from experienced fencers.
I don't know if you are aware of this already, but Jake Norwood teaches an awesome class on "Common longsword fencing", that he reconstructed from the "don'ts" of Döbringer and such...
I don't think Liechtenauer was a comprehensively revolutionary system in his time. Certainly some of his techniques are explicitly developed against the common system of fencing with the longsword, but most of the fundamentals are so logical that one would have to grant the average knightly contemporary of Liechtenauer serious laziness of thought in his own craft. In addition, there are some similarities with other sword arts, for example the Italian school, but parallels can also be discovered in the Asian sword arts. I think Liechtenauer simply wanted to preserve his art of warfare for posterity in the context of the increasing literacy of his time, but at the same time leave it reserved for the knightly class, so that his teachings would only be understood by those who already knew the basics of sword fencing from their rank. And he did not want to expose it to the rising bourgeoisie, to protect the order of his time.
A lot people look at the old treatises as windows on the past, but they're not really windows so much as little keyholes that only give us limited views on what the general past may have been like. Over academizing is a big danger in classical swordsmanship.
Especially when, if you can use the weapon efficiently and effectively, you're doing it correctly.
That is true for every single historical testimony.
Liechtenauer confirmed first hipster.
Not Socrates then?
Plot twist: the "normal" style is the one shown in movies and video games
It may be worth pointing out that Lichtenauer's techniques aren't just advanced techniques, they're _secret_ techniques. His own manuscripts were very cryptic in a way that only his own students should be able to understand them. Later masters of that style made much clearer manuscripts (which tend to be the ones we actually rely on), but I believe some of them also made intentional errors in the drawings in order to confuse non-students.
Martijn Vos Ya and maybe in the wording to confuse those who aren't students maybe actual falsehoods to further confuse someone. Like parrying with the flat.
+Josh Campbell With the flat of the strong, no less.
+The Sword's Path Of course how better to make those who aren't his students look like fools?
+Martijn Vos That actually might just explain the "end him rightly" text that's been floating around the internet for a couple of years.
+christhefishhunter That would actually he hilarious.
"To end him rightly, take apart your own sword and then try to fight. This is great advice, I swear!".
So Liechtenauer was originally anti-meta. Lol!
meta technically means deconstructing the subject in question in order to understand it better and use it in your advantage. Liechtenauer is in fact very meta, he just focused in countering what was more commonly used. If you meant anti-meta, like it is used in a league of legends context, which is coloquial and an incorrect use of the term, then yes, we could say he was.
Has anyone ever actually used the term 'meta' outside of an RPG / RTS context?
Well, considering the term came outside of those circles, One could guess that there's a slight chance of it being actually used...
-turns sarcasm off
@@VengeanceIV meta analysis, meta genomics so on...
As someone who is only just starting to learn Liechtenauer's techniques, it's interesting to know that these techniques are not normal German longsword skills, but awesome German longsword skills. Thanks.
Very interesting points, Matt, also I beg to differ in some sense, although I clearly do not have the experience you possess, but having learned primarily Liechtenauer, I have some points to add.
First of all, from our (HEMA-practitioners) point of view, we actually do not really know what the "normal" swordfighting style (or styles) looked like, since we have only the I.33 predating Liechtenauer and that does not really deal with the longsword.
Furthermore, the vast majority of later sources refer to Liechtenauer as _the_ grand master, and mostly derive their style from his, in many times starting out with reiterating the same principles (or even the very same verse) that Liechtenauer has set down and are seen in 3227a. For me, this shows that Liechtenauer's system was so effective that it very quickly replaced the one(s) that were used and made it to be the foremost (if not unique) fencing style.
Also regarding "normal" fencers for Liechtenauer, I am with Amaritudine, I think by this name he referred to self-taught fencers or students of "lesser" masters who did not really have that complex and well thought-out system in their fencing such as Liechtenauer had.
All in all, I think referring to Liechtenauer as _the_ norm of German school of fencing is completely valid as it was pretty widespread in its age and later masters clearly considered it as a solid foundation, even if they evolved the system themselves.
Sorry for the wall-of-text :)
You put it so right. Most HEMA masters are almost like, the far sighted leading the blind. Trying to recreate a dead art from a handful of manuals, anf yet claiming that you are superior to other arts with direct lineage, is soo otrageous and absurd!
While there is no question that Lichtenauer was widely popular in Germany. At the same time though, there are plenty of German manuscripts outside the Lichtenauer, such as Hugo Wittenwiler's writing, Fechtregeln, Fiore-based Die Blume des Kampfes, and the Nuremburg group (which seems somewhat related to German longsword in general, but lacks stuff such as the master-strikes and is clearly not in the Liechtenauer tradition).
Of course, likely none of these were completely "common" fencing - we'd be unlikely to find an actual manuscript teaching common fencing, since the people who fenced in a common style would tend to be illiterate.
I haven't done the research to add any insights, but it's my opinion that your points of contention are almost entirely compatible with his statements and that I don't sense your conflict. The key is that he is explaining it's genesis; so everything leading up to this period and maybe fifty years after, while you're focusing on the "golden age" of this school of swordsmanship.
It's all amazing insight into such a artful subculture where athletes, nerds, and scholars meet together.
I have only just started learning g and researching but I feel I have already came to the same conclusion, so much so I just said the very same, albeit more simply, before I saw your comment. Teachings prior to his have been lost to time, his is the earliest that remains and all that follow derive from his techniques, so it became the normal.
Hear, hear. As a Liechtenauer person, spot on. I would suggest that the generic style features: cuts which follow through from a high guard to low (not necessarily terminating in Longpoint), strong parries at the half point of the blade, OR rapid tapping 'weak' parries/deflections in rare cases. I would suspect false edge cuts are used, but less often, more likely as accompaniment with true edge cuts. Just some idle suppositions on the 'hints' you've mentioned; this could make a really good, but ultimately speculative, paper and presentation.
If you look at japanese/chinese fencing schools, they all have secret techniques. Which makes sense, if I go to a master to learn fighting I want to have an advantage above other fighters, may they be learningbydoing deadbeats in the street or trained fighters from a competing family. I would expect any european fencing school to be the same. Keep in mind that I talk about more 1-1 fighting, not battle. Battle is about units, not ones ability to fight one against one, which is another point people tend to forget when talking about fencing. Battle has nothing to do with individual fighting, it´s two completely different roads.
Awesome perspective. I'm a novice fencer and I started by reading Liechtenauer's first manual thing you're talking about. And it really did seem from the wording of everything that it's intention was to defeat less knowledgeable opponents or peasants and such. Or to grant you a way to deal with certain common techniques. I don't know I'm a noob but it's super duper fascinating and I love reading the old manuals and trying to glean some sort of deeper understanding of fencing
Isn't that one of the main points of all ancient fencing treatises? To someway provide tricks and advanced techniques that are superior to the common general fencer?
I was first trained in the sword, and continue to use to this day, a technique of switching ones hands (and, if necessary stance) during combat. When I suddenly (often while in a block) switch to my left hand, it tends to trip people up. Most people are used to fighting against a right handed opponent, but an opponent who can switch hands and fight (almost) equally well from either hand, tends to give me the upper hand.
I will give my two cents though I do not practice HEMA, but I have some experience in martial arts in general.
I can see why Lichtenauer devised a system to fight against the common fencer, but I do not think that we should take the meaning of the word common for granted. AFAIK, different martial arts styles developed around the world and even in the same country or cultural environment, where one would normally expect people to fight using very similar tools or weapons, different styles rely on different ideas and principles. If we look, for example, at Japanese martial arts, there is not a "given" way to swing a katana, but there is certainly a group of techniques which might be considered a common set of basics which are practiced in nearly every school.
In the light of this fact, I would say that Lichtenauer's common fencer might be simply a beginner or inexperienced fencer, who would attack or defend according to a set of basic techniques, which was considered basic knowledge at the time. Therefore, I do not think we're talking about a "common style", which would imply a sort of "standard fencing" practiced at least in the Empire (Lichtenauer could not possibly have witnessed any single style practiced in Europe), but a standard set of basics, which could have been the average knowledge of the average ruffian. Hope it helps
You have a good point I think. While teachings prior to his have been lost, it is entirely possible that there was no standard at all, and thousands upon thousands of different styles just handed down with no structure other than "the basics". He simply could have built his techniques based upon fighting against those moves which he observed to be most common between other styles.
@@Gkitchens1 yes. And given the state of the means of communications at the time of his writings, it would have been nearly impossibile (and imho nor desirable) to even think of a standard method
I reckon that the 'common fencer' or 'ordinary fencer' might refer basically to some un-trained or self-taught hack or thug - some ruffian who's got a weapon, but has limited or no formal schooling in how to use it properly. Kind of like the difference between a brawling street tough and a professional boxer, or other trained martial artist. The untrained fighter is still very much a threat if they attack you in the street, but knowing a proper system of fighting allows you to counter their assault and exploit the weaknesses and gaps in their knowledge.
Yes, but at many points in the high medieval and renaissance periods, it was much more expected of a man to be a competent martial artist and fighter than it is today.
@@CoffeeSnep And at many points in the high medieval and renaissance periods, many people didn't have the option to be taught how to fight. Having a trainer is not something any man can just get.
@@Chroma710 for the peasantry this could be true. During the Renaissance it was part of "being a man" to know how to use weapons like swords and bows for the city dwelling burghers. They didn't all have access to formal schooling on the subject but some degree of training. During war time this extended to the peasantry as well as they would undergo drilling from the more experienced soldiers on the usage of spears and whatever other weapon they had. Not a whole lot mind you, but enough to be competent. It would be foolish to enlist men to fight for you with no idea how to fight. They wouldn't even be good cannon fodder.
That is very truth, and a paradox of modern HEMA fencing is that all fence like "masters", all use fechtbuch wisdom, but there is very little information, in manuscripts, about fencing versus another uncommon fencers.
Hi,i recently found your channel and it really fascinating and correct you obviously have done a lot of research on your content reading fighting manuscripts etc.So thank you for making those videos!
I would actually like to ask you something,i know you are more "specialised" in swords in medieval Europe but i would like to make you a question about ancient Greek Hoplites and if you know it will be nice if not not a problem:So how did the typical greek hoplite fought?i have seen many takes on that one some say only the first row fought with spears underarm other say first row with spears over arm and others say that the first row fought with spears underarm and the second and third covered them with spears overarm,i want to make clear that i am asking for hoplites in phalanxes formation and not phalangites with sarisa which is a different story?
Thanks for your time please reply even if you don't know so i know you saw that.
Love your videos! Would you ever consider making one where you go in to detail on fitness for competitive HEMA?
I'm not sure I'm really well qualified to talk about fitness. My main advice to getting better at fencing is to do as much fencing as possible. Extra exercise like running, cycling, swimming, weights etc can all be useful, so long as it doesn't reduce the amount of time you spend fencing.
Great video and point well made!
DOWN VOTE!!! I don't want any brief videos from you!! I am glad this is 7 years ago and you have grown out of this phase :-)
Nice one, Matt. Thank you.
Interesting! I've been doing Liechtenauer training for a few years now and had no idea!
What would be "common" longsword usage? Which traditions?
That's very interesting. The question now is what was the common fencing standard of the time?
He was way before my time in HEMA (and evidently there's a lot of baggage to him), but J. Acutt (I'm sure you remember him) published two papers on common fencing in 2014 and 2016.
Have you read his papers, and if so do you trust his methodologies and/or translations? I have a feeling you haven't, but I wanted to ask since I saw the paper on r/HemaScholar. I'm skeptical based on his history, but it looks like he did some research. I honestly don't know what to think.
I'd like to hear your thoughts if there's any way a practicioner of Lichtenauer's longsword could defeat the renaissance technique taught by Hutton in 1892?
Could you enable the addition of translation for the subtitiles, please?
Interesting thoughts. I'm starting in sword training again (the last time was pre-HEMA) but using HEMA and I'm using Lichtenauer via Ringneck via Lindholm/Svard. I compared with Guy Windsor's Swordsman's Companion and I found the interpretation of the Lichtenauer to be more in line with what I learned 30-35 years ago (which may be based on some kendo/katana techniques, but worked practically with rattan). Yep, SCA, but I haven't been to a SCA event since that time and from what I've heard, it isn't the same SCA these days. (Let's skip technical issues, I'll note that I weighted and balanced my weapons as closely to what was known at that time.)
Going from that point of view: the "master blows" are not meant as super secret uber attacks to take out the common lot or other schools, but simply are using "master" to mean primary. Comparing with the Italian school as presented by Guy Windsor, the German (Lichtenauer) school via Ringneck/Linden/Svard seems to me to be more basic or elemental in philosophy, though admittedly a lot of the "basics", like precise footwork, are left unstated. In fact, the entire point appears to be to master and internalize the style for the purpose of simply fighing "your fight" instinctively and not really caring what method or school your opponent is using.
I was, for quite some time, a WingTsun practitioner - which is a form of hand to hand combat / self defense / martial art. From those three things its the least a martial ART because it does not really have a set techniques or forms you follow like in other systems. Its a lot more of a sort of concept or system in the truest way; that actually can be applied on top of many other martial arts. The moment I first saw some people fencing the Liechtenauer Methods I noticed that it follows pretty much perfectly the WingTsun principles.
This is brilliant. I teach Dobringer and Von Danzig and I find this so important.
I think these are good observations.but I am not sure how "secret" and exlusive the Lichtenauer verse really was. Doebringer mentions that Lichentauer didn't invent the "system" (perhaps the verse?) so it might be hard to say how "special" these techniques really were. Also, the verse was still being recorded a few hundred years after the first mention (Deobringer) so while it might have been "special" and secret circa 1380, it might have been very common knowldege 150 yeas later when it was being quoted in the Goliath (among others) and Longsword was still a very relevent weapon. Without more documentation of "average" techniques we will never know.
It is a complex issue. Also to consider that there are some quite marked differences between different masters in the Liechtenauer tradition - they did not all do all techniques exactly the same. Equally, some 16thC German sources are not showing exactly the same fencing system as shown in earlier sources such as Talhoffer or Kal. And also we have the problem that most of the German books are from the Liechtenauer tradition, yet we know there were a few other prominent longsword traditions in Germany, quite separate to the Liechtenauer lineage (but most of which were not apparently interested in making books).
scholagladiatoria I find that to be a terrible shame--arts being lost to history due to pride or simply nobody codifying any of the techniques in surviving forms--like languages that died out with the last native speakers. Makes me shudder to think that if people like Huo Yuanjia had never existed, it's not a stretch to think that many of Asia's martial arts could have been lost forever to history.
Some people go on and on for volumes about how awesome and amazing [insert] Asian martial arts and swords are--but nobody would have ever known jack about them if not for certain individuals in history making a decided point to preserve the history and the arts.
Good point!
Also, this is like the nth time I feel like you might want to add the word "metagame" to your conversational vocabulary! ;)
Great points, especially regarding the ethos or philosophy of combat that is explicated in 3227a (Dobringer). Unfortunately, this ethos is really not at all suited to modern HEMA competitive fighting, in my opinion (and I say this as an avid JLT practitioner and competitive fencer).
yes, I believe Meyer's style is much better suited to modern competitive HEMA
+Dustin Reagan Not surprising since Meyer was basically documenting for sport/competitive fighting.
Meyer = Leichmeister ;)
can you make a video about what techniques a common soldier/guard would know/use ?
I'm afraid not really, because it is not documented! We can only say what specific masters/treatises taught in the medieval and renaissance eras, though as you get later in period it becomes more possible to say how common fighters were probably trained and how they fought. By the 17th century you see some drill manuals for common soldiers start to appear and in the 18th and 19th centuries these increase in number for cavalrymen with swords, officers with swords, sailors with cutlasses and infantry with bayonets. But for the medieval period we only have a small number of treatises which probably represent the fencing systems of expert swordsmen.
scholagladiatoria
if anybody can reconstruct it, it's probably HEMA, although I'm surprised that there isn't one castle or cloister or library with some instructions. Maybe historians focus is too much on personalities and not enough on the technical side of medieval warfare
It would certainly be great if we could one day gather enough evidence to reconstruct a general, "common" longsword system.
scholagladiatoria
It's probably the English poems.
TheKloLektuere actually, I'd say SCA would be closer to your Joe Average Man At Arms technique while HEMA would be closer to the sort of rigorous technique-based training an aspiring knight would be put through (though from a much younger age... 7 I believe). Sort of like, one is advanced brawling with weapons that's probably closer to common knowledge, the other is the martial art. If that makes any sense haha
Thanks. Very informative
I have a question. I recently found HEMAC fact sheets on the internet and found one on Lichtenauers system. They mentioned the master strokes "breaking" certain guards. My question is on the meaning of "break". Would that be "to put the opponents blade in check in a bind/clear the blade off the line" or would breaking a guard have some other meaning?
FutureUSMC12 It means that four of the master-hews had their respective guards against which it was very easy to score a hit (Zornhau being something of a "joker" as it is said to be effective against all guards) on the opponent.
This, of course does not mean that if your opponent assumes a guard and you strike him with the appropriate master-hew you will _always_ score a hit, but if you have the right tempo (basically all master-hews are considered indes techniques) your strike will threaten your opponent with a clean hit.
For example, Scheitelhau is breaking the stance Albeer, as it is pretty easy to hit the opponent in the head when he has his swordpoint on the ground in a low stance.
Adding onto that, it prevents the opponent from making viable counter-attacks from their guards to their respective quadrants, such as how zwerchhau cuts off overcuts from tag.
Just to time in with my two cents....
Was wondering if the fact that it symmetrical is some thing that also makes it different and not normal (as opposed to fiore or harlian) thoughts?
In a way longsword can never be truly symmetrical, as you have one hand at the top of the grip and the other at the bottom, so your angles from one side are never exactly the same from the other side. But yes it is true that the German treatises seem to show more symmetrical guards than the Italian treatises. More than that though, some of the German guard positions are only really shown in Germanic areas - in French, English, Spanish and Italian art we see guard positions which look more like Fiore and Vadi.
So, in that sense, Liechtenauer would make a good additional study once you've learned your fundamentals from, say Meyer, or even an Italian lineage such as your own studies? Would you say this is correct?
Matthew Brown I certainly think that the Liechtenauer-based sources are predominantly for people who already know how to fence, yes. They are certainly not beginner manuals.
Meyer would be a bad example since he is a hundred years and some later than our Liechtenauer sources which are at least a generation or two after the man himself, and actually a descendent system.
It is to bad we don't have a beginners manual, but they wouldn't have bothered to write that stuff out as every man at arms already knew the basics well enough to teach them.
scholagladiatoria
Then why are the "master blows" so basic? Sword on shoulder with diagonal cut at 45, vertical cut or horizontal cut? Sword in front with point up and towards enemy with the same three blows (which are three of the five "secret strikes")?
Given that I was taught both of these guards and all three of these strikes long before "HEMA" was a gleam in anyone's eye means that they aren't "super secret advanced kung fu master techniques to defeat the masses of scum". They give all the appearance of the three most natural blows from the two most natural guards.
kamaeq They are only meant to counter the basic four guards or strikes, not make a swordsman undefeatable. Most of the sources that mention the five master hews usually are quick to disclaim this.
Matthew Brown
My point was that these aren't "advanced techniques" that aren't for a beginner, which is what the video is about.
Well said. Obviously beautiful logic.
That actually makes a lot of sense Matt. So many Lichty techniques, while still making physical sense, are very, very non-intuitive. In all the years before the treatises were widely available, when people were playing greatsword through experimentation through common-sense experimentation and looking at kendo, etc, did anyone come up with anything remotely like a zwerchau and other Lichty school techniques?
cmbaileytstc No, not that I'm aware of.
Actually, the principles of Jigen Ryu seem to be quite similiar to those of striking in the Vor or even Indes, and the mechanic of their primary strike looks a lot like the Zornhau to me.
@@TheMissingno Well, not really, Shietelhau only needs a single edge, Zornhau only needs a single edge, Krumphau can be performed with the long edge. Its just the Zwer and Shielhau which make use of the false edge. And to my knowledge there is a lot of crossover between the two. If you look at kenjutsu demonstrations there are often Zornhau-ish techniques which cut through your opponents cut to give point or chop the head. Though I havent seen anything like a Zwer or Shielhau, rightly so
If you don't have a Ph.D. you deserve one.. Every time I visit your channel I learn something new and interesting.
Thanks.
For a total beginner... Would it be advantageous to learn the Lichtenauer method right off the bat?
Can anyone maybe help me? I am writing some fiction and I want to be able to describe something akin to lichtenauer in terms of a "look" or style or traits that maybe set it apart from other schools. Is it possible to characterise it and sum it up in loose terms at all? This vid was very helpful already but now I'm looking for some thing physical I can use to generalise.
There are two schools of longsword that have surviving manuals: German and Italian. However, even the Italian school has traces of Liechtenauer's teachings. The guy was pretty famous. Anyway, when comparing the two styles, German is typically seen as more aggressive, because there it's believed you need to seize the initiative and force the opponent to defend and create openings. Liechtenauer in particular has the Master Strikes, which are five techniques that break the concept of fencing time or tempo, because they allow you to attack and defend at the same time. Italian school is seen as more generalist, a bit more focused on counter attacking as opposed to leading the attack, and has a lot of grappling in it, which makes it well suited for fighting both outside armor and while wearing various degrees of protection. German system, in contrast, is more about specialization, sharply dividing fighting without and with armor.
To add to this, you can also get inspiration from the Bolognese school which includes the Spadone.
What is an example of "common" longsword?
Does it make sense then, to make a "reverse engineering" research, to understand what would constitute "common fencing", so that we could have a Basics manual, useful for new fencers in our hobby?
Where you can you buy that sword?
Well said.
Very good point.
But what is the common fencing style?
So two part question:
1. Is there any evidence to suggest this is the same with Fiore. (I expect there is, but don't study Fiore)
2. Do you think it is possible to reconstruct with any certainty what " common fencing" looked like by drawing from the sources we have. Or would that be a bit of a stretch.
I apologize if these are repeat questions.
Afqwa question 2 was really more focused on whether or not we can reasonably defend such a conclusion. For example if we limit our selves to instances where an approach is described as one used by a common fencer.
This is perhaps overly stringent, but you get the idea.
Afqwa there's certainly a place for "seems right to me," and frankly most of what I do is based on a combination of this and trusting that my instructors have done the research to back it up.
That said, I think a reasonable defense would be a combination of experimental and textual evidence.
I expect common fencers were in some cases quite competent, so whatever it is should work reasonably well, but if we don't have some sort of evidence from the period to back up what we're doing then it's just conjecture.
Yes definitely for Fiori. His was secret, and only written down because he was requested to do so by his patron.
As for 'common' fencing, go visit a Live Action Roleplaying group (Larp). With no official training, they will have their best fighters. But those will never stand up to someone who has Fiori or Liechtenaur, et al, training.
Which would mean that Lichtenuer is a relatively new school, more toward late 16th early 17th, as opposed to the more common schools of 14th through 16th century longsword schools. Perhaps.
If Liechtenauer's tradition and Fiore's system aren't the "common" kind of fencing, what is? Is there some other fencing style from the 14th/15th century that we don't know about?
yes. and we don't know because it wasn't written
How I wish there were more places to learn here in the states.
ZarlanTheGreen Thank you, but I have been to that site before...and it never fails that the closest group is always further than I can travel. That is what I mean by more...so they could be spread out and reach more people.
LaughingOwlKiller I'm so glad that HEMA is finally getting noticed and rediscovered over here, and since I first got started learning the arts in 2007, schools have been popping up across my state (CA). Hopefully we'll continue this rise in popularity and really start to make more breaks into popular culture as Eastern Martial Arts did around the turn of the century, and more schools will open up across the world, and historical Western martial arts of all kinds will be rediscovered and taught as many Eastern martial arts are today.
Meister-Hau does not come from the word "Master = Meister" but from the word "meisten = most" it described the most common strikes.
Thats why pretty simple strikes such as the Zornhau or the Kronhau are part of the Meisterhäue.
something to think about: it has been my understanding that the use of the term "common" in medieval times was fairly different that it is today. Common today indicates a lack of rarity while in medieval times it was much more typically used to mean "unrefined" "base" or "crude" this was probably due to the view nobility had towards the common people. I'm not saying you are wrong because the word common could have been used the same as in modernity, I'm just pointing out that it was not always so and there could be an entirely different interpretation here. it could be meaning "bad" fencers and not typical. there is a lot more to being good or "not bad" than simply knowing these techniques.
Hey, what sword are you carrying?
So do we have any sources on what the "normal" longsword fencer fought like? Can we only infer from what masters said they would do and how to react to it?
I think it depends on geographical area and time period. For mid-16thC Germany Meyer and Mair probably show pretty standard German longsword fencing. The Liechtenauer lineage seems to have become 'standard' in Germany, but cannot have been for at least the first generation or two, and of course there are variations between the different teachers within that lineage. Outside of Germany it's harder to say - certainly there were different styles of longsword use, just as there were different styles of rapier, sabre, sword and buckler, smallsword etc. Because we have relatively few medieval sources from outside Germany we only really get snapshots of other systems. We know Fiore dei Liberi, Vadi and the Bolognese masters, and they are each distinct from each other, even though they share features. So it seems likely that there were lots of different styles across Europe and sometimes styles could be quite different even when from a similar area and time period. For example Swetnam and Silver were both English masters around 1600-1615, yet they are really very different to each other.
Well it's easy enough to assume for starters that the Zornhau (Wrath Strike) was a technique that was used by the common people, as it was very simple (a diagonal strike from the shoulder). It's mentioned in some schools that they avoid use of the move because the authors feel it is too peasant-like, and not noble enough.
HamsterPants522 The oberhau is the default downwards cut. The zornhau is a response.
scholagladiatoria Fair enough.
That mark on the sword got me hypnotized the whole video....a crack maybe?
You really are an observer don't you?
Indeed.
What has been pointed out cannot be unseen! Thanks alot!
My pleasure.
What sword is that your holding?
I for some reason have been told that meisterhau was some sort of an simultanious parry and strike. Anything you could say about that?
Some of the meisterhau can be, for example the zornhau or the zwerchau can defend and offend in one tempo, but they do not always do that - the meisterhau can also be two tempo actions, like parry-riposte.
Jonathan Allen Do you have a video to show this difference of meisterhau in slow drill and sparring you described?
Because, based on sparrings as well as drills, meisterhau works better as one tempo action than two tempo action. Not all of them, but especially above mentioned zornhau and zwerchhau seem to us even in sparring as very good one tempo actions. I do not want to say that we do it better, I just want to show different point of view. I completely agree with your last sentence: When you change speed and power, techniques work differently.
So... is everything implemented in lichtenauer and co. (The guards, winden, the things from the bind,... ) unusual in common fencing?
BallermusicProd No, there is plenty of 'normal' stuff in the German treatises, but the very raison d'etre of early Liechtenauer lineage teachings is that it is not normal.
A bit late, here are my two cents... A student of liechtenawer already knows a thing or two about common fencing - the followers of liechtenawer explain that - a common fencer relies on parries, whereas one who knows the Recital exploits that by going around it. Also a follower of the system will not parry "normally" and will attack in indes with some special attacks, parry and attack at the same time, surprising the commoner. I bet that the common style of fencing is alot more based on a parry riposte flow, and not too much on feeling and complicated windings...and that works really really well. Liechtenawer made a compilation of techniques he learned/gathered while travelling and maybe also with his own flavor in order to "break" the normal fencing and to surprise even. I tell you that if a normal fencer knew all the triks in the Recital he would be on par with the master. Yet i also think that a student of liechtenawer also knows the common basics as a common parry to the side may be the only thing that saves your head in a fight. And yes, today the german style, to be understood as liechtenawer (i also follow it) has become the basic way..and yes a fight between two people who know the same stuff..is sometimes weird..they kind of know what to expect and then, inserting a bit of common might surprise :D. Fiore for example seems more "normal or common" to me altough its not quite the case, but its a very pragmatic system. I think a follower of the german system should at least try to understand the italian system as well and viceversa, might shine a new light upon the Art.
Nice piece of hardware. Is it a Albion Ringeck?
Yep, that's The Ringeck
Evil Merlin
Are albion swords any good? For a Layman who's interested in getting a decent Longsword into his collection, what are the sources to be recommended?
LutzDerLurch Honestly there are very few swords (as in functional, accurate swords) as well done as the Albions. Yep, you pay a lot for them, but they are worth it. As for sources, all depends on what you are wanting. Era? Country? etc.
Evil Merlin
I hope to add a longsword, plain but beautiful, to my collection, and also a rapier or similarly hilted backsword, fit for the early 1600s.
LutzDerLurch
Albion only offers medieval swords but at a high quality in terms of design and construction. I got two Kingmaker at home. There were only two things I disliked:
1) they did not sharpen them enough so that they looked sharp but were still like a butter knife
2) They rust very fast. They do so on the first sign of neglect (fingerprints; moist wall...). I have other blades made of carbon steel that are far less bitchy.
If you want to look for other swordmakers check myarmory.com
If you want something really fancy look for temple swords. They are awsome but beyond my budget.
So all german school are not normal? I mean if I want to study german tradition were shoud I start? fiore first then move to german?
For German longsword probably start with Talhoffer
Sherratt Pemberton
care to expand on why?
Well what is? You just said what isn't. You never offered any affirmatives.
I thought that was common knowledge.^^
Good explanation though.
I'm still very new to all this, but as I understand it, the "normal" sword fighting technique is lost to time, because this is no longsword teachings that predate his still in existence, and later manuals are based on his, so it became the "new normal" after his techniques spread. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. So if the old way is lost and teachings followng his bases from his teachings, it is normal then, isn't it? The only problem is that bow, you're following his techniques which are based on fighting against the older way which is now non-existant and unknown. Is it effective against someone else using the same teachings? This is something I cannot know as I've only just begun.
hang on! they constantly describe what to do against your own technique, so how would it not work against someone who does the same style?
and fiori describes going to germany etc.
The whole point is that it ceases to be interesting (to an extent) what your opponent does, because you give him few options. (hence, if he knows something clever, you already know the counter-counter)
They? The earliest Liechtenauer source - so-called 'Doebringer' assumes your opponent will be a common fencer and do things that the author tells you not to do. Later German sources are a completely different matter. Fiore does not describe going to Germany, he describes learning from both Italian and German masters, but all his known locations were in Northern Italy (where there were plenty of Germans). Though I do not see how Fiore is relevant here, as he describes a quite different system to the earliest Liechtenauer lineage sources.
scholagladiatoria Is Fiore really that different than Liechtenauer? Can you explain specifically how that is? Also in competition/ tournaments is one system more successful than another?
scholagladiatoria
Well you talked about the 'tradition' and that corpus of manuscripts is actually quite large... and quite consistent.
so 'döbringer' starts off with a lot of general tactical advice... and they do talk about striking to the targets and not to the blade so that 'wechsler' can't 'Durchwechseln', one of the concepts that is very much part of the art in many manuscripts (folio 18v and19v for instance) and particularly prominent in this very work.
don't have quite the time to go through the entire manuscript. but he starts showing exchanges from about the 20s of the folios. the thing is that he is talking a lot more about a general idea of attcking and keeping going than about a back and forth. this does not mean that the other guy has never seen anything like this. the system should work well against uncoordinated fighters as well as trained ones..
he also mentions using strikes (like zwerch) against various Huten in the tradition and uses their usual names, so that is to examples of opponents using parts of the teachings just in döbringer.
so yes, with 'they' i was taking it a little broader than just döbringer. meaning to include ringeck for instance.
And the (my) second paragraph is really the crux: döbringer tells you to do things which would work by keeping the opponent from doing whatever he wants, regardless of who he is, and he goes in great detail about this concept and how all the strikes should be aimed at the man, not his sword, you should strike first, etc etc
If something works would it not become common? Maybe before him the techniques aren't standard but I'd think after him (if they worked) they would be.
***** if they worked properly then the other person should be dead...
AFAIK duels were not done in secret like an episode of Highlander. There'd often be witnesses.
***** yes, but looking on from a different perspective can be highly misleading, rather than facing directly toward the opponent where you can see what you're presented with
Considering the manuals are shown in 3rd person I don't know why it would be that hard
I think of this a bit like how self defence instructors talks today. They use very similar language about what you should do and what to not do. And are often talking about not being the usual brawler.
But I would still say that if you want to represent todays self defence fighting styles, you should still do the secret, hidden, master techniques of self defence instructors and not the common drunk bar fighter techniques.
Good point: It's worth keeping in mind that the average person will always be mediocre. Because of this, a good teacher will always be telling the students not to do things that you see most people doing -- because most people are doing it *wrong*, not because the teacher is trying to be special.
woow
Liechtenauer vs fiore de libre
who would win?
Neither, they are both dead already.
wow, I didn't think you'd respond.
this is a happy day
...So what *was* normal medieval longsword?
Nice point. In some asian martial arts there are specific fighting styles designed to defeat the more basic styles.
An example you can see in youtube: Sanatan Shastarvidya sword
What I've seen of Sanatan Shastarvidya not half of it would work. Sadly, since it would be nice with more cultural diversity in swordsmanship, not just katana and now the growing western arts community.
RaineAlgessar
Well, as with many fighting styles they are to complicated to be pulled of in the heat of battle. You truly need to be master to do so. Nidar Singh Nihang gave up his old life to save this part of indian martial culture. It is a pity that we did not have such guys to save our martial arts.
Besides, I have seen him declassing the badass Silat Bela Diri instructor Maul in an uncoreographed empty had fight.
Wihtout really getting involved in a a martial arts its hard to judge if its effective or not. Think of throws. Some slamms look awsome, but do not require much strength as the enemies bodyweight is used against him. On the other side, the chokeslam in WWE looks so easy, but works only because the "enemy" is actually helping.
edi I am of the opinion that martial arts should be simple and clean. If you need to be a master to execute a technique in combat, it is not a good technique.
I have not watched much of the unarmed combat of Shastarvidya, but I think it looked very similar to other martial arts. As it should; then it likely works.
WWE is american wrestling? If so I'm kinda glad you brought it up. Because that is what the sword part of Shastarvidya kinda looked like, in the sense that the techniques only worked if the opponent cooperated. I may be wrong, but if another school with other techniques were to be used against it, Shastarvidya would fall apart. That is atleast my impression from what is shown in the videos. I can very well be wrong.
edi, there are also plenty of techniques in the german system as well that are meant to be used to beat a "bad" or "inexperienced" fencer.
Jonathan Allen Outside a few high schools? Folkstyle wrestling is a prominent sport in American high schools. Even in the NCAA, where many wrestling programs have been cancelled, wrestling is still big where it remains.
While I agree with this, to a degree, We dont really know how many other people fought, or if there were other styles at the time that we dont have record of. As to the Germanic tradition there are glosses that talk about things like Krumphau against Krumphau, that suggest that you may come to blows against other people who have some advanced techniques with the sword.
Do you get tired of the pettiness of the internet? In some of your videos you seem almost frustrated or exasperated like in your mind you're saying "C'mon people! Do I really need to say this?"
I wonder if Fiore is a common fencer? I have studied both traditions, and from my experience the techniques of Kunst Des Fechten works a lot better than Fiore’s longsword. Just from personal experience, and who knows, I may have been just fighting against really bad fencers.🤷🏼♂️
probabably
Liechtenauer’s system still could have been the meta in the area if noobs didn’t know it. Noobs not knowing the meta doesn’t negate it as the meta.
So is Liechtenauer inappropriate for beginners? Or are the basic principles still covered?
I think early Liechtenauer sources are not very good for longsword beginners. Late German sources like Meyer cover a lot more of the basics and are explained in clearer language. The Italian longsword sources also tend to cover the basics more clearly IMHO. But frankly nearly all pre-1600 treatises were intended to be read by people who already knew something about fencing. So I would say the best thing for a beginner is always to attend a reputable fencing school and learn from experienced fencers.
*makes 3 minute claim, gives not one replete example*
One of the only videos of Matt's that I disagree with.
It seems that you are just against something you do not understand yet.
Against? I am not against anything in this video. Liechtenauer was not 'normal' at the beginning - that was it's whole point :-)
I don't know if you are aware of this already, but Jake Norwood teaches an awesome class on "Common longsword fencing", that he reconstructed from the "don'ts" of Döbringer and such...
I don't think Liechtenauer was a comprehensively revolutionary system in his time. Certainly some of his techniques are explicitly developed against the common system of fencing with the longsword, but most of the fundamentals are so logical that one would have to grant the average knightly contemporary of Liechtenauer serious laziness of thought in his own craft. In addition, there are some similarities with other sword arts, for example the Italian school, but parallels can also be discovered in the Asian sword arts.
I think Liechtenauer simply wanted to preserve his art of warfare for posterity in the context of the increasing literacy of his time, but at the same time leave it reserved for the knightly class, so that his teachings would only be understood by those who already knew the basics of sword fencing from their rank. And he did not want to expose it to the rising bourgeoisie, to protect the order of his time.
No. Most of the stances work from the basics
this isn't accurate. do you have a transcription so I can respond to it in an article? I could otherwise do a video response I suppose