I'm not a longsworder, and I've only got a reading familiarity with I.33, but you hit upon a very important point for all systems of combat. Getting muddled up in a distinction without a difference isn't helpful--a good lesson for all of us and well said.
I know we've talked about this before on Facebook and elsewhere, just figured I'd leave a comment here. I think this is absolutely spot on, especially that they are not specific instructed guard positions, but are a way to categorize enemy actions. A lot of people doing I.33 miss this.
8 років тому+6
This is really good. I'm not an expert on I.33, but from what I know about fencing with the Messer I would say I totally agree with your approach. (Nice Messer btw)
can u pls make a vid regarding bucklers? wanna know how diameter/size affects techniques. and what weight is too heavy/light to be safe and/or historically accurate
I'm doing what I can to learn I.33 at home and this honestly refreshing. It makes sense to me that the minutia to focus on, is not depicting exactly what you see in the manuscript, but rather delivering results that are actually effective in combat. (Moving without telegraphing, cutting and thrusting towards a target area, delivering movements with optimal speed, power and confidence, following through correctly to stay in a guard position, ready to deal with additional threats.)
8 років тому+4
this makes sense, it is tge way most southeast asian systems are built. the study of concepts, angles and leavers, rather than specific techniques. it tends to make you more versatile
Excellent! Cheers for the freedom of I33! Though it must be said a drunk Scott looked at the manuscript and glued the buckler to the sword to free up a drinkin hand. That is the true origin of the basket hilt.
Ser Davos, when he still had five fingers on his right hand. On a more related note, I'm greatly enjoying your videos! Not many I.33 experts, and I'm happy to see one who is as well-spoken as he is well-versed. Looking forward to seeing more videos!
Thanks for that. I'm completely new to the world of swordsmanship, thinking about starting out with 1.33 & you've just made the whole thing much less intimidating. I will probably rewatch this video several times. 👍
Really love your videos and your attitude, I'm not part of a club at the moment I am having a hard time finding one and even if I could because of the virus restrictions on gatherings it wouldn't do me much good but I have the book and am having to do pretty much just solo training, "shadow boxing" as you might say and pell work but your videos are an invaluable asset to me and I really like the no nonsense and pragmatic theology and point of view you bring to the table as well.
Sound wisdom, thanks for the insight. I agree that I.33 is just being general, even if it's own illustrations are it's own opinion of the optimum way. I've read the book twice, and still have a lot to learn
@@LondonLongsword Thanks for replying. I'm glad they help the cause. Do you have any opinion about the version of I.33 by Paul Wagner and Stephen Hand? It's the one I've been reading. Are there any other major interpretations of I.33? Are there any good sources for Bolognese sword and buckler or Lignitz? I think those are the 2 other main styles of sword and buckler I've heard of, and I'd like to get a take on the weapon set outside of I.33 at a later date. I'm big into self-defense in the Modern world, and it's cool to me (especially as a historian) how sword and buckler were the commoner's self-defense weapon set for centuries. So I want to learn them; even tho I'm more familiar with foil, katana, machete, longsword, etc.
I've not touched I.33 in a long time, but this video has reminded me of one thing: The inverted hand in 6th. I know it's drawn that way, but when I practiced, I never really felt this was a good way to hold the sword. Any downwards blow against it seems like it would threaten your grip on the weapon, since the gate of your hand is now facing upwards. How has this shown up in practice in your club?
As the sword is pulled back at this point I never really have an issue with it. There also is an edge on in artwork issue here potentially but I try to adopt it as shown for demonstration at the very least.
I haven't explored I.33 much myself but I find that this position makes a great deal of sense. That weird turn of the wrist might look like a small thing but it changes the alignment of the muscles all the way up the arm and into the shoulder so that it's much easier to bear the weight of the sword in that position for extended periods than if the long edge was facing outwards or downwards. Incidentally, it's quite similar to the position of the hand when holding a couched lance. It might also have something to do with how the sixte guard/parry in later French nomenclature is rather weak when made at a distance from the body but can suddenly become very strong and firm when done much closer in. And anybody trying to smack my sword downwards in that position would have to do so very close to my buckler -- which means that they're just asking for a Schiltslac and a poke in the chest or a smack in the thigh or knee. Assuming that the didn't just miss the sword and end up hitting the buckler instead, that is....
+LondonLongsword Yes I know its a little vague. Sorry about that, I couldn't think of a way to phrase it better. I'm also new to SNB soy understanding of it is limited. If you will be covering obsessio later I'll be looking out for it. Thank you.
sooo to the argument about wards being displayed too low too high or precise in i.33 people/or wankers ...seem to overlook the time in which it was produced and by whom. This is an era when perspective drawing was in its infancy. Simply by the fact that it is such an early representation voids any argument of "i.33 shows it precisely in angle X" . Having a background in history really helps putting these fencing manuals into perspective. Basically the images in i33 are like posing for your 8-12 year old and asking him to draw what he sees. We are still HUNDREDS OF YEARS away from 17th century precise drawing techniques!
I'm not a longsworder, and I've only got a reading familiarity with I.33, but you hit upon a very important point for all systems of combat. Getting muddled up in a distinction without a difference isn't helpful--a good lesson for all of us and well said.
I know we've talked about this before on Facebook and elsewhere, just figured I'd leave a comment here. I think this is absolutely spot on, especially that they are not specific instructed guard positions, but are a way to categorize enemy actions. A lot of people doing I.33 miss this.
This is really good. I'm not an expert on I.33, but from what I know about fencing with the Messer I would say I totally agree with your approach. (Nice Messer btw)
+Bastian Koppenhöfer Thank you:)
can u pls make a vid regarding bucklers? wanna know how diameter/size affects techniques. and what weight is too heavy/light to be safe and/or historically accurate
I'm doing what I can to learn I.33 at home and this honestly refreshing. It makes sense to me that the minutia to focus on, is not depicting exactly what you see in the manuscript, but rather delivering results that are actually effective in combat. (Moving without telegraphing, cutting and thrusting towards a target area, delivering movements with optimal speed, power and confidence, following through correctly to stay in a guard position, ready to deal with additional threats.)
this makes sense, it is tge way most southeast asian systems are built. the study of concepts, angles and leavers, rather than specific techniques. it tends to make you more versatile
Excellent! Cheers for the freedom of I33! Though it must be said a drunk Scott looked at the manuscript and glued the buckler to the sword to free up a drinkin hand. That is the true origin of the basket hilt.
Thankyou, I like your clean instructions and as novice this sort of information is so useful.
+Sean Archer Thank you.:)
Ser Davos, when he still had five fingers on his right hand.
On a more related note, I'm greatly enjoying your videos! Not many I.33 experts, and I'm happy to see one who is as well-spoken as he is well-versed. Looking forward to seeing more videos!
thank you:)
Thanks for that.
I'm completely new to the world of swordsmanship, thinking about starting out with 1.33 & you've just made the whole thing much less intimidating. I will probably rewatch this video several times. 👍
Really love your videos and your attitude, I'm not part of a club at the moment I am having a hard time finding one and even if I could because of the virus restrictions on gatherings it wouldn't do me much good but I have the book and am having to do pretty much just solo training, "shadow boxing" as you might say and pell work but your videos are an invaluable asset to me and I really like the no nonsense and pragmatic theology and point of view you bring to the table as well.
That's outstanding! Looking forward to more I.33 basics.
Sound wisdom, thanks for the insight. I agree that I.33 is just being general, even if it's own illustrations are it's own opinion of the optimum way. I've read the book twice, and still have a lot to learn
I have read it many times and still have a lot to learn:). Learning is great. Thanks for the comments:)
@@LondonLongsword Thanks for replying. I'm glad they help the cause. Do you have any opinion about the version of I.33 by Paul Wagner and Stephen Hand? It's the one I've been reading.
Are there any other major interpretations of I.33? Are there any good sources for Bolognese sword and buckler or Lignitz? I think those are the 2 other main styles of sword and buckler I've heard of, and I'd like to get a take on the weapon set outside of I.33 at a later date.
I'm big into self-defense in the Modern world, and it's cool to me (especially as a historian) how sword and buckler were the commoner's self-defense weapon set for centuries. So I want to learn them; even tho I'm more familiar with foil, katana, machete, longsword, etc.
Thank you for your video, hoping for more focusing on I:33.
Can I please coop "wanker" as a term both used and implied for all the jugglers?
Love the simple foundations with inclusion of variation of existing foundation and transitions between. Something that can be difficult to learn.
Hi Dave. Couldn't agree more re: variation in the wards (3:34 onward) . There is so much wank around
I've not touched I.33 in a long time, but this video has reminded me of one thing: The inverted hand in 6th. I know it's drawn that way, but when I practiced, I never really felt this was a good way to hold the sword. Any downwards blow against it seems like it would threaten your grip on the weapon, since the gate of your hand is now facing upwards. How has this shown up in practice in your club?
As the sword is pulled back at this point I never really have an issue with it. There also is an edge on in artwork issue here potentially but I try to adopt it as shown for demonstration at the very least.
+Michael Eversberg II My school believes this is an artifact of the art. It is a very uselessly complicated position of the wrist.
I haven't explored I.33 much myself but I find that this position makes a great deal of sense. That weird turn of the wrist might look like a small thing but it changes the alignment of the muscles all the way up the arm and into the shoulder so that it's much easier to bear the weight of the sword in that position for extended periods than if the long edge was facing outwards or downwards. Incidentally, it's quite similar to the position of the hand when holding a couched lance. It might also have something to do with how the sixte guard/parry in later French nomenclature is rather weak when made at a distance from the body but can suddenly become very strong and firm when done much closer in.
And anybody trying to smack my sword downwards in that position would have to do so very close to my buckler -- which means that they're just asking for a Schiltslac and a poke in the chest or a smack in the thigh or knee. Assuming that the didn't just miss the sword and end up hitting the buckler instead, that is....
Borislav Krustev so useless and complicated it became common in Rapier fencing and is used in sport fencing till today?
thanks you, i was wrong about the 5° ward, i thought the sword is on the left side, but that's the first ward
Very logical!
Do you feel that obsessio is also more fluid? Up, down slightly to the left or right?
+Ruben Trujillo That's a very vague question.:) Which one? I think they are adaptive. But I will go into them in the future.
+LondonLongsword Yes I know its a little vague. Sorry about that, I couldn't think of a way to phrase it better. I'm also new to SNB soy understanding of it is limited. If you will be covering obsessio later I'll be looking out for it. Thank you.
+Ruben Trujillo My pleasure, hopefully that will give us a better framework to understand each other.:)
What trainer is that messer?
sooo to the argument about wards being displayed too low too high or precise in i.33 people/or wankers ...seem to overlook the time in which it was produced and by whom.
This is an era when perspective drawing was in its infancy. Simply by the fact that it is such an early representation voids any argument of "i.33 shows it precisely in angle X" .
Having a background in history really helps putting these fencing manuals into perspective.
Basically the images in i33 are like posing for your 8-12 year old and asking him to draw what he sees.
We are still HUNDREDS OF YEARS away from 17th century precise drawing techniques!
I like how, out of all those nice arming swords you own, you've chosen to use a Messer in this demonstration
i would like to buy swords like the one you are using, where did it come from please?
+ethan murchie
Looks like one of regenyei's messer feders.
www.regenyei.com/en_messer.html
Ensifer :)
+Sad Panda They are Regenyeis, but they are not feders. "Feder" only reffers to specific type of longsword simulators. These are just blunt messers.
They are Ensifer.
+LondonLongsword thanks for the response, if only i were richer.
Talking good common sense once again thanks