Mike Ruhala wrote:I don't really know what Mair's qualifications were and I haven't studied him closely but I'd be hesitant to dismiss him simply based on the fact that he had a day job. Most of the best martial artists I've met have day jobs and Mair was closer to the source than we are... it stands to reason that even if he was into reconstructing what were to him historical styles he probably had a better vantage point than we do.
Perhaps. But seriously, this is the kind of leap we're talking about:
Anton Kohutovič wrote:Der Zornhaw gegen dem ort.
Item schick dich also mit dem Zornhaw. Stand mit dem linggen fuß vor, volg mit dem rechten dem haw nach, und haw Im starck von oben ein zu der linggen seitten. Versetzt er dir das, so haw behendigclich zu der nechsten plösse. Haut er dir also Zornigclich ein, so wind dich gegen dem Zornhaw in das hangend ort, und laß Im den ort gerichts fürsich einschiessen zu dem gesicht, oder der prust. Wirt er dann des orts gewar, so far mit dem schwert wol auff über dein kopff, spring mit deinem rechten fuß auf ein lingke seitten, unnd haw In mit der zwirch zu dem kopff. Hawt er dann also die Zwirch zu deinen kopff mit gecreutzgiten armen, so versetz Im die mit deiner langen schneid. In dem zuck dein schwert und wind Im deinen ort, von deiner linggen seitten zu seinem gesicht oder der prust.
Dieter Bachmann wrote:De ictu qui ex ira nomen fortitur contra mucronem.
Hac ratione te ad hunc ictum adaptabis: sinistrum dextro pedi prepones, inque ipso ictu dextro sequere, feriasque fortiter superius latus sinistrum versus. Verum si se opposuerit, ictuque tuo restiterit, tum quam celerimme proximam nuditatem peto.
Si vero referiat iratus, tum ad ictum eum qui ex ira fit, te prepara in mucronem pendentem et eum converte recta in faciem vel pectus adversarii.
Sin autem animadverterit id, gladium supra caput elevabis, assiliesque pede dextro in latus eius sinistrum et petas ictu transversario caput eius. Si vero is hoc usus fuerit contra te, brachiis crucis instar consituto, tum ictum longa acie excipe, et statim gladium averte, tuumque mucronem ex sinistro latere contra ipsius faciem flecte seu pectus
Keith Myers wrote:The Zornhau against the Point
--Item: It happens that you stand with the Zornhau with the left foot forward. Follow after with the right after the strike and strike him strongly from above to the left side. If he deflects this, strike nimbly to the next opening.
--If he strikes you hence wrathfully, wind against the Zornhau in the Hanging Point and let your point properly go forward shooting down (einschiessen) to the face or chest.
--If it turns out that he perceives the thrust, drive with the sword well over your head, spring with your right foot on his left side and cut him with the Zwerchhau to the head.
--If he then strikes the Zwerchhau like this to your head with crossed arms, displace that with your long edge, at the same time pull back (Zucken) your sword and wind your point from your left side to his face or chest.
The Wallerstein image is almost completely devoid of content, but from it Mair derives that long paragraph with multiple actions and counter-actions. Is this particular device flawed? No, it actually looks pretty solid, if not 100% orthodox. However, the fact that he seems in a few sections (such as the armored fencing) to have been simply guessing at the meaning of the images he had collected makes the whole set suspect to me. When looking at Mair's writings, we need to judge each piece on its own merits and not assume that the whole is universally reliable as we do with most other treatises.
Roger N wrote:I'm not so sure I subscribe to the thought that Meyer and Mair were recronstructing the older and more or less "dead" martial arts. Yes, in a sense this is of course true, and even Meyer complains about the modern times with firearms etc. And some aspects of the martial arts traditions were less important at the time. But, longswords were weapons of war for a long time and not only used for "sports". How they were used at least in part changed with time though.
Certainly. I believe that Joachim Meyer, for example, was connected to living traditions, even though he did a lot of reconstruction work as well (such as integrating Syber into Liechtenauer). Mair is a special case, though, as there's no evidence that he had any martial arts training or special insight into the manuals, and clear examples of flawed understanding on his part.
Roger N wrote:
Considering where and when he lived, and what social stratas he moved around in I would be surprised if he had no personal martial training at all. Also keep in mind that he was still quite young when his treatises were published, about 23-30.
Btw, I am not so sure how much of a factor his treatises were in the embezzlement charges. He lived quite extra-vagantly and was hung quite late in his life, at the age of 62. I am under the impression that some like the idea that he was hung for his passion to preserve the martial arts, but I have a strong feeling he was hung for enjoying life, at the expense of others, a bit too much.
On that note, I'm informed that if/when Forgeng ever publishes his Mair work, he'll be arguing that the 1542 date is wrong and the texts weren't completed until the 1550s. I find this date much more believable as that's when he was doing most of his manuscript acquisitions. And remember that the 1542 date derives from when Jorg Breu der Junger was known to have been in Augsburg. He could certainly have done the art while living elsewhere.