I also wonder how much our shoes contribute. Fencing in traditional shoes with smooth leather soles would be incredibly different than fighting in modern rubber sole shoes. Almost universally, footwork was much more restrained before the invention of rubber and became more and more aggressive afterwards. Passing steps require much less friction on the sole than the lunge and recover style footwork of right foot forward thrust centric fencing.
Having worn reproductions of medieval shoes several times. As well as mostly having trained outdoors. My biggest take away has always been the difference in traction. To the point i can't imagine a historical person would want to rely on the types of deep advanced lunges we see in a lot of modern longsword and sabre tournaments. On top of how inherently risky thrusts would be in a context of sharp fighting with potential afterblows.
@@resolvedinsteel I Made a video years ago in which i lunge and do various stepping motions with sneakers on vs plain historical shoes with smooth leather underneath the feet and, honestly, the difference was there but not that much. The adjustment in terms of footwork would be relatively marginal. In my opinion, the nature of certain weapons (SeB, Longsword etc.) which makes the fencer being slightly more frontal influences the footwork far more than the material of sole of pur shoes. After all, most rapier, small sword and military saber treaties show relatively deep lunges even if they didn’t had rubber shoes.
They did not have rubber for sure. But they did often have hard shoes with raised heels. It is easier to make these types of shoes have more abrasive soles. But aside from that they have better availability to dig into soft ground, especially on heel first type advances and lunges that are common im 18th and 19th century fencing manuals. As for medieval footwear, i can only speak for what i have worn, and i do not claim to know enough about medieval footwear, to say how accurate either of our experiences were. So im fine calling my experience anacdotal at best.
@@Remainsofaruineddeadcursed-d7t I expect the ground material matters a lot. Leather can get really slippery on wet grass, which is quite different from dry grass. Sand, various types of mud, soil, gravel, cobbles, polished floors, wood, water, etc, in different weather and lighting and risks of interfering objects and sharp things and holes hidden in the leaves or grass are all period considerations that HEMA rarely addresses and all of which interact with different footwear materials and designs differently. Most modern HEMA attempts to control for that variable to take it out of the equation to isolate dueling skill, although by side effect it is isolating dueling skill in very specific conditions.
You can still do incredibly explosive footwork in historical shoes. For example a balestra lunge you can do in leather shoes even on ground like turf and grass. Conversely even in modern shoes lunges can be precarious in mud.
The concept "Sprechfenser" and the guard "Longpoint" are specifically this stance. Longpoint is noted as "The King of all Guards" and "This you may drive all techniques from the Long Point." Just as sporty as all the other 600+ year old guards 😊 Great video! Much to consider from different sources.
Addendum: Hands withdrawn is just a "weakened" version of this. (In reference to strong and weak from the glosses) whereas the normal longpoint would be the strengthening version. The images in the glosses show both.
Sprechfenster isn't a guard or position. It is a *_situation!_* Also, that isn't longguard. Longguard is not only further forward, but it also NEVER has the blade parallel to the ground!
@ZarlanTheGreen You are right in it being more of a concept than a physical guard. However the glosses mention long point as the guard you are using /during/ Sprechfenser. I would not think too rigidly about guards in that way the important thing is strengthening or weakening. Long Point in the glosses are shown in multiple different ways (extended vs not), as is Vom Tag etc. Long edge orientation is much more important when strengthening than weakening.
@@PoorMansHEMA In other words, the mention of Sprechfenster, in your comment, is wrong. Also, as I pointed out, Langort (Long point) has the arms/sword further forward ...and has the edges pointing up/down. *_NEVER_* with the flats pointing up/down. The guard that the video talks about, is not portrayed in any historical text or illustration, ever.
Also, I agree to another point-defense is first. Doubles and the like happen either due to unfortunate gambles by both parties, or by the much more frequent overaggressive decisions by the fencer. If you cannot make a prospective attack without getting doubled, wait, and wait for or set up an opening. Learning to recognize and distinguish viable openings that you have a good probability of successfully exploiting while maintaining your safety is the majority of fencing outside of athleticism and strategy. That mental balancing act is where many doubles and deaths lie.
If anything, I started to use this guard naturally, without "learning" to use it. It was just good for 3 reasons: 1. Yes, it is really fast for explosive thrusting attacks (e.g. lunges of fleches), yet not THAT much faster, than some other guards. Just more convenient. 2. It's faster to defend the middle lines without needing to turn the edges for binding (cause it's hard to do with bulky gloves). Again -- not that much faster, but much more convenient. 3. And this is the main point -- it's safer for my opponent. If I do explosive thrust with my edges angled against the ground -- sword won't flex as well and the impact will be MUCH harder, yet it won't give me any significant advantages. Therefore, if I want to defeat my opponent with thrusts -- that's literally the best position for me (and for him)
Interestingly enough Pietro Monti doesn’t tell you to use a specific guard, however he says to always keep your sword extended in the direction of your opponent basically longpoint
In my club we use the wide open foot stance guard (as we were kind of riding a horse) and alternate with the "sporty" guard precisely for what we want to do during the sparring. As someone who likes to thrust a lot from Lang-Ort, with lunge, passing step or flèche as a direct attack or compound (thrust --> zwerch), the "sporty" guard is preferred.
Premesso che tutto il discorso di Federico lo trovo ineccepibile, esiste un modo semplice per disincentivare lunghi affondi anche nella scherma storica contemporanea: andare a tirare su terreni naturali morbidi e/o sdrucciolevoli. Se si tira su ghiaia, calcestre o erba umida - senza arrivare a casi estremi come terreni fangosi - è difficile non rendersi conto di come con affondi lunghi e per di più con i talloni in linea vi sia un alto rischio di scivolare e finire col culo per terra, con tutto quel che ne consegue (visto succedere più di una volta). Poi, connesso a questo, ci sarebbe anche un altro discorso da fare sul diverso modo di impostare la camminata dovuto alla enorme differenza tra le calzature del '4/500 e quelle che indossiamo noi oggi.
It's so good that you made this video. I got into so many fights trying to defend why modern competition oriented fencing should be allowed to be different than fencing according to the old manuals. Coming from kendo this seemed obvious to me, since they have a clear differentiation between the kata (forms = old manuals) and shiai (point oriented fencing = competition) but a lot of HEMAists online and in my club disagreed and fear the "sportification" of the art
@@akakitai1110 I would say that it’s not that different to be honest. I never seen a technique landed in tournament which is not recorded in a manual. But! We have modern tools and methods of approaching training! And so we are able to do more of certain things which back then we’re harder to practice!
If the conditions of your fight are always highly symmetrical, formal/ritualized, on level homogeneous ground, no confined spaces or other people as a factor, and very reliable grip on the ground from appropriate footwear-that is, similar conditions to formal rapier duels-it is then unsurprising that it ends up resembling rapier duels. These sorts of linear micro-movements looking to bait or exploit miniscule openings and distance disparities are generally what you get in that context. Sporty? Arguably. More like what you get in any sort of symmetrical dueling scenario, though. If the other person's weapon was significantly different or the ground was different or there were more people involved etc, it would look different.
Any sport position has historic form. And way, we can use that moves at any situation of fencing (with armor or without). Well, Long position in Germany fencing close to this and I don't understand where the problem
From a German tradition standpoint, it's just the bastard of sprechfenster and plow. Very historical. However, it is a bad plow. The plow closes several attack lines while this guard does not. Still, both have similar attack options. Therefore, I would prefer the plow over that guard. But I guess on 100 exchanges, you may get 2 points more because of removing some attack lines. Footwork, Tempo, Rythm, Athletism is all far more important then having the correct guard.
@@chrisb.7877 admittedly I prefer centered guards rather than side ones when I keep the weapon in front! But this is personal preference, not related with the video.
From what I understand, Sprechfenser can be withdrawn just like longpoint. Depends on if you are weakening or strengthening. In the case of a weak Sprech you are often just staying flexible to your opponents provoking or takings
I mean.....fencing and dueling is inherently sporty. Even in the concept of dueling historicly over disputes, you are attempting to "prove" something. That in itself is sporty. That being said, something being sporty doesn't take away from the skill or practicality of it. I don't think anyone is going to argue that an american football athlete's ability to take down an opponent isn't practical in any way. The same concept applies here. That guard still employs the important concepts of point the danger at the opponent, keep your feet in a stable position, and have the versatility to move and adapt to the situation.
@@evmarekaj I agree on the fact that dueling is sporty. Even if people may get wounded or worse, it’s anyway an highly ruled and consensual violence context.
@FedericoMalagutti exactly, and I don't in any way mean to reduce the practice or the concept of it readying people for combat. As that is the original purpose of sport.
There are two more reasons why you don't see this guard as much in historical treatises that come to my mind. First one is footwork, you won't always be able to do it the way this guard likes to. Those short steps combined with sudden, powerful lunges work well on some terrain, but not so much on others. Some cases where it won't work are rather extreme, e.g. in decently deep water (then and again, we all know what happened at, say, Nikopolis), but you'll have a hard time to use it in sand, mud, snow or on a decent slope (in any direction, not just uphill or downhill) and you can forget about it on stairs. And very few people in HEMA and re-enactment have any experience with fighting on those surfaces because, frankly, it's not very safe to do with steel weapons and at speed. Slipping on stairs and impaling your face on your opponent's spear is not particularly fun. You do see fights in weird terrain during some LARPs, because the padded foam weapons make them a hell of a lot safer, but I've seen enough people sprain their ankle, dislocate their knee or just stumble and fall into a ditch to be very careful about maintaining my situational awareness. The second reason is that posta breva kind of sucks against anything that isn't a sword of similar or smaller size, with at most a buckler. Shields offer you a geometric shadow that is so large only a very extreme (and therefore short) imbrocata can reach you, and spears are far better at thrusting and binding than you are. You are better off staying well outside of measure and go forward very quickly once you enter, and a single lunge can't do that very well, so you're better off with passing steps - to a point where almost everyone fighting sword vs spear starts to use passing footwork once they manage to get past the point no matter what stance they used before it happened. That said, while you do need other tools for situations where this guard doesn't work... when it works, it works, and I think that it was used when appropriate historically. You had a lot more places where you fought back then than indoor tournaments or grassy fields in front of a nearby castle where the audience can see you - but if you happened to have one of those, Italian-city-state-under-siege-style, this guard was pretty good.
I do a lot of fencing on bad terrain and/or in armor. I have found that if it is really bad outside (rocky, snow, mud, flooded) either careful walking-like steps or small shuffle steps and lunges work well with wet or rocky terrain. Long large passing steps and explosive lunges can still work really well in grass and dirt etc unless it is extreme. The sources to my understanding do not have these in consideration and terrain is left to your discretion. Meyer is almost exclusively trained in fencing Salles
@@PoorMansHEMA Well, it depends on what we call lunge, the conservative one where you put your front foot about one foot-length forwards works well everywhere, but if you want to do a really deep one, or the Fabian-lunge where you do 2-3 small lunges without moving your back foot will get you in trouble. As for Meyer... it's a question where your focus lies, I think. Modern HEMA is almost exclusively focused on duels on flat ground, Fiore was IMO the ultimate generalist, Meyer was more focused on duels on flat ground, but not quite as much, early Destreza is IMO for duels on polished floors and Godinho is for being as much of a bastard as you can. It's a sliding scale, and every system (modern or historical) picked an area of focus and then told you "and then modify it a bit to adapt".
@MartinGreywolf Terrain in the glosses is only mentioned on horseback. We have to remember they were written about fencing, not the battlefield. There are plenty instances and examples of what would be "explosive" movements in the glosses. My point of bringing up Meyer is his writings take place in a fencing hall and he changes very little about the foorwork.
One big evolution is Modern shoes who help a lot for a variety of movement specially lunge.... Try to perform it whit leather sole shoes like ancestors and it will give another sense of how thing were at the time sword were in use
I do this stance naturally when i fence competitively, so it was great to see you explain it! It just feels like a good ready position. Sometimes i call it "lazy longpoint."
@@TBoneHEMA if you want to make a little experiment, try to organize an informal tournament at your club where thrusting is forbidden. You’ll see how naturally people switch to other natural positions related to the context ;-)
Longpoint should not be static, just like all positions and guards! You are not being lazy you are doing it right! (Provided you know how to extend from Longpoint correctly😂)
@PoorMansHEMA getting comfortable switching guards and keeping things moving is still something I'm trying to get baked into my muscle memory. I'm decent at it, but I want to get really comfortable with my options.
@TBoneHEMA I recommend moving when appropriate rather than moving just to move. I stand on Longpoint mostly and switch if I need to depending on where I need to strengthen or where they cut/thrust. Cut to head? Take in plow and thrust. They want to push on my blade? Either wind in ox or zucken over and hit on the same line.
Your arguments about RFF being better than LFF for modern fencing do not hold water, because there are plenty of high level LFF fencers, such as Ties Kool, Mikko Lehto, Pavel Dostal, Lubomir Peciva, Arto Fama, JW Pugnetti, and more. If RFF were actually objectively better, there would be no LFF top players. There are more RFF players at all levels, because more people play RFF, possibly because of the incorrect reasons that you are stating in this video. I personally don't care if someone fences RFF, I think it's a fine way to fence, but I think defending it as more practical for modern fencing is incorrect.
@@OveranalyzingLongsword uhm, I never said it’s impractical, I simply state that on average it seems more comfortable. There are good fencer which performs well with LFF as much as there are good south paws in boxing as similar context in my opinion.
How is it not a sporty guard, when it is clear that it doesn't exist anywhere, in any HEMA treatise? The guard that is most similar to it, except that they *_never have the blade held horizontally,_* is Meyer's Pflug ...which is from a time and place, where longswords were no longer used in actual combat. That, or Fiore's Posta Breve, which he says should only be used, when in armour. In other word: There is no period evidence, for the use of that guard. Not even if you don't keep the blade parallel to the ground.
@@ZarlanTheGreen Fiore says that breve is “better in armor than without armor”, but he presents it in the unarmed section for a clear reason. Anyway, it is precisely about this subject that my talking about context of training and application refers too. It’s not a sporty guard, is a guard you can use today because you have the tools and methods to make it useful.
If you think Meyer is anything sporty then you just don't understand his material. Plus longswords were still prime dueling weapon at that time. Meyer calls it one of the common weapons of the german people.
How would an illustration show a perfectly parallel blade? It shows up in the German tradition all the time. The glosses show plenty of Long Point positions both extended AND not extended. The long edge being aligned matters more when extending and strengthening than when weak or weakening.
@@FedericoMalagutti The guard you show, *_is neither breve, nor Meyer's Pflug!_* There is no historical portrayal, in text or illustration, of that guard, where the flats, rather than the edges, are pointing up and down. (I realise that my statement of "held horizontally", was... unclear, to say the least) If it wasn't useful or popular, and indeed was *_never actually used,_* in actual swordfighting in the Middle Ages, but is only useful in modern day HEMA tournaments... How is that not the *_very definition,_* of a sporty guard?
@@Chroma710 In Meyer's time, swords had long since ceased being a weapon used in battle or duels. It was only used in two contexts: 1. Fencing schools, and 2. street fights. #1 being sport, and #2 being done, more-or-less, within the peculiar confines of the peculiar laws, in that time and place, which made it look *_very_* different, to sword-fighting in any other context.
Modern gear does seem to make people more "suicidal" and less considerate of the partner's safety 🤔 Many techniques we see in tournaments wouldn't apply in duels, not for long anyway 🌚
@@catastrofista well, this is partially the truth. Double death and people hurting each other did always exist. We would simply make other errors than the ones they made because we train differently and so we have different outcomes. I generally have a small number of doubles. And even in competitions, where the goal is different and sometimes the double encouraged by some ruleset, I find myself pretty low on doubles. So it’s not the gear necessarily. And I fence as I would in any context, in technical terms! Because I can’t honestly figure out a better way to do it. But maybe I would change idea after being lucky enough to survive a hypothetical real duel. But no one has this experience nowadays.
@FedericoMalagutti I think that people who get less doubles are better fencers, even if they score less hits that some more agressive people. To me it feels like the suicidal heavy hitting ones are cheating. Although you could say that hitting someone with no restraint is an "ability" 🙄
If a tournament ruleset allows it, how can it be cheating? If trying to simulate martial fencing, what in the context of war is cheating? Or is it that because you dislike someone beating your technique with athleticism, because you do not like that technique is dependent on the athleticism to be effective, and without it can be nearly useless by comparison? If you have a 4th explanation im curious, because it seems like it has to be one of the 3
NOOO FEDE!!!! IF YOU DON’T ENTER STRIKING DISTANCE WITH YOUR SWORD ENTIRELY BEHIND YOUR BACK THE ART IS DEAD!!!!!
@@nathanielmaxner8884 lol
Coda Longa Gang!!! :D
Kek
I also wonder how much our shoes contribute. Fencing in traditional shoes with smooth leather soles would be incredibly different than fighting in modern rubber sole shoes. Almost universally, footwork was much more restrained before the invention of rubber and became more and more aggressive afterwards. Passing steps require much less friction on the sole than the lunge and recover style footwork of right foot forward thrust centric fencing.
Having worn reproductions of medieval shoes several times. As well as mostly having trained outdoors. My biggest take away has always been the difference in traction. To the point i can't imagine a historical person would want to rely on the types of deep advanced lunges we see in a lot of modern longsword and sabre tournaments. On top of how inherently risky thrusts would be in a context of sharp fighting with potential afterblows.
@@resolvedinsteel I Made a video years ago in which i lunge and do various stepping motions with sneakers on vs plain historical shoes with smooth leather underneath the feet and, honestly, the difference was there but not that much.
The adjustment in terms of footwork would be relatively marginal. In my opinion, the nature of certain weapons (SeB, Longsword etc.) which makes the fencer being slightly more frontal influences the footwork far more than the material of sole of pur shoes. After all, most rapier, small sword and military saber treaties show relatively deep lunges even if they didn’t had rubber shoes.
They did not have rubber for sure. But they did often have hard shoes with raised heels.
It is easier to make these types of shoes have more abrasive soles. But aside from that they have better availability to dig into soft ground, especially on heel first type advances and lunges that are common im 18th and 19th century fencing manuals.
As for medieval footwear, i can only speak for what i have worn, and i do not claim to know enough about medieval footwear, to say how accurate either of our experiences were. So im fine calling my experience anacdotal at best.
@@Remainsofaruineddeadcursed-d7t I expect the ground material matters a lot. Leather can get really slippery on wet grass, which is quite different from dry grass. Sand, various types of mud, soil, gravel, cobbles, polished floors, wood, water, etc, in different weather and lighting and risks of interfering objects and sharp things and holes hidden in the leaves or grass are all period considerations that HEMA rarely addresses and all of which interact with different footwear materials and designs differently. Most modern HEMA attempts to control for that variable to take it out of the equation to isolate dueling skill, although by side effect it is isolating dueling skill in very specific conditions.
You can still do incredibly explosive footwork in historical shoes. For example a balestra lunge you can do in leather shoes even on ground like turf and grass. Conversely even in modern shoes lunges can be precarious in mud.
The concept "Sprechfenser" and the guard "Longpoint" are specifically this stance. Longpoint is noted as "The King of all Guards" and "This you may drive all techniques from the Long Point." Just as sporty as all the other 600+ year old guards 😊 Great video! Much to consider from different sources.
@@PoorMansHEMA agreed!
Addendum: Hands withdrawn is just a "weakened" version of this. (In reference to strong and weak from the glosses) whereas the normal longpoint would be the strengthening version. The images in the glosses show both.
Sprechfenster isn't a guard or position. It is a *_situation!_* Also, that isn't longguard. Longguard is not only further forward, but it also NEVER has the blade parallel to the ground!
@ZarlanTheGreen You are right in it being more of a concept than a physical guard. However the glosses mention long point as the guard you are using /during/ Sprechfenser. I would not think too rigidly about guards in that way the important thing is strengthening or weakening. Long Point in the glosses are shown in multiple different ways (extended vs not), as is Vom Tag etc. Long edge orientation is much more important when strengthening than weakening.
@@PoorMansHEMA In other words, the mention of Sprechfenster, in your comment, is wrong. Also, as I pointed out, Langort (Long point) has the arms/sword further forward ...and has the edges pointing up/down. *_NEVER_* with the flats pointing up/down. The guard that the video talks about, is not portrayed in any historical text or illustration, ever.
4:09 "Look honey! Its the crazy guy with the sword talking to his imaginary friend again."
@@danielt.5337 AHAHAHAHAHAH
Also, I agree to another point-defense is first. Doubles and the like happen either due to unfortunate gambles by both parties, or by the much more frequent overaggressive decisions by the fencer. If you cannot make a prospective attack without getting doubled, wait, and wait for or set up an opening. Learning to recognize and distinguish viable openings that you have a good probability of successfully exploiting while maintaining your safety is the majority of fencing outside of athleticism and strategy. That mental balancing act is where many doubles and deaths lie.
If anything, I started to use this guard naturally, without "learning" to use it. It was just good for 3 reasons:
1. Yes, it is really fast for explosive thrusting attacks (e.g. lunges of fleches), yet not THAT much faster, than some other guards. Just more convenient.
2. It's faster to defend the middle lines without needing to turn the edges for binding (cause it's hard to do with bulky gloves). Again -- not that much faster, but much more convenient.
3. And this is the main point -- it's safer for my opponent. If I do explosive thrust with my edges angled against the ground -- sword won't flex as well and the impact will be MUCH harder, yet it won't give me any significant advantages.
Therefore, if I want to defeat my opponent with thrusts -- that's literally the best position for me (and for him)
@@justpassing2533 agreed
Interestingly enough Pietro Monti doesn’t tell you to use a specific guard, however he says to always keep your sword extended in the direction of your opponent basically longpoint
0:27 Italian intensifies 🤌🤌🤌
@@CoolDugong lol
In my club we use the wide open foot stance guard (as we were kind of riding a horse) and alternate with the "sporty" guard precisely for what we want to do during the sparring. As someone who likes to thrust a lot from Lang-Ort, with lunge, passing step or flèche as a direct attack or compound (thrust --> zwerch), the "sporty" guard is preferred.
Premesso che tutto il discorso di Federico lo trovo ineccepibile, esiste un modo semplice per disincentivare lunghi affondi anche nella scherma storica contemporanea: andare a tirare su terreni naturali morbidi e/o sdrucciolevoli. Se si tira su ghiaia, calcestre o erba umida - senza arrivare a casi estremi come terreni fangosi - è difficile non rendersi conto di come con affondi lunghi e per di più con i talloni in linea vi sia un alto rischio di scivolare e finire col culo per terra, con tutto quel che ne consegue (visto succedere più di una volta). Poi, connesso a questo, ci sarebbe anche un altro discorso da fare sul diverso modo di impostare la camminata dovuto alla enorme differenza tra le calzature del '4/500 e quelle che indossiamo noi oggi.
@@scassoniostrarompi1691 ah io ci tiro sempre in quei contesti! Fai cose un po’ meno esagerate si, non tantissimo! Però meno.
It's so good that you made this video. I got into so many fights trying to defend why modern competition oriented fencing should be allowed to be different than fencing according to the old manuals. Coming from kendo this seemed obvious to me, since they have a clear differentiation between the kata (forms = old manuals) and shiai (point oriented fencing = competition) but a lot of HEMAists online and in my club disagreed and fear the "sportification" of the art
@@akakitai1110 I would say that it’s not that different to be honest. I never seen a technique landed in tournament which is not recorded in a manual. But! We have modern tools and methods of approaching training! And so we are able to do more of certain things which back then we’re harder to practice!
If the conditions of your fight are always highly symmetrical, formal/ritualized, on level homogeneous ground, no confined spaces or other people as a factor, and very reliable grip on the ground from appropriate footwear-that is, similar conditions to formal rapier duels-it is then unsurprising that it ends up resembling rapier duels. These sorts of linear micro-movements looking to bait or exploit miniscule openings and distance disparities are generally what you get in that context.
Sporty? Arguably. More like what you get in any sort of symmetrical dueling scenario, though. If the other person's weapon was significantly different or the ground was different or there were more people involved etc, it would look different.
Any sport position has historic form. And way, we can use that moves at any situation of fencing (with armor or without). Well, Long position in Germany fencing close to this and I don't understand where the problem
Good video! I found it very insightful
@@Laikadykedog thanks!
Nice class my friend.
Thank you!
Hello Hema friends!!!😊😊
Hey!!! 👋
From a German tradition standpoint, it's just the bastard of sprechfenster and plow. Very historical. However, it is a bad plow. The plow closes several attack lines while this guard does not. Still, both have similar attack options. Therefore, I would prefer the plow over that guard. But I guess on 100 exchanges, you may get 2 points more because of removing some attack lines. Footwork, Tempo, Rythm, Athletism is all far more important then having the correct guard.
@@chrisb.7877 admittedly I prefer centered guards rather than side ones when I keep the weapon in front! But this is personal preference, not related with the video.
From what I understand, Sprechfenser can be withdrawn just like longpoint. Depends on if you are weakening or strengthening. In the case of a weak Sprech you are often just staying flexible to your opponents provoking or takings
I mean.....fencing and dueling is inherently sporty. Even in the concept of dueling historicly over disputes, you are attempting to "prove" something. That in itself is sporty.
That being said, something being sporty doesn't take away from the skill or practicality of it. I don't think anyone is going to argue that an american football athlete's ability to take down an opponent isn't practical in any way. The same concept applies here.
That guard still employs the important concepts of point the danger at the opponent, keep your feet in a stable position, and have the versatility to move and adapt to the situation.
@@evmarekaj I agree on the fact that dueling is sporty. Even if people may get wounded or worse, it’s anyway an highly ruled and consensual violence context.
@FedericoMalagutti exactly, and I don't in any way mean to reduce the practice or the concept of it readying people for combat. As that is the original purpose of sport.
@@evmarekaj agreed
There are two more reasons why you don't see this guard as much in historical treatises that come to my mind.
First one is footwork, you won't always be able to do it the way this guard likes to. Those short steps combined with sudden, powerful lunges work well on some terrain, but not so much on others. Some cases where it won't work are rather extreme, e.g. in decently deep water (then and again, we all know what happened at, say, Nikopolis), but you'll have a hard time to use it in sand, mud, snow or on a decent slope (in any direction, not just uphill or downhill) and you can forget about it on stairs.
And very few people in HEMA and re-enactment have any experience with fighting on those surfaces because, frankly, it's not very safe to do with steel weapons and at speed. Slipping on stairs and impaling your face on your opponent's spear is not particularly fun. You do see fights in weird terrain during some LARPs, because the padded foam weapons make them a hell of a lot safer, but I've seen enough people sprain their ankle, dislocate their knee or just stumble and fall into a ditch to be very careful about maintaining my situational awareness.
The second reason is that posta breva kind of sucks against anything that isn't a sword of similar or smaller size, with at most a buckler. Shields offer you a geometric shadow that is so large only a very extreme (and therefore short) imbrocata can reach you, and spears are far better at thrusting and binding than you are. You are better off staying well outside of measure and go forward very quickly once you enter, and a single lunge can't do that very well, so you're better off with passing steps - to a point where almost everyone fighting sword vs spear starts to use passing footwork once they manage to get past the point no matter what stance they used before it happened.
That said, while you do need other tools for situations where this guard doesn't work... when it works, it works, and I think that it was used when appropriate historically. You had a lot more places where you fought back then than indoor tournaments or grassy fields in front of a nearby castle where the audience can see you - but if you happened to have one of those, Italian-city-state-under-siege-style, this guard was pretty good.
@@MartinGreywolf true!
I do a lot of fencing on bad terrain and/or in armor. I have found that if it is really bad outside (rocky, snow, mud, flooded) either careful walking-like steps or small shuffle steps and lunges work well with wet or rocky terrain. Long large passing steps and explosive lunges can still work really well in grass and dirt etc unless it is extreme. The sources to my understanding do not have these in consideration and terrain is left to your discretion. Meyer is almost exclusively trained in fencing Salles
@@PoorMansHEMA Well, it depends on what we call lunge, the conservative one where you put your front foot about one foot-length forwards works well everywhere, but if you want to do a really deep one, or the Fabian-lunge where you do 2-3 small lunges without moving your back foot will get you in trouble.
As for Meyer... it's a question where your focus lies, I think. Modern HEMA is almost exclusively focused on duels on flat ground, Fiore was IMO the ultimate generalist, Meyer was more focused on duels on flat ground, but not quite as much, early Destreza is IMO for duels on polished floors and Godinho is for being as much of a bastard as you can. It's a sliding scale, and every system (modern or historical) picked an area of focus and then told you "and then modify it a bit to adapt".
@MartinGreywolf Terrain in the glosses is only mentioned on horseback. We have to remember they were written about fencing, not the battlefield. There are plenty instances and examples of what would be "explosive" movements in the glosses. My point of bringing up Meyer is his writings take place in a fencing hall and he changes very little about the foorwork.
Addendum: WE see that position all the time in German sources. I cannot speak to other traditions.
One big evolution is Modern shoes who help a lot for a variety of movement specially lunge.... Try to perform it whit leather sole shoes like ancestors and it will give another sense of how thing were at the time sword were in use
HEMA dinosaurs would cope and seethe if they saw this.
I do this stance naturally when i fence competitively, so it was great to see you explain it! It just feels like a good ready position.
Sometimes i call it "lazy longpoint."
@@TBoneHEMA if you want to make a little experiment, try to organize an informal tournament at your club where thrusting is forbidden. You’ll see how naturally people switch to other natural positions related to the context ;-)
@@FedericoMalaguttiOoh that's an interesting idea. I'll see if my club would be interested!
Longpoint should not be static, just like all positions and guards! You are not being lazy you are doing it right! (Provided you know how to extend from Longpoint correctly😂)
@PoorMansHEMA getting comfortable switching guards and keeping things moving is still something I'm trying to get baked into my muscle memory. I'm decent at it, but I want to get really comfortable with my options.
@TBoneHEMA I recommend moving when appropriate rather than moving just to move. I stand on Longpoint mostly and switch if I need to depending on where I need to strengthen or where they cut/thrust. Cut to head? Take in plow and thrust. They want to push on my blade? Either wind in ox or zucken over and hit on the same line.
Your arguments about RFF being better than LFF for modern fencing do not hold water, because there are plenty of high level LFF fencers, such as Ties Kool, Mikko Lehto, Pavel Dostal, Lubomir Peciva, Arto Fama, JW Pugnetti, and more. If RFF were actually objectively better, there would be no LFF top players. There are more RFF players at all levels, because more people play RFF, possibly because of the incorrect reasons that you are stating in this video. I personally don't care if someone fences RFF, I think it's a fine way to fence, but I think defending it as more practical for modern fencing is incorrect.
@@OveranalyzingLongsword uhm, I never said it’s impractical, I simply state that on average it seems more comfortable.
There are good fencer which performs well with LFF as much as there are good south paws in boxing as similar context in my opinion.
How is it not a sporty guard, when it is clear that it doesn't exist anywhere, in any HEMA treatise?
The guard that is most similar to it, except that they *_never have the blade held horizontally,_* is Meyer's Pflug ...which is from a time and place, where longswords were no longer used in actual combat. That, or Fiore's Posta Breve, which he says should only be used, when in armour. In other word: There is no period evidence, for the use of that guard. Not even if you don't keep the blade parallel to the ground.
@@ZarlanTheGreen Fiore says that breve is “better in armor than without armor”, but he presents it in the unarmed section for a clear reason. Anyway, it is precisely about this subject that my talking about context of training and application refers too.
It’s not a sporty guard, is a guard you can use today because you have the tools and methods to make it useful.
If you think Meyer is anything sporty then you just don't understand his material. Plus longswords were still prime dueling weapon at that time. Meyer calls it one of the common weapons of the german people.
How would an illustration show a perfectly parallel blade? It shows up in the German tradition all the time. The glosses show plenty of Long Point positions both extended AND not extended. The long edge being aligned matters more when extending and strengthening than when weak or weakening.
@@FedericoMalagutti The guard you show, *_is neither breve, nor Meyer's Pflug!_* There is no historical portrayal, in text or illustration, of that guard, where the flats, rather than the edges, are pointing up and down. (I realise that my statement of "held horizontally", was... unclear, to say the least)
If it wasn't useful or popular, and indeed was *_never actually used,_* in actual swordfighting in the Middle Ages, but is only useful in modern day HEMA tournaments... How is that not the *_very definition,_* of a sporty guard?
@@Chroma710 In Meyer's time, swords had long since ceased being a weapon used in battle or duels. It was only used in two contexts: 1. Fencing schools, and 2. street fights. #1 being sport, and #2 being done, more-or-less, within the peculiar confines of the peculiar laws, in that time and place, which made it look *_very_* different, to sword-fighting in any other context.
Modern gear does seem to make people more "suicidal" and less considerate of the partner's safety 🤔
Many techniques we see in tournaments wouldn't apply in duels, not for long anyway 🌚
@@catastrofista well, this is partially the truth. Double death and people hurting each other did always exist. We would simply make other errors than the ones they made because we train differently and so we have different outcomes.
I generally have a small number of doubles. And even in competitions, where the goal is different and sometimes the double encouraged by some ruleset, I find myself pretty low on doubles. So it’s not the gear necessarily.
And I fence as I would in any context, in technical terms! Because I can’t honestly figure out a better way to do it. But maybe I would change idea after being lucky enough to survive a hypothetical real duel. But no one has this experience nowadays.
@FedericoMalagutti I think that people who get less doubles are better fencers, even if they score less hits that some more agressive people.
To me it feels like the suicidal heavy hitting ones are cheating. Although you could say that hitting someone with no restraint is an "ability" 🙄
Which techniques wouldnt apply in duels that apply in tournaments?
If a tournament ruleset allows it, how can it be cheating? If trying to simulate martial fencing, what in the context of war is cheating?
Or is it that because you dislike someone beating your technique with athleticism, because you do not like that technique is dependent on the athleticism to be effective, and without it can be nearly useless by comparison?
If you have a 4th explanation im curious, because it seems like it has to be one of the 3
Gear gives us the ability to fail without great consequence. And all the good and bad that comes with that.