Liechtenauer's style or a derivative?

[KeithFarrell]

http://historical-academy.co.uk/blog/2012/05/04/liechtenauer-or-a-derivative/

I posted an article on Encased in Steel today discussing the style of longsword fencing that I teach in the Academy of Historical Arts. Do I teach precisely the same style as Johannes Liechtenauer, or am I teaching a derivative system of Farrell's longsword? Or am I doing both while remaining true to the principles of Liechtenauer?

It would be very interesting to hear points of view from other people who practice or who teach German longsword, or even any other discipline reconstructed from historical sources. Do you think you teach precisely the same information or do you think you do something a little different?

[Ben Floyd]

In the end, you are always teaching your own style. Always.

Even if Liechtenauer were alive today, you would not fence precisely as he does.
Look at the various martial arts of the world. No one replicates anyone else perfectly, living tradition or not. To make this closer to home, do all of your students fight exactly the way that you do? They would likely teach in a manner similar, but inevitably there would be variations in the style.

Now, one can approximate using the same principles as Liechtenauer in the modern day, but there's never going to be a real 100% knowledge that we're doing it absolutely right. Of course, you can always try to stay as true as possible to your understanding of whatever given master you're trying to replicate, but that's a different beast.

For example, I primarily study Meyer. However before I studied him, I was taught mismatched hodgepodge of random things from a lot of different sources before I started running the club. Since then, I have little things I think are from Meyer, but it sometimes turns out they were from the earlier instruction I recieved. Kind of aggrovating...

[Richard Marsden]

From my viewpoint....

Fiore's system allows wiggle room, It isn't to be performed as an Eastern style kata and body-type matters. My students do not perform the art identically to me, but we are all chasing the same concepts and trying to interpret the same thing.

[Jean Chandler]

All the more reason to encourage your students as early as possible to begin to look at the sources themselves.

J

[Keith P. Myers]

I think that if you say you are practicing "Liechtenauer's style" or "Meyer's style" people are going to understand that you are doing your understanding/interpretation of that method. How can we do anything else? If you were really concerned about any misunderstanding, you could say that you are practicing "in the tradition of Johannes Liechteneauer." If you are making wide departures from the source material or incorporating a lot of things from another tradition...like Fiore...then things would be different. Then you would need to qualify your statement with something like "we are practicing a style derived largely from Johannes Liechtenauer and....."

[Mike Cartier]

well as Bruce Lee would have said, "we need to empty our cup" as we approach any new martial art.

[KeithFarrell]

From my viewpoint....

Fiore's system allows wiggle room, It isn't to be performed as an Eastern style kata and body-type matters. My students do not perform the art identically to me, but we are all chasing the same concepts and trying to interpret the same thing.

So would you say that you and your students have the same style of fighting, even if they do not perform identically to you? Just out of interest, since the question of "style" came up on my Facebook thread about this article

[James Wallhausen]

http://historical-academy.co.uk/blog/2012/05/04/liechtenauer-or-a-derivative/

I posted an article on Encased in Steel today discussing the style of longsword fencing that I teach in the Academy of Historical Arts. Do I teach precisely the same style as Johannes Liechtenauer, or am I teaching a derivative system of Farrell's longsword? Or am I doing both while remaining true to the principles of Liechtenauer?

Interesting question Keith, and one which I've enjoyed pondering.

The problem arises that we need to actually ask what it is which defines what we know about Liechtenauer. For example, he didn't write any explanations of his principles, but is only a name attributed to a set of proverbial directives for fighting. In which case, every glosse composed represents an 'interpretation' of that verse, so when we study an historical resource, we 'assume' that the glosse writer understood the verse. Surely, the glosse writer 'perceived' combat, using the verse as a signpost and described how his individual experience of combat can be referenced within the verse. We really have no way of knowing for certain what relationship the glossators had with the elusive Liechtenauer.

So that brings us to modern interpretation: which sources are of most value, and which can be prescribed "authority". Extrapolating a set of combative behaviours from any source is prone to error, especially when the meaning of obscure words is interpreted slightly different by historical masters let-alone modern practitioners.

I'm not sure therefore to what extent our historical 'glossators' interpretations were similar to Liechtenauer's combat system, let alone how ours can be similar to Liechtenauer's when it has been lifted from historical interpretations.

[KeithFarrell]

All the more reason to encourage your students as early as possible to begin to look at the sources themselves.

J

So do you think it is better to give students a grounding in what you (a generic "you", meaning the instructor of the class) believe to be the basics of how the system works before pointing them at the sources, or to let them loose before "polluting" their source-study with your interpretation of the basics?

[KeithFarrell]

Interesting question Keith, and one which I've enjoyed pondering.

I'm glad I could stimulate some good ponderings!

So that brings us to modern interpretation: which sources are of most value, and which can be prescribed "authority". Extrapolating a set of combative behaviours from any source is prone to error, especially when the meaning of obscure words is interpreted slightly different by historical masters let-alone modern practitioners.

Of course this same problem applies with the historical sources as well. What sources are most valuable and what sources are questionable? Maybe some people would consider it heresy to say that the sources are questionable, but I personally don't trust the artistic depictions of things like hand positions in sources like Verolini! So whatever source we use, we must first evaluate it for what is useful and what is questionable about it. Just so happens I put up a blog article about analysing and evaluating historical sources a few months ago!