Talk:German school of fencing

Untitled
This deals with Lichtenauer's system to the exclusion of others. It's an excellent article on that topic, but it presents material as though it were true of all German masters when in fact it is specific to those operating closely in accordance with Lichtenauer. Maybe we could add material to cover other masters, or at least a note at the top of each subheading describing in general the changes later masters made to Lichtenauer's system?

Zabieru 05:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * of course! the article is far from finished, and lots of information should be added. Feel free to improve it! dab (&#5839;) 14:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vor and Nach
Vor and Nach are more terms of timing, not nessisarily of attack and defense. I'm mostly from the Tobler side of things. Anyone have something agaisnt the two possible translations in the article?

Vor and nach are positions of time of which to react to your opponent. The vor is when you respond before your opponent has started his attack. The nach is when you are responding after the attack has already been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarquisCthulhu (talk • contribs) 08:15, 16 June 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. This article isn't more than a very brief writeup, and I still haven't got round to expanding it. So you are very welcome to elaborate the terms. As you say, the vor is a position of advantage, because you do not so much react, but rather force your opponent to react. But note that other systems of combat see it exactly the other way round (e.g. kendo, jogo do pau, I believe), where it is held that the one who attacks first has the disadvantage because he has to expose himself. dab (&#5839;) 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Vor and nach are exactly the same as debana and nuki in kendo. In vor, you strike at the moment when the opponent begins his action. In nach, you dodge and strike at the moment when the opponent's strike would hit you. Indes attack means simultaneous attack with opponent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.107 (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Book Publishers
At the bottom of the article there was a commertial link to one of the main publishers of books related to the subject of this article. I move the link into a list of Book Publishers and added a link to another publisher who also produced books on the subject. I know that commertial links are normally removed. As I have purchased books from both of these publishers and know the owner of one, I don't claim to unbias. Thus, I leave the decision to keep or move these links to someone with a NPOV on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the chivalry bookshelf link is certainly fine, since that is a notable publisher dedicated to the topic. I am less sure about paladin, since that appears to be a publisher dealing with martial arts in general? Maybe they have some HEMA-specific subpage we could link to? (ᛎ) qɐp 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Eisenport
Eisenport: 'iron door', mentioned in 3227a as a non-Liechtenauerian ward, identical to the porta di ferro of the Italian school Why is Eisenport non-Liechtenauerian. Almost all of the itailian posta have German equivalents, why is eisenport different? Also, 3227a is the origonal Liechtenauer merkeverse, isn't Eisenport mentioned in Meyer or at least Mair? This ought to be examined and expanded. Sethwoodworth 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mordhau
I'm not familiar enough to include it myself, but it seems that Mordhau should be included somewhere in this article. --mordicai. 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * so it should, in a section on Harnischfechten. dab (𒁳) 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Schielhau
The original statements on the Schielhau were confusing and based upon a very weak understanding of the cut. I added a clear statement on the cut with a reference to a recent article by Bartholomew Walczak, who is one of the authors of the The Codex Wallerstein : A Medieval Fighting Book from the Fifteenth Century on the Longsword, Falchion, Dagger, and Wrestling and a Senior ARMA Researcher. Yet for some reason the article was changed back to a statement that is self-acknowledging about being confused. I have again changed to a more clear statement with a reference. If anyone wishes to add to the statement then please do so only if you have a valid reference.Ranp 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the description back and then added to it substantially. My objective was to provide a description that better reflects the several different variations of schielhau that appear in several sources (notably the von Danzig).  The description you provided is a clear and accurate description but only of one version of the schiel.  This is based upon the translation by Jeffery Forgeng and Jeff Tsay and which has been recently updated.  Alas, I will not have access to the reference until next Friday.  If you have a better way of describing schiel that incorporates its variety then I would glad for the improvement. Mercutio.Wilder 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The interpretation of the Schielhau by Bartholomew Walczak and Jacob Norwood is based on all of the Geman manuals, including Von Danzig, Ringeck, Meyer, Mair, etc. The statement I provided is general enough so that it does cover all variations.  Please keep in mind that all of the variations in the description of the Schielhau are describing a single false edge cut that can be used in many situations and contexts.  It is just a false edge Oberhau, not a feint!Ranp 18:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

vom Tag
Mercutio, I hope that I am not seeing the start of a pattern where anytime I make an edit you quickly changed it. In any case, you have suggested that the image on the page should be taken as literal, thus you edited my statement to say that the blade should be held verticle. The problem with this is that if you taken the image of any one guard as literal then you must also take the images of all the other guards as literal. Therefore, when you suggest that the blade angle in the vom Tag image is literal you are also indirectly suggesting that: So, given the problems with the images that I outlined are you still wanting to treat the image as literal?
 * in the vom Tag guard the false edge guard is held up under the arm pit with the chin pointing at the adversary?
 * in the Ochs guard the hilt is held way over the head with all of the body weight on a bent rear leg and the front leg pointed straight out?
 * in the Pflug guard the left shoulder is dislocated so that the hilt & guards can be held behing the read hilt?

By the way Mercutio, what is your name? Ranp 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My conclusion that vom Tag should be held vertically or horizontally is based on many sources, I simply cited the included picture as one clear example. For instance every single picture of vom Tag in the article you cited shows it either vertical or horizontal.  I don't have to take every element of every picture literally to reach this conclusion.  I simply weight heavily those characteristics that appear many times i.e. the vertical or horizontal position.


 * As to the interpretation of images:
 * "*in the vom Tag guard the false edge guard is held up under the arm pit with the chin pointing at the adversary?"
 * The first part I find believable and the second part is a known idiosyncrasy of Medieval art. For instance every person in Fiore faces the center of the book.
 * "*in the Ochs guard the hilt is held way over the head with all of the body weight on a bent rear leg and the front leg pointed straight out?"
 * I see nothing wrong with this. Not everyone illustrates Ochs thus so maybe it is simply one of  many ways to hold ochs.  It is physically possible and a tactically sound option.
 * "*in the Pflug guard the left shoulder is dislocated so that the hilt & guards can be held behing the read hilt?"
 * Here more interpretation of the image is necessary. We must conclude that the position of the sword is correct (as that matches the text) but the arms are badly drawn.  As it is possible to have the sword in the position shown without doing that to ones shoulder I can accept the image as descriptive of where to hold the sword (even if not how to hold my arms).  Multiple images, cross-referenced with text allows this image to be more useful than taking it literally on its own.


 * I don't suggest each image should be studied in isolation or taken literally, instead the body of images tells a more complete story. The complete understanding is determined from analysis of the similarities and differences among many sources. Mercutio.Wilder 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Literature
I removed the names of three books that have not yet been published. These books should only be re-added to the list after they have actually been published.Ranp (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sporting
There is a major problem with the statement "...with later works being more inclined towards sporting". This statement, which is probably referrring to the work of Meyer, is nothing more than an assumption held by a few people but it is being stated as if it was an actual fact. Other scholars, including many ARMA scholars, view the work of Meyer as a serious fighting art rather than as some sport activity. A citation request was added for the statement but that can only be for the assumption, it is impossible to provide a citation of the statement as a fact. Therefore, the statement was removed. If anyone wants to add the statement back then they need to write the statement as an assumption rather than as a fact.Ranp (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * this is a valid discussion. I agree it shouldn't be stated as fact (not because Meyer isn't 'sporting', but because 3227a may be considered just as 'sporting'), but since you are aware of the context of this, it would help if you added actual depth to the question instead of removing all mention of it. --dab (𒁳) 07:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am curious about the statement that 3227a maybe sporting; can you elaborate?


 * For the article a specific reference to a source included in a statement such as, "Some have suggested that later authors/many techniques/most masters teach a sporting form of swordplay" would be the best approach to addressing this. That being said I don't have such a reference that I can think of.  However, I do think that 'some' of Meyer is clearly sporting(e.g. strikes with the flat and "civil Germans do not thrust to the face"),  even if many principles are the same.  But he is no where near as "sport-ified" as Kendo or modern sport fencing. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the content of 3227a is heterogenous. Besides Liechtenauer's no-nonsense fundamentals, it also contains stücke for the fechten zu schimpf (i.e., sporting). Search for "schimpf" in the text. Of course both 3227a and Meyer are still more in touch with serious combat than any 19th century abstraction. dab (𒁳) 07:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. "Sport" is a 19th century concept which originated in the british Empire, no German man of the 16th and 17th century would even understand the concept. If we want to get even more specific, it does seem that even authors of the 18th century such as Johann Büsching mention that the Marksbrüder and Federfechter of their time still knew how to fight efficiently with a sword (remember that the very same comment was written in 1735, almost 200 years after the publication of Meyer`s fencing treatise). The same cannot be said for modern sports fencers. Give them a smallsword and look how good they do against a willing opponent who wants to kill them. They will fail badly, because they have never learned the basics of real swordsmanship.--2A02:120B:2C79:D630:2CF8:E1:75BE:BE14 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Cut or Hew and other changes
Hew is not a noun in English while cut and strike are (compare the definition of hew and cut. So I have changed back all "hew"s to "cut".

I also cleaned up the section on the timing terms. Though I welcome more improvement.

Does anyone no the German for the terms 'hard' and 'soft' so they can be included? Strong and weak refer to parts of the blade and are not used the same in fechtkunst. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the Webster definition of "Hew", please note the etymology:


 * Main Entry:

hew
 * Pronunciation:

\ˈhyü\
 * Function:

verb
 * Inflected Form(s):

hewed; hewed or hewn Listen to the pronunciation of hewn \ˈhyün\; hew·ing
 * Etymology:

Middle English, from Old English hēawan; akin to Old High German houwan to hew, Lithuanian kauti to forge, Latin cudere to beat
 * Date:

before 12th century


 * A cut is not necessarily a hewing motion, it can also be a slice for example. Hewing is just one way to cut with the edge of a sword. Needless to say, I still very much feel that the action of attacking with a "hau" should be translated as attacking with a "hew".


 * As far as "Indes" being translated as "instantly", I give you this link:


 * http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=87310


 * I still think what I wrote is more correct than what it has been changed to.


 * Hard is translated as "Hart" and soft is translated as "Weich". You are right that they refer to different things than Strong and Weak.  Hard and Soft refer to the opponent's pressure in the bind.--Zornhau (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I never doubted that hew is the most literal translation of "hau" but, as noted in the definition you provided, it is not a noun in English. Therefore it is not the correct translation where hau is used as a noun.  For instance 'zornhau' is a noun in the German, therefore it cannot be translated into "wrath hew" in English.  I provided references, the Higgins Fechtkunst glossary by Jeffery Forgeng, for all of the translations I chose.  Please provide citations if you wish to change any. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with "cut" as a translation for "hau". Even though it isn't perfect, it looks to be the most correct English equivalent.--Zornhau (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "US Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary
 * Article 47683
 * Hew
 * III. Hew ·noun Destruction by cutting down."
 * In light of this discovery I have changed all the "cuts" back to "hews". Zornhau (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a good idea. While obviously the equivalent of hau etymologically, your English noun hew is completely obsolete. OED has 1618 for its last attestation. OED's definition is "a swinging stroke with an axe or other sharp-edged instrument". In my opinion, the translation of hau in contemporary English is simply "stroke". I realize that stroke has a wider set of meanings than hau, but it does include the meanings of hau, which should make it a good enough translation of the technical term. --dab (𒁳) 08:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * `Hau´(in latin `caesim ferire´) means the same as `hit´ or `strike´ and it denotes a lateral slaying motion, which differst from the `stich´ (poke - in latin `punctim ferire´). Besides: I would not give to much on the philological translation of every german word itself - those techniques were ment to be taught in a practical manner! Those rhymed fencing-manuals gave the scholars only a shortened memorisation-tool for their self-teaching (books were pretty much expensive in the late medieval times).--139.30.128.27 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The manuals address different kinds of cuts by separating them in to hau or schnitt. I think "cut" would be an acceptable translation of hau if this distinction were made more clear in the article.Triskele Jim 17:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

One more basic attack should be added
I know it's a basic attack, because I look at those old drawings and I see the guys trying to pull the legs out from under the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverQuixotic (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hooking* should be added. I just noticed that it is the only attack missing. I hope someone does the work and find out what the term is for it.

Day/Roof
As a relatively new student of the art, I've heard both translations used for the "Tag" in "vom Tag." Clearly, "day" is the obvious literal translation of "Tag"--but it's so obvious a translation that I can't help wondering why "roof" ("Dach") comes up at all. Are we sure there isn't some sort of valid idiomatic translation along these lines? Are there texts clearly demonstrating that the literal meaning is intended? "Roof" seems naively to make more sense--I'd have expected "vom Sonne" or "vom Himmel" or "vom Kopf" or something clearly directional rather than "vom Tag" in the literal meaning. Something explaining the background of this translation issue would make me feel a lot better about the absolute position taken in the article.

Exacerangutan (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Imho, it is pointless to try translating this in the first place. It is just a technical term. You may speculate that the term originated as dach "roof", but as part of the intentionally obfuscated vocabulary of the epitome, it lost any literal meaning it may have had. The speculation would be, it meant "roof" when it was first coined in the 14th century, but by the time of our sources, people   understood it as "day".

Much of this article is in very bad shape, it isn't properly referenced, and stuff is accumulated from random websites which give ad hoc and partly flawed translation and do not bother to distinguish speculation from fact. So the important thing is that you don't take anything on this page as prescriptive or authoritative. E.g. I wonder if it makes sense to translate hau as "hew". Of course hew is the etymological equivalent of hauen, but as far as I can tell, hew is not an English noun, and even as a verb it doesn't have the same connotations as its German cousin. "Translation" doesn't mean just substituting some etymological equivalent. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Both are different terms vor the same stance. "vom Tag" (literally "from the day", but meaning "from the sky") and "vom Dach" (literally "from the roof") both refer to a stance where the sword is heldabove the head, pointing back and up, as well as direct strikes from this position. Same thing with "Keiler" (Boar) and "Pflug" (Plow) or "Mitte" (Middle) and "Zwerch" (Belly). Almost all techniques, stances and weapons have multiple names. Perhaps those are a remnant of the different schools.2003:E5:53CA:E200:8D1D:3E4B:4410:4C23 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German school of fencing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226131447/http://www.phf.uni-rostock.de/institut/igerman/forschung/litkritik/litkritik/start.htm?%2Finstitut%2Figerman%2Fforschung%2Flitkritik%2Flitkritik%2FKritiker%2FAbKaestner.htm to https://www.phf.uni-rostock.de/institut/igerman/forschung/litkritik/litkritik/start.htm?%2Finstitut%2Figerman%2Fforschung%2Flitkritik%2Flitkritik%2FKritiker%2FAbKaestner.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Link works and seems useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German school of fencing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130412042350/http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Deutliche_Erkl%C3%A5rung_der_Fechtkunst_(Jean_Daniel_L'Ange)/Images to http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Deutliche_Erkl%C3%A5rung_der_Fechtkunst_%28Jean_Daniel_L%27Ange%29/Images
 * Added tag to http://www.lupi-venaritis.de/EuropKamfK/Dokumente/080317%20D%F6rbringer%20%DCbersetzung.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German school of fencing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813031930/http://www.skg-im.net/Wir_lernen_Fechten.pdf to http://www.skg-im.net/Wir_lernen_Fechten.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

German Stage Fencing (Bühnenfechtunst)
Dear All

I am a historian (well, a medievalist to be exact) and did add some of the more obscure information about Liechtenauer`s Kunst des Fechtens: that at least the very basics of this martial art has survived in German stage fencing at least until the second world war (apparently, very few interested people thought it was worth to study the German stage fencing literature of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century). Although I have added as much sources as I could find to the article, I would like to ask you to keep an eye on German stage fencing, because it includes many puzzling facts and may be seen as an unbroken line of German fencers (I have heard of living practitioners and will definitely pursue whether it is still possible to interview living, classical German stage fencers from pre world war II. I have found some old German theatrical fencing books that even include pictures (I would love to add them to the article, however, I am not sure whether these pictures are open source). Please add all information about German stage fencing that you come along to the article. Maybe the Babelsberg Studio and the Bavaria Film GmbH have some interesting informations and/or literature about the subject (I know that at least the DEFA must have had some really old books on the subject).

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C79:D630:4C30:3595:124C:ADBD (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... most of the HEMA guys are more interested into super-cool-killing-techniques from "DA Fechtbücher" then to check whether some of this stuff may still be on the road. Wouldnt it be easier to seek training under a German stage fencing master BEFORE you start interpreting medieval fencing literature (without knowing the culture and without speaking the language)?--2A02:120B:2C79:D630:D468:497A:6953:22DA (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You are right.The American fencing master William Gaugler said something similar: "most of these fools (HEMA enthusiasts) do not care at all about either tradition or cultue, they simply search for killing techniques in old books they dont actually understand". It seems to me, that these guys have misunderstood these old fencing traditions as some archaic form of modern sports fencing (which it wasnt). I have met HEMA guys and asked them, why not a single one of them shows any interest into German mensur fencing or classical German stage fencing. They answered that they do not care about "boring theatrical fencing" (apparently not getting the point, that many basics of medieval fencing have survived in these traditional lines).

My own personal issue with these guys is the fact that most of them are absolute amateurs. Seriously, why would anybody want to learn sword fencing from someone who doesn't even speak the langauge of the original fencing masters, let alone has never ever fought or who doesn't know how to move properly? Would you go to get singing lessons from someone who can't sing? Would you want to learn swimming from someone who never set a foot into water? Would you want to get a brain surgery from a hobbyist? No? Guess why.--2A02:120B:2C79:D630:2CF8:E1:75BE:BE14 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree with your sentiment that lay people very rarely excel at these kinds of subjects (and I really wouldn't want to get any form of surgery by a charlatan;-), but there are a few specialists in HEMA who are professional historians like Anton Kohutovic (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChJ0Y62tWOLPzfe5f0Io5ng) and the guys from fecht-kunst.eu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX-C-zlvypk). However, for every professional group you get awkward freaks like the dudes from "Ars Gladii" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xj7uDGk6Zw), who are obviously incompetent fools.--2A02:120B:2C79:D630:2585:7795:C834:28D6 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added more informations regarding the practice of German Stage Fencing during the 19th and 20th centuries.--2A02:120B:2C79:D630:50D7:C5BF:7CF4:7B0 (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Rubbish, lousy english or just a german out of his depth?
I find this "sentence" rather odd: ''In 1735, German historian Johann Büsching mentioned the existence of both the Brotherhood of St. Mark and the Federfechter as well as the existence of "Klopffechter" (artistic and stage fencers who used blunt weapons). He further stated that there were alive in 1817 at least a handful of skilled people who knew how to use "battle swords" ("Schlachtschwerter", another name for either longswords or Zweihänder).[25]''

Am I to assume that Johann Büsching published and stated between 1734 and 1817? ...or was this the work of an author of non-english descent?95.112.90.229 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Definitely needs to be rewritten. The book was published in 1816, according to copy at referenced website, so 1817 seems odd. 1735 may refer to when the schools the author refers to were last known to exist, and certainly not when he was writing (he was born in 1783). Unfortunately, a page number for the reference isn't given; so, it may take some time to check it. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)