Another great video! For your personal interest, I also found pauses mentioned in Fabris actually, if you look at the introduction to Rule 6 in Book 2 of fabris, near the end he says: "You should be able to proceed, hold, go quickly and slowly, and even retreat -- but you should do all this by your own volition, not forced to do so by the opponent." I have to check the italian again but I think is the same concept as what was discussed in Thibault
Brilliant! An excellent application of historical sources to modern day fencing. How your "Advanced" class might be I wonder ... ;) Eager to watch part four ... sorry, three!
Wow, what a couple of great videos, I will eagerly await the third one! The comparison with the cars was great! This whole idea of breaking up movements into smaller, sometimes slower parts is something I also started experimenting with over the last months in my longsword fencing. For a long time, I tried to make faster and longer attacks in hope of hitting the enemy from further away before they had a chance to react. But in the end, it just turned everything into one big gamble - either I was fast enough to hit them, or they were able to counter - and there was zero chance for me to stop my attack in time. It was like tossing a coin. Also, I probably looked like someone „who tried to catch a hare with outstretched arms“ as is being warned against in the sources and was very weak in any kind of bind due to those outstretched arms. Slowing everything down and giving me moments to reevaluate the situation made everything a lot cleaner and, ironically, made it easier for me to be bold enough to take the Vorschlag, because I feel safer now. While it does give the opponent more time to react, I found that the easier control of their blade makes more than up for this - as long as I control the bind, the additional time won’t help them that much anyway. It’s great to see that there is actually a lot of source material backing this up and that I‘m apparently going in the right direction, so thank you very much!
Leckuchner in kust des messerfechten sometimes writes as if indes was referring to compound action without blade contact, but in general this is very good correction. It is easy to view Liechtenauer tradition as counter-offensive fencing, but there are hilarously many parry-ripostes in there. The concept of ,,regaining the vor" seems of no use to me. RDL generally says one reacting is in nach, and that succesfull counter is beating vor with nach. I find this concept much less useful in general than ppl would like.
If you could point me to any of those Leckküchner sections (I admit I have read only very little of him so far), that would be most appreciated. In general, however, I doubt that you find parry-riposte actions in the modern sense in Liechtenauer for the reasons mentioned in episode three. Disclaimer: This also means, of course, that things that look similar to parry and riposte (but work slightly differently) could happen, and it also means that our community, on average, might have a skill level where you can still get away with parry-riposte even in longsword.
Super interesting once again! We quickly talked last time about the Bolognese way of stringere / gagnare and how it's also bound to that gathering step. Sounds very similar to the approach you present at ±31:00. Alas, there would be no retreat and try again if the opponent doesn't move as once you acquired all the advantages as Viggiani would put it, you should attack with cover.
Thanks a lot! I suspect that the different approach is due to the lighter weapons. The "attacking with (mechanical!) cover" approach relies on the assumption that the opponent cannot interfere without us having a chance to counter it. However, with the lighter weapons of the post-1640 era, to make it simple, there is a serious chance of them doing something dangerous without us having a chance to prevent it (for sheer biological reaction time reasons). Incidentally, this will also be discussed in episode three. ;-)
@@DimicatorSchola Intriguing argument, so far I attributed the switch to weapon length and less hand protection - forcing us to have the sword hand fairly close to the knee & body compared to a Fabris-style guard. Both in turn means less steel between you and your opponent to defend oneself, and in turn bigger openings. However, this would would be kind of analog with a guard further forward with light weapons, where attacking tempi are just smaller in general, meaning small openings get relatively bigger to the reaction time. So that makes sense to me so far. It'd probably interesting to look at fighting approaches in smallsword as well, as they deal with that kind of small tempo to just hit on an even higher level.
@@SchildwachePotsdam I would (and will, as a matter of fact) argue that not attacking movements get quicker with lighter weapons, but mostly changes of direction. So you do not enter despite cover because the opponent could still attack *somewhere else*. And I have looked into Angelo precisely to see how they deal with the problem. Stay tuned!
@@DimicatorSchola I am looking forward to it! I would have said that any weapon(hand) related movements should be quicker while foot and body motions stay roughly the same.
Ahhhhh 2.5??? Lol. Ist das ein halbes Tempo? Gibt es ein halbes Tempo überhaupt? Gibt es überhaupt Zeit oder ist sie nur ein Konstrukt? Ich freue mich in das Video einzutauchen!
Tatsächlich reden einige Autoren von halben Tempi, wenn sie kurze Tempi meinen. Kurz ist bei dieser Videoreihe aber nicht vorgesehen, wie du gemerkt hast. :-P
Another great video!
For your personal interest, I also found pauses mentioned in Fabris actually, if you look at the introduction to Rule 6 in Book 2 of fabris, near the end he says:
"You should be able to proceed, hold, go quickly and slowly, and even retreat -- but you should do all this by your own volition, not forced to do so by the opponent."
I have to check the italian again but I think is the same concept as what was discussed in Thibault
Thanks! Yes, the pauses are explicitly mentioned by Fabris and his German student(s). Even Meyer suggests them.
Brilliant! An excellent application of historical sources to modern day fencing. How your "Advanced" class might be I wonder ... ;) Eager to watch part four ... sorry, three!
Wow, what a couple of great videos, I will eagerly await the third one!
The comparison with the cars was great!
This whole idea of breaking up movements into smaller, sometimes slower parts is something I also started experimenting with over the last months in my longsword fencing.
For a long time, I tried to make faster and longer attacks in hope of hitting the enemy from further away before they had a chance to react. But in the end, it just turned everything into one big gamble - either I was fast enough to hit them, or they were able to counter - and there was zero chance for me to stop my attack in time. It was like tossing a coin. Also, I probably looked like someone „who tried to catch a hare with outstretched arms“ as is being warned against in the sources and was very weak in any kind of bind due to those outstretched arms.
Slowing everything down and giving me moments to reevaluate the situation made everything a lot cleaner and, ironically, made it easier for me to be bold enough to take the Vorschlag, because I feel safer now. While it does give the opponent more time to react, I found that the easier control of their blade makes more than up for this - as long as I control the bind, the additional time won’t help them that much anyway.
It’s great to see that there is actually a lot of source material backing this up and that I‘m apparently going in the right direction, so thank you very much!
Great to hear it makes sense for you! My experiences are similar. Oh, and there will be Zufechten stuff in episode three!
Thank you for sharing.
Leckuchner in kust des messerfechten sometimes writes as if indes was referring to compound action without blade contact, but in general this is very good correction. It is easy to view Liechtenauer tradition as counter-offensive fencing, but there are hilarously many parry-ripostes in there. The concept of ,,regaining the vor" seems of no use to me. RDL generally says one reacting is in nach, and that succesfull counter is beating vor with nach. I find this concept much less useful in general than ppl would like.
If you could point me to any of those Leckküchner sections (I admit I have read only very little of him so far), that would be most appreciated. In general, however, I doubt that you find parry-riposte actions in the modern sense in Liechtenauer for the reasons mentioned in episode three. Disclaimer: This also means, of course, that things that look similar to parry and riposte (but work slightly differently) could happen, and it also means that our community, on average, might have a skill level where you can still get away with parry-riposte even in longsword.
Super interesting once again! We quickly talked last time about the Bolognese way of stringere / gagnare and how it's also bound to that gathering step. Sounds very similar to the approach you present at ±31:00. Alas, there would be no retreat and try again if the opponent doesn't move as once you acquired all the advantages as Viggiani would put it, you should attack with cover.
Thanks a lot! I suspect that the different approach is due to the lighter weapons. The "attacking with (mechanical!) cover" approach relies on the assumption that the opponent cannot interfere without us having a chance to counter it. However, with the lighter weapons of the post-1640 era, to make it simple, there is a serious chance of them doing something dangerous without us having a chance to prevent it (for sheer biological reaction time reasons). Incidentally, this will also be discussed in episode three. ;-)
@@DimicatorSchola Intriguing argument, so far I attributed the switch to weapon length and less hand protection - forcing us to have the sword hand fairly close to the knee & body compared to a Fabris-style guard. Both in turn means less steel between you and your opponent to defend oneself, and in turn bigger openings.
However, this would would be kind of analog with a guard further forward with light weapons, where attacking tempi are just smaller in general, meaning small openings get relatively bigger to the reaction time. So that makes sense to me so far.
It'd probably interesting to look at fighting approaches in smallsword as well, as they deal with that kind of small tempo to just hit on an even higher level.
@@SchildwachePotsdam I would (and will, as a matter of fact) argue that not attacking movements get quicker with lighter weapons, but mostly changes of direction. So you do not enter despite cover because the opponent could still attack *somewhere else*. And I have looked into Angelo precisely to see how they deal with the problem. Stay tuned!
@@DimicatorSchola I am looking forward to it! I would have said that any weapon(hand) related movements should be quicker while foot and body motions stay roughly the same.
@@SchildwachePotsdam That is pretty much correct, but you do not use weapon and body actions equally for all fencing actions.
Ahhhhh 2.5??? Lol. Ist das ein halbes Tempo? Gibt es ein halbes Tempo überhaupt? Gibt es überhaupt Zeit oder ist sie nur ein Konstrukt? Ich freue mich in das Video einzutauchen!
Tatsächlich reden einige Autoren von halben Tempi, wenn sie kurze Tempi meinen. Kurz ist bei dieser Videoreihe aber nicht vorgesehen, wie du gemerkt hast. :-P
Finally