On the Krumphau

[Thorsteinn]

<rant on>
This is why I hate using the German & Italian terms:

When watching all these vids I find I can do many of them BUT I find the over focus on unarmoured vs unarmoured Longsword dueling to be a distasteful effect in HEMA/WMA. It is forming a closed loop in which we abandon perfectly fine language from English to use terms that, by their use, exclude those swordsmen/women who have studied other systems or never learned the German or Italian thus leading to an even worse exclusivity focus and helping to kill growth & Egalitarianism.
<rant off>

[Jessica Finley]

I am confused by your rant. 

When I learn swordsmanship I must learn a set of terms to refer to what I am doing.  By default, I am learning a new set of terms that refer to specific actions.  Whether those terms are in English, or German, or Italian, or Spanish, or Russian, for that matter... means little.  New action has a name = Name is new.

If you mean that we should all have a common fencing language then what should that be based on?  Page?  Modern sport-fencing terms?  But when they have no word for a Krumphau (because that strike exists in no other systems I know of) then should I make up a term? 

And why is that superior to calling it what the people I am attempting to emulate call it???

I am not being defensive here... I honestly am confused.

In Judo, I used Japanese terms "O-Goshi", even if there are English words "Hip throw" or Medieval German terms "die Zwei Hüffe".  It would be equally weird to use English or German terms when doing a Japanese Art as it would be to use O-goshi during my Ringen class (though I admit to referring to it sometimes for those who might know Japanese, much as I might refer to "Vom Tag, also known as Posta de Donna or just putting the sword on your shoulder")

But there are minute differences between O-Goshi, Hip Throws and Die Zwei Hüffe much as there are between Vom Tag, Posta de Donna and just putting the sword on your shoulder.  So ... I use the specific one that invokes exactly what I want.

Remind me why that is bad?

[Jessica Finley]

Also I am confused by your linking language to armored/unarmored duels.

I agree, I wish more practitioners of the Art would study the WHOLE art, that is the armored and unarmored wrestling, armored and unarmored dagger, armored and unarmored spear, Long Spear, armored poleaxe, sword and buckler, messer, long spear and sword on horseback (rossfechten) AS WELL AS armored and unarmored longsword.  To complain that there is a lack of understanding of the entire system by the exclusion of armored longsword is simply to scratch the surface.

THAT SAID:  Our system is taught through the unarmored Longsword.  It is there that he establishes the basics of the art, how to move, what our goals are within a fight, what nomenclature to use when breaking down an opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and how to mitigate those strengths and exploit the weaknesses.  Once you have it in unarmored longsword he then applies that to the REST of the weapons.

I could (and do) lament that more people don't study wrestling. 

Jess

[Sir James A]

On terms - I agree with Jessica. Her example of Japanese vs German is a great one. We don't have "wrap shots" in WMA, and "iron chicken stance" means nothing to us. It's a two way street; WMA people who learn SCA have to learn a new set of terms that have no relevance/relation to what they learn in WMA. I mostly hear the german names when I'm around my Order brothers, but Ken Mondschein's book uses Italian terms - which made it confusing to me - but part of learning anything is learning the terminology and differences.

On unarmored vs unarmored - that's what the source material is. There's a world of unarmored techniques that do no good when fighting someone in armor. Blossfechten is unarmored fighting; harnessfechten is armored fighting. Harness fighting is a lot less common for a few good reasons; proper harness is expensive, breaking arms and/or legs is frowned upon, and even in the best of controlled environments, injuries with armored combat are more likely than unarmored (as backwards as it sounds). I live for time in armor, though!

Back at our Order of the Marshal longsword shows at VARF, Sir Nathan and I did 5 or 6 "points" in our final show (the only one we did harnessfechten). We got the last "point" on video - - and watch the last bit where I caught Sir Nathan's crossguard, failed the yanking disarm, and he catches the back of my leg. We had a previous agreement we wouldn't drop each other like rocks, but he tugged enough I acknowledged in a real fight, he'd have got me. That little tug led to this beautiful bruise (http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t8/jba3/medieval/ouch/2012-06-12231719.jpg).

Also worthy of note, is that during our bouts, we didn't use a single master cut, primary guard, or secondary guard. The unarmored combat techniques focus on unarmored combat and ignore armored combat because they're two completely different methods of engagement - there is some overlap, but it's minimal - and mostly takedowns and ringen from what I've seen.

[Jessica Finley]

Hey James -

Nice vid!  And WMA has been referred to as the  "Bruise Admiration Society", so good on that too. 

It is true, that there appears to be little overlap between Armored and Unarmored fighting, however it's important to remember that the "Master Cuts" are only five of the 17 "Chief Techniques" of the system.  The other 12 apply to Harnessfechten. 

[Sir Edward]

WMA has been referred to as the  "Bruise Admiration Society", so good on that too. 

lol, ain't that the truth. That and "lost fingernail admiration" as well.

[Ian]

<rant on>
This is why I hate using the German & Italian terms:

When watching all these vids I find I can do many of them BUT I find the over focus on unarmoured vs unarmoured Longsword dueling to be a distasteful effect in HEMA/WMA. It is forming a closed loop in which we abandon perfectly fine language from English to use terms that, by their use, exclude those swordsmen/women who have studied other systems or never learned the German or Italian thus leading to an even worse exclusivity focus and helping to kill growth & Egalitarianism.
<rant off>

I'm going to be operating on the premise that the over-focus on unarmored dueling and the language thing are two separate points, otherwise I'll be honest, I have no idea what you meant.

Over focus on unarmored vs unarmored dueling?  The overwhelming majority of historical treatises are also focused in this way (also armored vs armored).  This is the re-creation of an historical martial art, and it's goal is to stick to the source material and be faithful to the history.  I'm not sure what you're suggesting it should focus on.  As far as the language, I'm in 100% agreement with Jess on this.  When I used to take Wah Lum Kung Fu many many moons ago, I learned the Chinese terminology.  When I was a student of Japanese martial arts, likewise, I learned the Japanese terminology.  This did not make the art exclusive or un-welcoming, it was just the appropriate way to learn from the source, as it would be for Western Martial Arts...

If by the over focus on unarmored vs unarmored longsword dueling, you're suggesting using mixed weapons and various styles of armor, well then we have that, it's SCA heavy, and it's not historical in its basis.  It doesn't use historical techniques, weapons, or armor and allows any combination of things.  In WMA/HEMA, the goal is to be faithful to the historical source material, and this often includes unarmored vs unarmored longsword because of the Judicial Duel etc..

WMA is also not limited to that scenario.  Poleaxe, messer, wrestling, dagger, sword & buckler are just a few of the aspects I can name off the top of my head that are included.  But once again, the goal here is to recreate, with faith and respect, the actual practices of those people of Medieval and Renaissance Europe.  True to the source material, not altered for sport, fun, or the inclusion of personas of different time periods.

[Sir Edward]

That's true, a lot of the existing material was written with the judicial duel in mind. But there's also the teaching aspect. A lot of it was written in the context of teaching the material, or showing off what that person could teach you (sort of like a resume), and learning the techniques is easier with matched gear.

We play with mismatched weapons occasionally, but when it comes to drilling the techniques, it usually makes sense to have both people using the same thing.

The problem with practicing Harnessfechten (armored combat) is that a lot of it is difficult to do safely, when you're talking about the historical techniques. Unlike the SCA (where the goal is to be able to fight again relatively un-killed), historical armored combat could treat the armor itself as a weapon, and as a barrier that needed to be circumvented. A lot of the techniques involve using the opponent's armor against them to knock them over or break their joints. The weapons are used to damage the armor, or are thrust through the gaps, or break bones in spite of the armor.

In that regard, SCA combat strikes me as a simulation of un-armored, or lightly-armored combat, but using armor for safety. If it were real harnessfechten, we'd see guys on the ground stabbing each other in the eyes with daggers.

But getting back to combinations of weapons and armor in the WMA/HEMA world, I think you'd see more mixture if you watched some of the free-fencing at some of the various schools. The tournaments and demonstrations tend to focus on matched weapons because it's easier to understand, or to enforce a fair competition, or to stick very close to the source material.

[Thorsteinn]

What I meant was I have seen in the HEMA/WMA a progression towards an over focus on the unarmoured longsword vs longsword aspect of the game and an over focus on using "correct terminology" whenever they can which can come off as haughty and snide.

This tends to breed contempt in people as they react to a perceived weakness and arrogance. I see this in the SCA with regards to the basket hilt & heater shield combo. As many of you know there is a great number of fighters that cannot fight with crosshilts, mass weapons, short swords, different shields, or great weapons or against same. Only like for like. In some Kingdom's there have even been folks knighted with this weakness.

In the HEMAA there is great discussion of artifacts and artificiality and these two are some of them. By not changing things up, by not making the match different, by not training for surprise we fail to counter weakness.

I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts further on the use of non-English in the martial arts but to say this imperfect thing:
We have over 500'000 words in our language. My vocabulary is over 37'000 words alone. We have the right language to describe the actions. Let us use it. I do on the HEMAA forum so that none confuse my intent.

[Jessica Finley]

Well, for those that are interested in learning what the "haughty man" using only German terms means ... they can ask.  Or they can read up.  Or they can choose to not fully understand.  *shrug*

When I started doing this, people talked of "single time" "double time" "single imperfect time" "the line" "inside/outside" "second intention" and other English terms that described specific things for those who had studied Aristotle, classical fencing, or other arts that referenced it.  They confused me.  I'd never really been trained in any of those things, and the more I read about it, the less I understood. 

So I got in a room with a person who used these terms and dropped my ego and asked to have it all explained to me.  This worked out well, and I found that I got it right away, once I was "taught" what these terms meant.

It didn't matter that they were in English>  I didn't know what they meant until I was taught.

Did the people sound "haughty" because they used exclusive terms?  You could take it that way.  But would you take it that way if you were on a board for car enthusiasts and they were referring to the handling of a car using terms like "yaw" and "pitch" and "suspension" and "rear wheel cambers"?  No.  They aren't haughty for knowing a term I don't know.  They have specific learning. 

[Sir Brian]

Well I don’t know if haughty or snide is the general intention of other practitioners of WMA/HEMA however it does help to sort of keep everyone on the same sheet of music so to speak when you all sling around the same lingo! Most especially if you are studying different weapons originating from multiple countries. At MASHS I’m studying three different weapon systems from three different countries of origin which are German longsword, Italian dueling sabre and French dueling epee and sometimes we’ll train with all three in the same class so it can get very confusing. Yet these three weapon types are so diametrically different from each other that no viably universal terminology could even be remotely applied.

[Sir Edward]

Yet these three weapon types are so diametrically different from each other that no viably universal terminology could even be remotely applied.

... Except maybe "parry"

[Sir Brian]

Nope! I thought we weren’t supposed to ‘parry’ in longsword! 

[Jessica Finley]

Of course we can parry - if we are doing it properly.  (think the counter to the counter to the Zwerchhau, that is, parry and duplieren) 

[Sir Edward]

Of course we can parry - if we are doing it properly.  (think the counter to the counter to the Zwerchhau, that is, parry and duplieren) 

Oh, you mean the John Clements Krumphau.