Just an idea for the question in the description: The one performing the technique requires room to "hook" the arm of the opponent. If the victim were to pull their arms back, or step aside, they may at least make it difficult for the attacker to get so close as to swing the grip behind their arm. I also enjoyed the video, thanks.
The solution to the question is way simpler. Apart from that: Harness fencing has a lot of techniques; most of them however will not work in a freeplay situation as desired. But then again, that's what fencing generally is about. If one technique doesn't work, try another. But after all, the most important thing is to apply the underlying principles; the technique itself is just good for training.
Your suits looks well made, each point of articulation is so fluid when moved. Can you tell me whether you had it custom made and where did you purchase it?
Apologies, apparently, I did not answer in due time. In case you still wish to know: Yes, the suit is custom made and t was manufactured by bestarmour.com.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. If however you suggest that the defender should drop his sword once he is enveloped, that might work in a slo-mo demonstration such as this, but done with speed and force it’s much trickier. If he should succeed, well, than another technique is applied. That’s fencing, after all.
Dierk Hagedorn So sorry... Indeed, I wanted to say "bound", not "blinded". I can't say why my keyboard missed the word... :\ The problem I see is that if the defender drop his sword and the attacker has to choose another technique, it is still in a vulnerable position, embarrassed by the opponent's blade. This would give the defender exactly one tempo, that he could easily use to his advantage. He is armored and engaged, after all, and need to fear more an entangled or prone position than a hit. So, be temporarily disarmed is not that big deal.
+CopernicoTube Again, I’m not entirely sure whether I understand what you mean. When done with speed and intent, I doubt it very much that either defendant or attacker will be able to drop their swords. After all, a dedicated attack is countered by using force and gravity to destabilise the initial attacker and bringing him to the ground. Within this short timeframe when the attacker performs his thrust, it is next to impossible to drop the sword in that very moment your arms are being forced downwards.
+Dierk Hagedorn What I mean is fairly simple: my point is that the defender can release the sword in time. To you, he doesn't. Disagree with something is not the same than doesn't understand it. By your answer, you understand perfectly my point. This kind of conflict can be only solved by practice. I don't have time or resources to give it to you, so it is a stalemate.
Dierk Hagedorn the point is that he is trying to be a smarta*s because he always sees closed visors in hollywood, without realizing that once in close combat they were open for visibility historically
Rich M Are you stupid? Nobody wears helmets in Hollywood, people in real life wore helmets with the visors closed because it could protect them, that's the whole point, PROTECTION. Even if you can't see well, an open visor is asking for death.
No, I am not stupid, I am a HEMA enthusiast, and while I of course am no expert, I have taken my time to learn about the historical aspects of battle. It was common for people to open up the visors in a battle once your line and the enemies engaged directly, since you would be out of most of the arrow "fire"; visibility, and also breathability was important when engaging an oponent in melee combat, and even more so because there were a lot of people around you, peripheral vision was of utmost importance. There are a handful of manuscripts depicting battle (not armored dueling), and in most of them, most combatants had their visors up whenever they are depicted in melee combat. Armor has always been at a compromise between mobility, agility and protection, that's why not everyone wore frogmouth helms (or at least similar kinds since presicely frogmouths were used for jousting only, at least to my knowledge) in battle, while one could argue it is almost impossible to bypass the protection it brings, its visibility is utter sh*t, and it's mobility as well, since it restricts a lot of neck movement.
Wouldn't it be better in the 2nd technique if you put your right leg behind his left one ? I've never fought in armour, but imho it'd be much easier to throw him. Excellent video btw, thanks for uploading it.
Thank you for the demonstrations. Maybe I'm missing something, but the 2nd technique, 13v, looks a little strange. After hooking the opponent's left arm with the hilt of your sword, both combatants ended up in a blade-on-blade shoving match while in standing positions. Unless you're significantly stronger than your opponent, there's no reason why he would fall down.
I’m not so sure whether I have pointed out the flaw. We are doing it wrong from the beginning. The techniques demands an entry from the outside, but we’re doing it from the inside. That, of course, has effects on pressure and mechanics. Thanks for pointing this out anyway.
Dierk Hagedorn Thank you for the feedback Dierk. Now I can see it, going out and over, trapping the opponent's hand on the blade between his blade and yours, using that as a pivot point to torque the opponent. That should be a very interesting weapon-assisted grappling technique. :)
+RKcousins625 "r" is for recto, the right hand side, "v" is for verso, the left hand side. And I would be very anxious to avoid the term "manual". In most cases, it’s manuscripts, although occasionally printed books carry a foliation too-in opposition to a pagination. Most medieval fechtbücher were not necessarily meant to be instructions for the un-initiated, therefore "manual" may be mis-leading.
UUarum is din Teusch so mittelalterlihh kiscribun? = my pidgin Altdeutsch voicing my fascination for the cool kind of German you have here - it looks like Middle High German to me, what? You use Mediaeval German??? That's wonderful! Or is it maybe, I dunno, Luxembourgish?
Harness fencing is easy and tricky at the same time. The individual techniques are mostly simple, but since it often occurs that what you had in mind doesn't work-due to the usual suspects such as timing and distance-and because of the glancing surface of the armour, you have to adapt and choose another technique. Well, it's called fencing for a reason. But the real flaw has yet to be revealed.
Thank you for your valuable comment. Actually, this video was not meant to *prove* anything, and I guess, I did not make such an allegation. However, this is a demonstration about how to make an attempt to bring the letters from centuries old codices back to life in the first place. But do feel free to try it with full resistance and enlighten me; I’m curious about your results.
@@DierkHagedorn Why is thay guy going limp and falling like that mate.. You made it look like one of those bullshit Mcdojo martial arts where people fall at the minimum touch. The techniques are actually very well shown besides that. Anyway there's no reason to be so defensive about it. I am allowed an opinion and I am also allowed to share it since that's what the comments section is for.
@@mokyaffe By all means. Indeed I see what you refer to; nevertheless, it’s not about proving something but rather recreating something. But never mind, that’s possibly just an insignificant difference. Besides, what did we know back then?
+XxGR3YW01FxX I’m afraid I don’t get it entirely what you are trying to teach me? To make demos faster? Well, that’s not exactly the purpose of a demo, or is it?
+Dierk Hagedorn Sure it is. Now if it was training then I would get why they would be doing it slowly. In demos you demonstrate as in you already know how to do it and therefore not need slow motion.
A demonstration to azubis needs to be slow so that they understand what they are doing . Or can you repeat a technic like this clear and without a fail after seeing it once?
I’m pretty sure you are absolutely right. Guess what: They didn’t even train in gyms back then. And didn’t wear glasses, when they performed their presentations.
I didn't want to sound offensive, sorry. English is not my main language, I might need to choose my words better. For demo purposes it makes sense at all, just like any other martial arts. But I would very much like to see these demos being applied on real combat. The one on the right seems so passive and favorable to the application of the techniques. Since you guys probably followed old combat manuals to record this video (manuals created by people who really went for battlegrounds sometimes), I might be the one uninformed here. The two main things that makes me unconfortable at these techniques are: - Why the one on the right needs to keep holding his sword, allowing the enemy apply the technique? - Would the victmin be able to just walk away when grappled like that? And even take advantage of the opponent stance right after walking away and bursting back with an attack? Great video though!
amazing, very exciting to see what it may have looked like back in the day ;)
+Gwen Kosak Thank you very much.
Thank you so much for posting these videos :)
You’re perfectly welcome.
Dierk Hagedorn :)
great demo, please do add more if you are so inclined!
Thank you so much.
Just an idea for the question in the description: The one performing the technique requires room to "hook" the arm of the opponent. If the victim were to pull their arms back, or step aside, they may at least make it difficult for the attacker to get so close as to swing the grip behind their arm. I also enjoyed the video, thanks.
The solution to the question is way simpler.
Apart from that: Harness fencing has a lot of techniques; most of them however will not work in a freeplay situation as desired. But then again, that's what fencing generally is about. If one technique doesn't work, try another. But after all, the most important thing is to apply the underlying principles; the technique itself is just good for training.
Your suits looks well made, each point of articulation is so fluid when moved. Can you tell me whether you had it custom made and where did you purchase it?
Apologies, apparently, I did not answer in due time. In case you still wish to know: Yes, the suit is custom made and t was manufactured by bestarmour.com.
@@DierkHagedorn lol
Why the defender needs keep holding the blade after it is blinded?
I’m not quite sure what you mean. If however you suggest that the defender should drop his sword once he is enveloped, that might work in a slo-mo demonstration such as this, but done with speed and force it’s much trickier. If he should succeed, well, than another technique is applied. That’s fencing, after all.
Dierk Hagedorn So sorry... Indeed, I wanted to say "bound", not "blinded". I can't say why my keyboard missed the word... :\
The problem I see is that if the defender drop his sword and the attacker has to choose another technique, it is still in a vulnerable position, embarrassed by the opponent's blade.
This would give the defender exactly one tempo, that he could easily use to his advantage.
He is armored and engaged, after all, and need to fear more an entangled or prone position than a hit. So, be temporarily disarmed is not that big deal.
+CopernicoTube Again, I’m not entirely sure whether I understand what you mean. When done with speed and intent, I doubt it very much that either defendant or attacker will be able to drop their swords. After all, a dedicated attack is countered by using force and gravity to destabilise the initial attacker and bringing him to the ground. Within this short timeframe when the attacker performs his thrust, it is next to impossible to drop the sword in that very moment your arms are being forced downwards.
+Dierk Hagedorn What I mean is fairly simple: my point is that the defender can release the sword in time. To you, he doesn't.
Disagree with something is not the same than doesn't understand it. By your answer, you understand perfectly my point.
This kind of conflict can be only solved by practice. I don't have time or resources to give it to you, so it is a stalemate.
+CopernicoTube Apparently, it is. Nevertheless, I hope to re-visit this technique again and see what refinements can be made.
That moment when the visors are open.
I seem to miss the point.
Dierk Hagedorn the point is that he is trying to be a smarta*s because he always sees closed visors in hollywood, without realizing that once in close combat they were open for visibility historically
There are no closed visors in HW, not even helmets
Rich M Are you stupid? Nobody wears helmets in Hollywood, people in real life wore helmets with the visors closed because it could protect them, that's the whole point, PROTECTION.
Even if you can't see well, an open visor is asking for death.
No, I am not stupid, I am a HEMA enthusiast, and while I of course am no expert, I have taken my time to learn about the historical aspects of battle. It was common for people to open up the visors in a battle once your line and the enemies engaged directly, since you would be out of most of the arrow "fire"; visibility, and also breathability was important when engaging an oponent in melee combat, and even more so because there were a lot of people around you, peripheral vision was of utmost importance. There are a handful of manuscripts depicting battle (not armored dueling), and in most of them, most combatants had their visors up whenever they are depicted in melee combat. Armor has always been at a compromise between mobility, agility and protection, that's why not everyone wore frogmouth helms (or at least similar kinds since presicely frogmouths were used for jousting only, at least to my knowledge) in battle, while one could argue it is almost impossible to bypass the protection it brings, its visibility is utter sh*t, and it's mobility as well, since it restricts a lot of neck movement.
Beautiful !!
Thank you.
Sehr schönes Video. Klasse!!!
Danke, Heiko.
AAAAnd he's back
Ein Jahr und er ist wieder da.
Lovely plays!
Thank you so much.
What century is the style of armor from? They look amazing
15 century german gothik armor
Wouldn't it be better in the 2nd technique if you put your right leg behind his left one ? I've never fought in armour, but imho it'd be much easier to throw him. Excellent video btw, thanks for uploading it.
Thanks. Possibly, it would give you superior leverage. After all, it's a question of distance.
beautifull
Thank you for the demonstrations. Maybe I'm missing something, but the 2nd technique, 13v, looks a little strange. After hooking the opponent's left arm with the hilt of your sword, both combatants ended up in a blade-on-blade shoving match while in standing positions. Unless you're significantly stronger than your opponent, there's no reason why he would fall down.
I’m not so sure whether I have pointed out the flaw. We are doing it wrong from the beginning. The techniques demands an entry from the outside, but we’re doing it from the inside. That, of course, has effects on pressure and mechanics. Thanks for pointing this out anyway.
Dierk Hagedorn Thank you for the feedback Dierk. Now I can see it, going out and over, trapping the opponent's hand on the blade between his blade and yours, using that as a pivot point to torque the opponent. That should be a very interesting weapon-assisted grappling technique. :)
would be better to just release the sword and swith to a sidearm if you get dragged down by it, right?
i think in the moment's panic you would try to hold onto your primary weapon
No problem - if you can get to it. There’s no technique that cannot be countered, you know? This is just ONE example - not the entire system.
Fighting is an endless cycle of counters and couter counters until one person makes a mistake.
Well, at least these guys burn some calories. It's healthier than watching telly on a sofa anyways. ;)
Could some one tell me what the "v" and "r" are for with page numbers in manuals?
+RKcousins625 "r" is for recto, the right hand side, "v" is for verso, the left hand side. And I would be very anxious to avoid the term "manual". In most cases, it’s manuscripts, although occasionally printed books carry a foliation too-in opposition to a pagination. Most medieval fechtbücher were not necessarily meant to be instructions for the un-initiated, therefore "manual" may be mis-leading.
UUarum is din Teusch so mittelalterlihh kiscribun? = my pidgin Altdeutsch voicing my fascination for the cool kind of German you have here - it looks like Middle High German to me, what? You use Mediaeval German??? That's wonderful! Or is it maybe, I dunno, Luxembourgish?
Maybe the flaw is that they can let go of the blade should they find themselves in such a grapple? Assuming they have the time to think about it.
Harness fencing is easy and tricky at the same time. The individual techniques are mostly simple, but since it often occurs that what you had in mind doesn't work-due to the usual suspects such as timing and distance-and because of the glancing surface of the armour, you have to adapt and choose another technique. Well, it's called fencing for a reason. But the real flaw has yet to be revealed.
Close teh F$=("=$§=(§$ Helmet, if you fight ! :D
No, that's not it. By the way. Have a look at Talhoffer, Kal etc. Fighting with an open visor is not so uncommon after all.
Turtes move faster.
Turtes maybe; but consider snais: Those are much, much slower. Or should I say sower?
Ninja turtles for certain do. I think the one on the left might be Donatello.
Try it with full resistance and see if it actually works.. Doing it like this proves nothing
Thank you for your valuable comment. Actually, this video was not meant to *prove* anything, and I guess, I did not make such an allegation. However, this is a demonstration about how to make an attempt to bring the letters from centuries old codices back to life in the first place. But do feel free to try it with full resistance and enlighten me; I’m curious about your results.
@@DierkHagedorn Why is thay guy going limp and falling like that mate.. You made it look like one of those bullshit Mcdojo martial arts where people fall at the minimum touch. The techniques are actually very well shown besides that. Anyway there's no reason to be so defensive about it. I am allowed an opinion and I am also allowed to share it since that's what the comments section is for.
@@mokyaffe By all means. Indeed I see what you refer to; nevertheless, it’s not about proving something but rather recreating something. But never mind, that’s possibly just an insignificant difference. Besides, what did we know back then?
No way real life combat is that slow. I know it's a demo but it needs realistic speed.
+XxGR3YW01FxX I’m afraid I don’t get it entirely what you are trying to teach me? To make demos faster? Well, that’s not exactly the purpose of a demo, or is it?
+Dierk Hagedorn Sure it is. Now if it was training then I would get why they would be doing it slowly. In demos you demonstrate as in you already know how to do it and therefore not need slow motion.
A demonstration to azubis needs to be slow so that they understand what they are doing .
Or can you repeat a technic like this clear and without a fail after seeing it once?
Pretty much the same of that videos where the guy let being beat up... no resistence at all. Things weren't like that.
I’m pretty sure you are absolutely right. Guess what: They didn’t even train in gyms back then. And didn’t wear glasses, when they performed their presentations.
It's called a demonstration ...
Hazardous 088 Yeah, makes sense. I would like to see one with resistence though. Many marcial arts techniques aren't really useful on real world.
I didn't want to sound offensive, sorry. English is not my main language, I might need to choose my words better.
For demo purposes it makes sense at all, just like any other martial arts.
But I would very much like to see these demos being applied on real combat.
The one on the right seems so passive and favorable to the application of the techniques.
Since you guys probably followed old combat manuals to record this video (manuals created by people who really went for battlegrounds sometimes), I might be the one uninformed here.
The two main things that makes me unconfortable at these techniques are:
- Why the one on the right needs to keep holding his sword, allowing the enemy apply the technique?
- Would the victmin be able to just walk away when grappled like that? And even take advantage of the opponent stance right after walking away and bursting back with an attack?
Great video though!
This should be called "Fantasy Kung-Fu Style". Sooo lame (
That’s why it’s called “slow motion“, I presume.