Main > The Courtyard

"Liechtenauer was not normal medieval longsword"

<< < (3/3)

Joshua Santana:

--- Quote ---Liechtenauer wasn't common fencing and he asserts as much. His system was meant to be a "hidden" system which he wrote down cryptically. I would assume that common fencing would include less emphasis on binding/winding and more about cuts, thrusts and parrying. This would no doubt have been the common method of sword play for common soldiers and those with minimal sword training as "Masters" like Liechtenauer taught mostly to nobles for a fee. Its a good system and one which has been my own primary system of study but I have recently taken Meyer more seriously. IMO one of the problems I see in modern historical fencing schools is that newbies are run through the basics and then introduced to binding/winding, etc. This makes for fencers who have a difficult time simply fencing in a manner which is based on more fundamental principles of cuts and parry's. Liechtenauer's system depends upon a certain complicity in that you expect your opponent to act and react in a certain manner. This is why many fencers have been successful in high level tournaments such as Swordfish who do not using any techniques other than good timing, distance, parry, etc. techniques.
--- End quote ---

Not a bad statement.  Here is how I would respond.  Basic or Commoner fencing would be nothing short of the basics to sword fighting.  Liechtenauer's audience was Knights and Nobility involved in war.  Most of the commentaries by Dobringer, Ringeck, Von Danzig elaborate the martial skill involved in combining certain "Master Strokes", breaks and counters as well as their take on the same Sword Fighting Art. What we see in tournaments today is skill of one against the skill of another.   I have seen nothing but good usage of distance, parry and counter parry to skillful blow.  My interpretation to any technique is to look at the context of the technique and the counters to find the right moment in the fight to pull it off.  Liechtenaur is good to start off with, if you want to get serious, train in Fiore.

jason77:
This is where I myself would disagree. Fiore is a good place to begin but liechtenauer is the next progression. Of course IMO one could skip both and just study Meyer. All of the best swordsman (think Axel Peterson as one example) are students of Meyer.

jason77:
Here is a good write up on this very topic which takes much into consideration: http://www.encasedinsteel.co.uk/2013/01/25/for-beginners-fiore-or-liechtenauer/

As I said previously I'm actually more inclined towards Meyer and I'm not alone. Meyer has a much more logical and progressive system than the Liechtenauer material and its been proven over and again. But Fiore is a good logical system as well and there are good fencers being produced with Fiore's method.

Joshua Santana:

--- Quote ---Here is a good write up on this very topic which takes much into consideration: http://www.encasedinsteel.co.uk/2013/01/25/for-beginners-fiore-or-liechtenauer/

As I said previously I'm actually more inclined towards Meyer and I'm not alone. Meyer has a much more logical and progressive system than the Liechtenauer material and its been proven over and again. But Fiore is a good logical system as well and there are good fencers being produced with Fiore's method.
--- End quote ---

What works for you go with it.  I have no issue with Meyer per say though I am an advocate of both Liechtenauer and Fiore. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page