Main > The Courtyard

"Liechtenauer was not normal medieval longsword"

<< < (2/3) > >>

Sir Edward:
Liechtenauer is actually a school of combat that encompasses a wide range of weapons, from unarmed, through dagger, single-hand swords, longswords, sword + buckler, staff, spear, poleaxe, horseback, etc.

What this video commentary is saying is that it's designed to beat the well known techniques, and put you at an advantage.

Sir Nate:

--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2013-11-28, 15:13:31 ---Liechtenauer is actually a school of combat that encompasses a wide range of weapons, from unarmed, through dagger, single-hand swords, longswords, sword + buckler, staff, spear, poleaxe, horseback, etc.

What this video commentary is saying is that it's designed to beat the well known techniques, and put you at an advantage.

--- End quote ---
Oh.

Sir Vander Linde:
Here is his work on messer,  a translated version with other great add-ons such as historical weapon measurements.  Might interest some of you.

http://www.hammaborg.de/pdf/transkriptionen/leckuechner_cgm582/zabinski_mitchell_fritz_leckuchner.pdf

Joshua Santana:
I would say that he does mention a good point but I think there some things that were over simplified.


--- Quote ---Liechtenauer is actually a school of combat that encompasses a wide range of weapons, from unarmed, through dagger, single-hand swords, longswords, sword + buckler, staff, spear, poleaxe, horseback, etc.
--- End quote ---

Exactly, which would make it more as a martial system as opposed to fighting that could only be taught to regular soldiers.  And the point I want to make is that Liechtenauer's primary audience and his disciples in the tradition, their audience were always to the Nobility or the Knightly classes.  So to say that it is not 'regular longsword' is correct to a degree.  However since it was taught to nobility (as in the case also with Fiore and Vadi) there could no way be a possibility for foot soldiers or military lower than the knight to learn anything by Liechtenauer.

jason77:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page