Help to support the channel for weekly free videos over on: www.patreon.com/SchildwachePotsdam Any amount is highly appreciated, thank you! You also get early access to all videos & there are additional online lessons and live classes available!
To summarise: 1.) Get a better position (Advantage of Guard) - Your sword points at them, theirs does not at you - Use displacing half-cuts and feints - Use offline footwork 2.) Get into the right distance (Advantage of Attack) - Too far away and you'll just walk into a counterthrust - Too close is deadly for both of you 3.) Take small steps, use mid-air time of opponent (Advantage of Stepping) - A closer stance allows to extend your stance further - Once they commit to a movement / step, use that because they cannot easily change direction
Great stuff! I would say those offline footworks are in Fiore even, especially the "into" the line one which I feel is the basis for scambiar di Punta. But I like this breakdown of these three tactics as I work my way through Dall'Agocchie and to Viggiani.
Offline footwork is something present in almost every historical fencing source pre 1600 that we got indeed. I was referring to seeking a better position from where to strike from with offline footwork, especially with a bind. Fiore's scambiar di punta feels more like a contratempo action to me. :)
@@SchildwachePotsdam It is in response surely, but the nature of the response requires gaining this better position you speak of, and you are in a bind as you are taking the center from their thrust. His footwork in that play is quite explicit as well, and is precisely that "into the line" footwork to help gain center. At least in my interpretation. So, used in a different tempo perhaps, but I think the method for end result is the same. Always good discussing with you either way!
Danke für das Lob! Ich hätte tatsächlich gerne mehr Zeit, um Videos aufzunehmen und zu bearbeiten^^ Naja mal schauen - Patreon läuft gerade gar nicht so schlecht an, vielleicht ist ja ein dezidierter Online-Kurs im nächsten Jahr drin. :)
Amazing content as usual! Thank you both for all your work, quality interpretations, and high-quality videos. Just wanted to say, I think it's ironically amusing that you're a German club with (I assume) all German members, but you primarily study Italian sources. Not that I think HEMA (or any aspect of life) should have any degree of nationalism, but it still makes me smile. Anyway, cheers!
Hehe, thanks a lot! It's actually quite productive in my opinion to have a diverse scene regarding the used sources anywhere. So being one of the few that use Italian, getting to compare approach & techniques is always fun :) This, and we can just read the german texts... where is the fun in that? :D
This might be little bit off topic but how would you defend lunge from below with your opponent goes underneath your sword but while your opponent's blade is facing up?
@@freifechterbasel6115 It is difficult to claim Germans perceded using the Pol Hausbuch(possibly dated between 1389 and 1494), as it would appear it was written by a student(s) of Liechtenauer, whom realistically was instructing in the 15th century(i.e. 1400s). For Bolognese fencing, his contemporary would be Filippo Dardi, who was also in the same time period, and licensed as a fencing master in 1412. There was also evidence that Dardi may have been preceded by earlier Italian masters whom have been lost to the whims of history.
Hehe, so offline footwork is something present in almost every historical fencing source pre 1600 that we got indeed. I was referring to seeking a better position from where to strike from with offline footwork, especially with a bind. The actions in the Liechtenauer corpus are made to the target, not to the sword as they say (I think^^). In that the footwork is generally not aimed into the opponent's blade, i.e. cross-stepping.
Right. Find me a 15th Century firearm that can be carried under daily clothing and doesn't take several minutes to prepare and shoot. Remember, please, that the *15th Century* is, in fact, the period from 1400 CE to 1499 CE. Even if we accept that the time period you refer to lies between 1500 CE and 1599 CE that's difficult. Only at the latter half of the 1500s (the *16th* Century) do we start seeing ignition mechanisms for firearms that do *not* involve lengths of smoldering fuse. The only example of a matchlock *pistol* I've seen is a Japanese one. Most of Europe ignored pistol-sized firearms until someone invented the wheellock late in the 16th Century. And wheellocks of all types were *expensive*, as well as very quickly being regulated by city ordinances in Northern Italy and elsewhere as far as every-day carry went. However, let us assume you're strolling around some Italian city in the late 1500s with a wheellock pistol tucked under your cloak. The first thing to note is that it's probably not wound, since metallurgy at the time made leaving a spring wound tight for an extended time impractical. So the first thing you have to do when Signor Cattivo leaps out of a dark alleyway at you with his sword is - after dragging three or so pounds of steel from under your cloak without snagging on anything - to spend a minute or so finding your winding key on it's lanyard, fitting it to the pistol, turning it, and removing it again. Assuming you *did* wind your wheellock before setting out on your stroll, you *still* need to move the "dog" (the hammer-like device that holds the lump of iron pyrite) from the forward/safe position onto the wheel...there are *no* wheellocks that do this automatically when you press the trigger. And you're not walking around with the "dog" on the wheel because that's the only safety you have, and doing so will probably result in a Plaxico. But unlike Mr. Burress' mishap, yours will likely be fatal, since 911, EMTs, and QuickClot are still a ways in the future. The upshot is that, unless you're anticipating an imminent attack, trying to ready your firearm, if you have one, instead of immediately going for your sword - you *are* carrying one, aren't you? - will give Signor Cattivo ample opportunity to do unto you in a rather permanent manner. We'll leave the whole issue of any accomplice(s) for another day and simply assume that Signor Cattivo's buddies decided not to accompany him that day. Once you get into the 1600s - that's the *17th* Century - your argument starts becoming a bit more valid.
Well, if you are referring to a battle - then yes, at that time that's not really a sword fight anymore. But don't tell anyone... it never was ;-) Poleweapons, ranged combat, group tactics change everything. A duel or a self-defense situation would be whole different beasts though. ;-) The former is probably more what Viggiani had in mind here.
Help to support the channel for weekly free videos over on: www.patreon.com/SchildwachePotsdam
Any amount is highly appreciated, thank you! You also get early access to all videos & there are additional online lessons and live classes available!
To summarise:
1.) Get a better position (Advantage of Guard)
- Your sword points at them, theirs does not at you
- Use displacing half-cuts and feints
- Use offline footwork
2.) Get into the right distance (Advantage of Attack)
- Too far away and you'll just walk into a counterthrust
- Too close is deadly for both of you
3.) Take small steps, use mid-air time of opponent (Advantage of Stepping)
- A closer stance allows to extend your stance further
- Once they commit to a movement / step, use that because they cannot easily change direction
Great stuff! I would say those offline footworks are in Fiore even, especially the "into" the line one which I feel is the basis for scambiar di Punta. But I like this breakdown of these three tactics as I work my way through Dall'Agocchie and to Viggiani.
Offline footwork is something present in almost every historical fencing source pre 1600 that we got indeed. I was referring to seeking a better position from where to strike from with offline footwork, especially with a bind. Fiore's scambiar di punta feels more like a contratempo action to me. :)
@@SchildwachePotsdam It is in response surely, but the nature of the response requires gaining this better position you speak of, and you are in a bind as you are taking the center from their thrust. His footwork in that play is quite explicit as well, and is precisely that "into the line" footwork to help gain center. At least in my interpretation. So, used in a different tempo perhaps, but I think the method for end result is the same. Always good discussing with you either way!
Always love your stuff.
Thank you so much @Davlavi - it means a great deal, that you continue to comment under every video. I really appreciate it. :)
Thanks for the video.
Really useful for anyone learning to fight with a sword, thank you for this!
Prego, glad you like it!
Ich wünschte ich hätte bisschen mehr Zeit für eure tollen Videos. Klasse Sache, bin großer Fan.
Danke für das Lob! Ich hätte tatsächlich gerne mehr Zeit, um Videos aufzunehmen und zu bearbeiten^^ Naja mal schauen - Patreon läuft gerade gar nicht so schlecht an, vielleicht ist ja ein dezidierter Online-Kurs im nächsten Jahr drin. :)
Excellent video!
Thank you!
So much value, thanks for the video!
Our pleasure, thanks for your support!
God, the Witcher 3 OST is so hypnotic...
Bravo!
Thank you very much!
"Position before Submission!" this and the value of jumping rope for foot speed is something HEMA practitioners are woefully ignorant of.
Well, we are still in a developing stage - so let's get going into the right direction, shall we? :)
I go Irish dancing for that!
Amazing content as usual! Thank you both for all your work, quality interpretations, and high-quality videos. Just wanted to say, I think it's ironically amusing that you're a German club with (I assume) all German members, but you primarily study Italian sources. Not that I think HEMA (or any aspect of life) should have any degree of nationalism, but it still makes me smile. Anyway, cheers!
Hehe, thanks a lot! It's actually quite productive in my opinion to have a diverse scene regarding the used sources anywhere. So being one of the few that use Italian, getting to compare approach & techniques is always fun :) This, and we can just read the german texts... where is the fun in that? :D
@@SchildwachePotsdam I fully agree!
Awesome video, this Viganni guy must have been clever fencer!
Definitely one of my favorite sources 😊
interesting video
Thanks!
This might be little bit off topic but how would you defend lunge from below with your opponent goes underneath your sword but while your opponent's blade is facing up?
I'm sorry to say, but the germans preceded the italians in offline stepping or what you call "circular footwork". 😉 Great content as always!🥰
Sorry, but which manuscript r u basing this claim on?
@@edwinpoon 3227a
This tru, auschreiten and umbschreiten; however forward motion is less offline than backward. Ah, and shiltreten can be done offline to.
@@freifechterbasel6115 It is difficult to claim Germans perceded using the Pol Hausbuch(possibly dated between 1389 and 1494), as it would appear it was written by a student(s) of Liechtenauer, whom realistically was instructing in the 15th century(i.e. 1400s). For Bolognese fencing, his contemporary would be Filippo Dardi, who was also in the same time period, and licensed as a fencing master in 1412. There was also evidence that Dardi may have been preceded by earlier Italian masters whom have been lost to the whims of history.
Hehe, so offline footwork is something present in almost every historical fencing source pre 1600 that we got indeed. I was referring to seeking a better position from where to strike from with offline footwork, especially with a bind. The actions in the Liechtenauer corpus are made to the target, not to the sword as they say (I think^^). In that the footwork is generally not aimed into the opponent's blade, i.e. cross-stepping.
The historical way that sword fights were won starting in the 15th century was to use a gun
Right. Find me a 15th Century firearm that can be carried under daily clothing and doesn't take several minutes to prepare and shoot. Remember, please, that the *15th Century* is, in fact, the period from 1400 CE to 1499 CE.
Even if we accept that the time period you refer to lies between 1500 CE and 1599 CE that's difficult. Only at the latter half of the 1500s (the *16th* Century) do we start seeing ignition mechanisms for firearms that do *not* involve lengths of smoldering fuse. The only example of a matchlock *pistol* I've seen is a Japanese one. Most of Europe ignored pistol-sized firearms until someone invented the wheellock late in the 16th Century. And wheellocks of all types were *expensive*, as well as very quickly being regulated by city ordinances in Northern Italy and elsewhere as far as every-day carry went.
However, let us assume you're strolling around some Italian city in the late 1500s with a wheellock pistol tucked under your cloak. The first thing to note is that it's probably not wound, since metallurgy at the time made leaving a spring wound tight for an extended time impractical. So the first thing you have to do when Signor Cattivo leaps out of a dark alleyway at you with his sword is - after dragging three or so pounds of steel from under your cloak without snagging on anything - to spend a minute or so finding your winding key on it's lanyard, fitting it to the pistol, turning it, and removing it again.
Assuming you *did* wind your wheellock before setting out on your stroll, you *still* need to move the "dog" (the hammer-like device that holds the lump of iron pyrite) from the forward/safe position onto the wheel...there are *no* wheellocks that do this automatically when you press the trigger. And you're not walking around with the "dog" on the wheel because that's the only safety you have, and doing so will probably result in a Plaxico. But unlike Mr. Burress' mishap, yours will likely be fatal, since 911, EMTs, and QuickClot are still a ways in the future.
The upshot is that, unless you're anticipating an imminent attack, trying to ready your firearm, if you have one, instead of immediately going for your sword - you *are* carrying one, aren't you? - will give Signor Cattivo ample opportunity to do unto you in a rather permanent manner.
We'll leave the whole issue of any accomplice(s) for another day and simply assume that Signor Cattivo's buddies decided not to accompany him that day.
Once you get into the 1600s - that's the *17th* Century - your argument starts becoming a bit more valid.
Well, if you are referring to a battle - then yes, at that time that's not really a sword fight anymore. But don't tell anyone... it never was ;-) Poleweapons, ranged combat, group tactics change everything.
A duel or a self-defense situation would be whole different beasts though. ;-) The former is probably more what Viggiani had in mind here.
And yet people still carried swords in battle as well as pikes, halberds, crossbows and lances because the guns were just not good enough.
I'm ashamed to admit that I watch these to get better at Blade and Sorcery.
That's a great reason tbh!