Main > The Courtyard

"Liechtenauer was not normal medieval longsword"

(1/3) > >>

Sir Edward:
This raises a good, interesting point, but I think it oversimplifies things:



One of the lectures I attended at WMAW was talking about this subject, but took it a bit further. When we look at something in one of the Liechtenauer lineages, often we'll see something like this:

1. Particular move/technique
2. Counter to that move
3. Counter to the counter.

The lecture was discussing the idea that one possible conclusion we can make is that since the manuscript leads you through those steps, and that it's intended to defeat the "common fencer", only step #3 is probably the "secret" method. Steps 1 & 2 might actually be more well known.

But otherwise I think he's right in this video. The entire Liechtenauer lineage of manuscripts are aimed at the upper classes. Only those who were wealthy enough or of a high enough class were considered eligible to learn it, and it was designed to defeat the lower classes.

Sir Brian:
I’m really quite skeptical of his hypothesis. By what premise is he basing his opinion of ‘common fencers’?

Is it common as in the peasantry class in general or as in a tradesman, merchant, or freeman verses one of nobility? Or is it in regards to encountering brigands who might be down on their luck citizens, soldiers or even a squire? Also were these ‘common fencers’ in the habit of swaggering about town with a longsword hanging off their hips, ready to draw steel in a moment’s notice when waylaid or abruptly provoked into a duel of honor?

My impression of the Lichtenauer traditions where that he was accredited as being the first ‘master’ in which he had simply was the first to compile much of the knowledge and experiences he acquired in his travels to numerous regions and not exclusively consideration to being able to out fence some crude
‘buffalo’ tradesman.  :-\

Thorsteinn:
Makes sense.

I got the impression from Foire that he wasn't speaking of a special system but of a solid one for all occasions. Sort of an "Adapt as you will to what you need, but know that I've done, or seen done, everything in here to good effect."

Sir Vander Linde:
Having read many sources and practiced the techniques in them, I see how he can come to this conclusion. however I believe it to be the wrong one. you will see many "practitioners" and so called "students" of the long sword traditions who simply have no clue how to uses a sword. they throw names and terms around like they know what it is that they are doing, and in fact can and will beet persons in sparing situations, merely because of imitation. but imitation is not true form. these are the people who say, for example, they studied Liechtenauer, and they have a great understanding of the vocabulary and general body movement, but lack every aspect of any techniques use. This is what I think Liechtenauer addresses in his teachings as do many other masters. The mere sing of a difference in a work is no biases to address it as nonstandard. There were indeed many masters and many schools of fencing, so yes technique varied but to single out a specific teaching is just silly. For example I can not tell you how many different interpretations of the "crooked cut" I've seen, and yet these persons all say they got it from the same source. That is what is being addressed, I'm sure some of you if not all have been in a sparing situation in which some one desperately tries to implement a technique, and fails over and over or keeps repeating basic technique from drills done solo or with a partner. This is not the teachings and is not the source material. That in my opinion is what it is about....  (rant end lol )

Sir Nate:
Does this mean I dont need to train to use one of these?
And didn't everyone use broadswords?
Like in Lotr the only people with Longswords are the dunedain (maybe elves), whilst gondor uses Broadswords very simular to the one I have.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page