ARMA's Krumphaw

[Ben Floyd]

Firstly, @Ben the vocabulary of same time (stesso tempo or un tempo), middle time (mezzo tempo) and double time (dui tempi) is *not* modern, although it is still used in modern fencing. They are first documented with Vadi (mezzo tempo) and are fully in place in the 16th century.

Mike is right that the Germans don't use those terms, but not that the there is no evidence that the German masters did not conceptualize time the same way.

Thanks for hitting all the high points for me.

One, I only teach the German tradition of swordsmanship at the moment.

Two, I didn't say modern; I said 'more modern'. In other words, not modern day, but also not used within the sources from which I teach.

Three, which builds on one and two, is that Mike is right. I was commenting within the context of our comments about the German lexicon. It may not have been obvious because you don't know me or what I teach. However, Mike knows I only teach from German sources, I think, and I know he does as well.

I will also say that I'm more than happy agreeing to disagree.

Four, there is no evidence one way or the other that the German masters conceptualized time the same way. Therefore, we forced to rely on what they wrote, not what they did not write... but you think is likely.

[markholgate]

I am thoroughly amazed at JCs work. You have to give him one thing - he is imaginative! I couldn't have imagined doing that movement as a Krump in a million years. And after seeing it, I still won't.

But the pluderhosen and hoodies. It looks sufficiently silly that it has the makings of a major fashion trend.

[Ted Elsner]

Please do not describe the trunk hose he is wearing as pluderhosen. It is an offense to true pluderhosen.

[Keith P. Myers]

Also, Keith, I'm sorry if I cam accross abrupt or snobby. I'm used to arguing bitterly about such things with people I don't like, and you are definitely not one of those people, so my apologies.

No problem Mike! I stand corrected! Can you give me an example of a Meisterhau historically described as a two-step action?

[Darijan R.]

Actually, no, I don't remember him. Sorry.

Sorry, I just assumed from our last conversation that you remember everything I've ever said to you in a PM or email.

He does.

No problem Mike! I stand corrected! Can you give me an example of a Meisterhau historically described as a two-step action?

Das ist der text vnd die glos eines
guten stucks aus dem krump haw
Haw krump zw den flechen den maisterñ
wiltu sy swechen Wenn es klitzt oben So
stand ab das wil ich loben
| Glosa | Merck das stuck soltu treiben
gegen den maisterñ aus dem pandt des
swertz | vnd das treib also | Wenn dw mit
dem zu° vechten zu° ÿm kumpst | So leg
dein swert zu° deiner rechten seitten in die
schranck hu°t | vnd stee mit dem lincken
fuess vor oder hald es an deiner rechten
achsel | Haut er dir dann oben zu° der
plöss | So haw starck mit der langen
schneid aus gekräutzten armen gegen
seinem haw | vnd als pald die swert zu°
sam~en klitzen | So wind indes gegen
deiner lincken seitten die kurtz schneid an
sein swert | vnd stich ÿm zu° dem gesicht
| Oder wildu yn nicht stechen | So haw ÿm
Indes mit der kurtzen schneid vom swert
zu° kopff oder zw° leib

[Mike Edelson]

My point was that how we admit students has nothing to do with ARMA's ban on belonging to other HEMA groups or secret-decoder ring, and I'd prefer not to have that conflated.

Fair enough, and I never meant to conflate it, only to compare/contrast.

If you see yourself as an academic institution where people cannot jump in in the middle of a "semester" then your model may make sense. To each his own.

[Billy]

Im not a translator like most of you so I can't really argue the point from the manuals but I do have experience in a fight. If I was in a left Ox I would love for him to assume that I have to thrust him. Does he know that you can launch a zorn from Ox? If I would thrust I am fine with his comments at 1:56, but if I launch a Zorn, thank you for the neck.

****edit*****

I take that back I would be worried even if I thrust, my forward momentum sawing on your neck could suck.

[Keith P. Myers]

No problem Mike! I stand corrected! Can you give me an example of a Meisterhau historically described as a two-step action?

Das ist der text vnd die glos eines
guten stucks aus dem krump haw
Haw krump zw den flechen den maisterñ
wiltu sy swechen Wenn es klitzt oben So
stand ab das wil ich loben
| Glosa | Merck das stuck soltu treiben
gegen den maisterñ aus dem pandt des
swertz | vnd das treib also | Wenn dw mit
dem zu° vechten zu° ÿm kumpst | So leg
dein swert zu° deiner rechten seitten in die
schranck hu°t | vnd stee mit dem lincken
fuess vor oder hald es an deiner rechten
achsel | Haut er dir dann oben zu° der
plöss | So haw starck mit der langen
schneid aus gekräutzten armen gegen
seinem haw | vnd als pald die swert zu°
sam~en klitzen | So wind indes gegen
deiner lincken seitten die kurtz schneid an
sein swert | vnd stich ÿm zu° dem gesicht
| Oder wildu yn nicht stechen | So haw ÿm
Indes mit der kurtzen schneid vom swert
zu° kopff oder zw° leib

Thanks for the example Darijan. I read one action where you strike against the opponent's attack with the long edge and crossed arms and allow it to snap over with the short edge turning down. Then you thrust to the face or strike him with what I would consider a Sturzhau. I guess you could consider the initial contact with the long edge and the snapping over with the short edge as two motions, but I see them as blending together in one smooth action. I guess its just interpretation as Mike said. But I see what you guys are saying. Either way, JC's interpretation doesn't fit this passage, because if you start with the sword on your right shoulder as is noted here as an option, then no Unterhau motion would be needed.

[Gregory Mele]

Ben,

Two, I didn't say modern; I said 'more modern'. In other words, not modern day, but also not used within the sources from which I teach.

OK, that was an honest mistake. But my point was that these terms go back to the 15th century. So, they are contemporary to the arts you teach. Now if you work with a singular text, well, then that's fine. I was just trying to explain that these terms were not post-longsword era.

I will also say that I'm more than happy agreeing to disagree.

Likewise.

Four, there is no evidence one way or the other that the German masters conceptualized time the same way. Therefore, we forced to rely on what they wrote, not what they did not write... but you think is likely.

[/quote]

This stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum. We are forced to rely on what they wrote, in context of their culture. Educated people in all of Europe in the 14th and 15th century conceptualized physics based on Aristotle, just as we live a post-Newtonian world. If I mention gravity, but don't explain it, we can be sure how I conceptualize it.

I'm not saying that German fencing masters in the 15th century necessarily had a specific system of discussing tempo, ala the Italians - indeed, I don't see one, anymore than I see a full lexicon of footwork before Meyer. Indeed, it is interesting because the four quarters of modern fencing appears first with the Germans, the notions of time appear with the Italians. It is a melange.

All I am saying is that their plays, and how they prioritize actions and order them, corresponds to the Italian discussions of tempo, which makes sense because that idea comes from the intellectual culture of medieval Europe, not something cooked up by a bunch of late Renaissance Italians. Therefore, your using that terminology as short-hand probably is not so far from the mark, or would have caused any head-scratching with German fencing masters. Wecan call it whatever we want, but the idea that a time = a motion between two rests and an action made in the middle of another action will take half as long is a ubiquitous concept, even if we call it "Fred".

[Ben Floyd]

Ben,

Don't know why I said anything that tweaked you.

I'm not tweaked. No worries. I wrote the whole bit just before going to sleep, and I was a bit direct.

Two, I didn't say modern; I said 'more modern'. In other words, not modern day, but also not used within the sources from which I teach.

OK, that was an honest mistake. But my point was that these terms go back to the 15th century. So, they are contemporary to the arts you teach. Now if you work with a singular text, well, then that's fine. I was just trying to explain that these terms were not post-longsword era.

No biggie.

This stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum. We are forced to rely on what they wrote, in context of their culture. Educated people in all of Europe in the 14th and 15th century conceptualized physics based on Aristotle, just as we live a post-Newtonian world. If I mention gravity, but don't explain it, we can be sure how I conceptualize it.

Actually, gravity is understood via Einstein with spacetime curvature and general relativity. Newton was wrong. But, I understand what point you're trying to make. I shall start calling them single fred or double fred.