OK, what about the swords you own or have personally used? I mean you have fought with these (rebated) weapons before, right? If you haven’t, then I’d retort that somewhat ambiguous illuminations in I33, and Oakshott and Castle and even Burton don’t tell you the whole story about how these weapons are really used. I’ve fought with a variety of rebated steel (not SCA wood) weapon replicas for many years, and I have decent idea of how effective each of these is in attack and defense. I’ve used long swords, side swords, back swords, rapiers, smallswords, colichemarde, etc. in a combined total of thousands of bouts and untold hours of instruction. I’m not an expert (well, maybe in smallsword) but I’m not exactly speaking from “World of Warcraft” or armchair-only experience here.
And I still insist that overall the rapier is “one of the first” instances of the sword being a major part of the whole defensive system. The spada da lato before it also had a defensive use, hence its use of a ricasso with pas d’ane. The rapier in the form of the espada ropera may have developed in 1475 (via E.B. Cass in my 1930 book). And the sword of Gonzalvo de Cordova, a Spanish mercenary captain who died in 1515, is most certainly a rapier from the picture I have of it, implying development somewhat before his death.
I admit I don’t know much about this specific German school you are bringing up. Wikipedia alleges “Most of the authors are, or claim to be, in the tradition of the 14th century master Johannes Liechtenauer. The earliest surviving treatise on Liechtenauer’s system is contained in a manuscript dated to 1389, known as Ms. 3227a. More manuscript treatises survive from the 15th century, and during the 16th century, the system was also presented in print, notably by Joachim Meyer in 1570.” I think most would agree that that’s slightly earlier but significantly overlapping the early days of the rapier. I didn’t say rapier was “the first”, I said it was “one of the first.”
Yes. I have personally owned a reproduction type XVa and fought with a range of reproductions. And I’ve fought plenty with rapier, too, also with case of swords, dagger, cloak, mailled glove and buckler, so the argumentum ad verecundiam isn’t going to fly.
I don’t know how you fight, but for me, the “kinetic energy” of the blade is rarely a problem, because I hardly ever use my buckler as an inertial blocker, I use it as a redirector. More energy in my attacker is a good thing - tires him out and makes it easier to overbalance and get him off line.
You’re reaching, aren’t you? I mean, it’s not like I.33 (and Liechtenauer and Talhoffer et al) doesn’t have text as well, that describes the use of the sword for defence.
Good thing I’ve also fought with them, then. I know my Ox from my Plough, as it were.
Neither am I. Nor am I using the supposed weight of personal experience to sustain my argument - I’m referring to the manuals themselves, and what they contain are clear instructions for guards and wards that use the sword as primary defence.
That’s nice. No-one’s said the rapier didn’t develop in the late 1400s, so I don’t know what that interesting digression was about. It still leaves at least 175 years of time between the beginning of defensive sword and “one of the first” - probably more, sine I doubt I.33 recorded a brand new technique ex nihilo.
There’s a clear German tradition from I.33 to Liechtenauer, so you can’t use him as a starting point, you have to use I.33, and that’s 1300/20, way, way before rapier.
Look, it’s simple - people were using parries and other sword-based defences as a fundamental part of Western Martial Arts for at least a century before the rapier was even developed, so it’s wrong to say that the rapier was “one of the first” to use the sword for defence. There’s a wealth of German fighting manuals.
It’s not an argumentum ad verecundiam. It’s providing additional evidence to show that I’m not relying solely on literary exposure.
Um…yes, I’ll wager I treat that with more importance than you do, being a very small person who really doesn’t want to receive heavy impacts on her arm. But you must agree your opponent isn’t always so accommodating; you must have been exposed to this during the learning process, unless you sprang fully-formed from the brow of Capo Ferro.
No.
I’ve read the text, or translations of is since I don’t speak 13th-century German. Such statements as "From the above bindings, (the priest) Walprgis [Walpurgis] executes a schiltslac[stab-thrust] because she was higher, and quicker to be ready.” (from Freywild) don’t tell what happened in the pictures exactly. Take the one I reference above - no mention is made of the fact that the image shows their bucklers to be contacting? OK the victim is in a clear seconde, but what the fuck position is the nearly straight vertical direction of Walpurgis’ blade? It is an artistic screw-up of a tierce? Is it a prep or stop-action of a swinging head thrust or wet head cut (I don’t recall the exact wording)? Is it described earlier? I don’t have a full German translation handy. This is an example that both the text and the images of I33 aren’t all that great in the first place.
Please stop with things like the “supposed weight” bit. Maybe if you stop viewing me as some know-it-all who was trying to walk all over you, and instead give me the benefit of the doubt as being a person who was trying to provide additional evidence to the discussion, you’ll consider what I say differently.
The manuals contain some information, but it’s not all there. This is almost like saying people can learn how to swim by going to Wikipedia. In a physical sport or physical martial art, personal experience matters quite a bit, especially in the case of re-enactment, provided you don’t cheat and you use the best available historical information as a starting point. Sure no one can get it right, since we’re not fighting with sharps for blood, but it helps. I’ll wager I’ve read every smallsword manual published up to the late 1800’s and if I tried to learn to fence from those without untold amounts of sweat, blood, and tears, and no I’m not being hyperbolic, I’d be dead meat.
I agree that the early German styles used the sword for defense. I disagree that they used it to the same extent, or close to that, of a rapier. I draw the line differently than you.
You must have had some idea what that “interesting digression” is about, because then you say:
You clearly understood I was trying to establish a relative timeline. I don’t see the dispute.
On rethinking this, I agree with you. It does not alter my overall opinion.
I disagree.
You may think I’m wrong, or at a minimum barking up the wrong tree, in my defense of the rapier as one of the earliest cases where the sword was used very heavily for defense, but I feel like you’re being somewhat rude and dismissive towards me without cause, and I just don’t want to continue this. Perhaps it’s just your writing style, but that’s how I’m receiving it. If you want to talk historical fencing and present more facts I would love to discuss - and learn from you - but I’d ask that we change the tone of the discussion, otherwise I really don’t have the mental energy for this.
It’s one thing to say “I’ve fought with these weapons”, it’s another thing entirely to go on about the “thousands of hours” and list every. single. weapon you’re conversant with (most of which are so post-medieval they’re hardly relevant at all) - one says “I know what I’m talking about”, the other says “Respect my Authoritah!” Especially when your response is to question my experience. Actually, no, to question my experience and in the next sentence keep lecturing me like I don’t know what I’m talking about. Let’s remember, my very first reponse to your claim was to cite several period authors. Did you imagine I ran to Wikipedia first to look them up? Or did you afford me the respect, at any point in this convo, of just assuming I knew what I was talking about, as I have for you? Because I don’t see any evidence of that at all.
I, too, am small, and I am out of shape with dodgy shoulders. But that’s irrelevant. In fact, it’s counterproductive, because we’re not discussing Fighting for Gimps here, we’re talking about books written for the fit fighting man (and woman, as I.33 illustrates)
Of course, I’ve taken blows full-on the targe from hand-and-a-half swords. My arms are still miraculously unbroken. But anyway, let’s cut to the chase of this argument…
How the ever-living fuck does a response that starts “forgive me, but no” strike you as rude? And yes, I may have ended up being dismissive …after the first three posts, when you were all with the “what weapons have you used” bullshit. And it is bullshit
Argumentum ad misericordiam isn’t going to make the case (heh) for rapier’s novelty in using the sword for defence any more than argumentum ad verecundiam did.
I’m truly sorry that my responses to you gave you that impression. It was not my intent to do so, not from the beginning nor at the end.
For factual purposes, however, your first response in here cited one document of questionable authorship (I33), Talhoffer, and simply “other Fechtbücher.” A generalization like that is not “cit[ing]several period authors” and does smack of a Wiki response. That level of vagueness would invite more conversation in any context of any subject.
My post addressed the dismissive points at the end. This is self-evident.
Why can’t a question about what weapons you’ve used be simply that? I don’t have a secret dossier on the likes, dislikes, or interests of people on here. I felt like personal experience was important to the conversation, as has been explained numerous times by myself. How can I determine that without asking you? Or maybe I was just honestly interested at the same time? There aren’t more than a few people on this message board who fence non-sport; I think only 3 that I know of. Maybe I sometimes feel like my sport/pastime is so obscure and so lonely that I like to dive right into details when I find someone who’s interested?
How unfortunate.
That is a mis-characterization and as such is incorrect. You continue to be dismissive towards me, you didn’t really rebut any of the points I made in my last post, so this conversation is over.
You make a good, if pedantic, point. Let me rephrase that to “I referenced an entire body of work”, happy? And “Questionable authorship”? Are you alleging I.33 is a later forgery? Because that would be a bit extreme, but it’s the only way I can understand using “questionable authorship” for a work that’s anonymous.
And as for the Wiki insinuation - there’s no way someone is going to jump to “I.33” in reply to your original post off a Wiki search, and you know it. Only someone with some experience in the area is even going to make the association between what you said and a completely different, centuries-earlier fighting style that even you, avowed multi-sword-fighting-style aficionado, admit you don’t know much about. “Wiki response” my ass.
Not at all self-evident. And also, not rude - unless any questioning of your authority is automatically rude.
Because it wasn’t just a question - it was question and lecture rolled into one, with no wait for a response. If you’d gone “Oh, that’s cool, what swords are you familiar with” it would be one thing. To paraphrase: “Oh, what swords have you used?” “You have fought with them before, right?” and immediately “If you haven’t” (all my emphasis) - that doesn’t strike you as immediately confrontational and dismissive itself?
How about you wait for the answer first, then, if personal experience is so important to determining whether Germans used swords defensively a century before rapiers existed (hint: it’s not important at all - only the texts are)
Then you need to work on your tone as much as I do, apparently.
Offhand, yes.
On an related note, is Kinthalis still around?
No, it seems like it was extremely accurate.
“Didn’t rebut”? You must not be reading the same post, then. I specifically addressed why the experience issue is irrelevant. And I addressed the highly kinetic weapon issue.
Well I tried to explain one last time, and I apologized, but you’re still just acting as a hammer looking for nails, and furthermore not making any technical points in this thread one couldn’t find from Wikipedia.
Responding to two false accusations:
“Questionable authorship” means we don’t know the author(s). Resorting to trying to spin-doctor for the crowd a simple statement that there’s question over who the authors are into implying I’m making accusations of “forgery”…seriously, now. That’s almost debate desperation.
Snidely implying I’m lying is not proper behavior either. Please ask a Moderator if you need help finding the BBQ Pit.
And I’m not reading your posts any more on this message board unless you post in the one forum Ed wants me to read.
Yes, a real sincere and lasting apology, there.:rolleyes: Right back to the Wikipedia accusation in the same sentence, I see.
There’s no question of who the author is - it’s “Anonymous”, and has been for the entire period of modern scholarship. Calling it “questionable” implies there’s a problem with that, and yes, sounds like an accusation of, if not forgery, then doubtful provenance, which is definitely not the case with I.33. Both the art style and the text point to it being of the time and place it is attributed to (early 14th C. in the greater Wurzburg area). There’s no standing to call it “questionable” at all. “Questionable authorship” is just loaded language. “Anonymous authorship” would be the unloaded version.
That’s not an accusation of lying. That’s a call for you to examine your thought processes in leaping to “Must have Wikid it”, when the chain of links from rapier to I.33 is not a direct one. I’m genuinely curious why you leapt to “Wikipedia” as your first port of call, if it’s not just meant to be dismissive off the bat.
I don’t care, I really don’t. You were flat-out factually wrong about the timing of the use of the sword for defence. That’s all that anyone else in this thread needs to know. This is General Questions, after all.
Una i found your conversation about the defensive capabilities, or should i say emphasis on defense in weapon styles to be very interesting. I must however agree with your opponents overall view point. Every martial art with any weapon pays equal attention to attack and defense, to do otherwise in a life threatening situation would be foolish. With your level of experience, with several different weapons, you should realize this. From my own studies i have concluded that the basic principals of attack and defense are the same for all single melee weapon use. That is any time your engaging with a single weapon, without the use of a shield or any other tool in your off hand.
