As a professional historian from Denmark, this warms my heart. You are applying what we call "source criticism", which sounds simple but actually is one of the most fundamental and sometimes hardest methods in professional historical work. Often we write many pages with extensive explanations and alternative methods when criticizing an authors source-criticism-method. So I am pleased that someone in the HEMA environment finally acknowledge some of the points of criticism that are so apparent in the fencing manuals throughout history. I tip my hat dear sir.
I want to imagine martial artists and pseudoscholars from the future, combing through our detritus, discussing our combat style and incredible devotion to fighting based on a random collection of surviving documents. "According to the famous Deadpool Fragment, we see this soldier using two katana swords, two submachine guns, and two pistols. Additionally, note his skin-tight elastic combat uniform. With few other examples of early 21st century battle dress surviving, we are very lucky to have found this contemporaneous and - we hope! - representative example of early third millennium warriors. We trust that everything has been drawn accurately as the artists of this time would have had immediate visual reference to contemporary soldiers as cameras had been invented in approximately the same historical period."
I appreciate this video and how attention can be given to it w/arguably more clarity than if it had been say ~'When Historical East Asian Martial Arts Treatises Are Wrong' b/c if that had been the case there'd be a somewhat different stream of argument in the comment section given how it's somewhat more difficult to make ppl accept how the effectiveness of historical East Asian martial arts for all their 'fanciful repertoires' have been 'stretched out' all the more by centuries and decades of legends, folklore and media which ultimately are meant to generative 'thrilling enough' narratives and not be accurate depictions of combative self-defense or even competition for that matter -- no disrespect for to historical East Asian styles; the 'is it as or more effective as modern MMA' debate is left elsewhere even before say looking into the recent struggles of Xu Xiaodong. __ ^_^ Also that was a funny comment Carlos Caro
Re-read the sacred texts please, and take heed of every line. Otherwise, you will grow two extra testicles of gigantic sizes with hair the size of trees.
Yes. Very true. Let's take Mike Tyson for example one of the best boxers who ever lived. How many champions has he trained? Big Zero. How many champion's coaches were champions? Next to Zero.
Thank you for addressing this very important issue. As a practitioner of Kendo And Hema I have come across many people who hold up Miyamoto Musashi‘s book of five rings as gospel. I think he is a good example of an extraordinary practitioner Who wasn’t really good writer. My greatest take away from his writing was his observation Regarding the many teachers of martial arts in his era. He Use the metaphor of seeds and flowers: there are many more flowers than seeds of wisdom.
gordon thomas Maybe they are trying to minimize wound infections from dirty clothes. Or maybe they are trying to illustrate the muscles used and exposed soft spots during each move.
I have noticed that people often confuse training Technique for how something is actually done. Training is to teach your body how to do a given move and teach you various ways to respond to a given move. In Karate for example students are taught Kata's which involve all the movements they would use while sparing but you do not perform a Kata while sparing. You use what you learned doing the Kata to attack and defend but you are not married to the specific moves or patterns.
Thank you for this material Matt. This really reminds me of workshops in Poland we did on dagger from Fiore. With the simplest techniques even everybody had their own interpretations, especially on follow throughs of the techniques. This really opens one's mind for interpreting treatises. Kudos!
The proliferation of sword-themed RUclips channels is a good proxy. Some people know what they are talking about but aren't particularly entertaining. Some are enteraining but full of bad information. Some are neither, some are both. But as a general rule the ones with the most subscribers are the ones that have held up to scrutiny and judged to be the most worthwhile.
The two halves of a good master are definitely hard to find together. My first judo teacher is a terrific instructor who has a great skill for getting beginners into the art. It was only a few years into my study that I realized he is not a great technician, and decided to find a higher ranking more technically nuanced sensei. The man I ended up with is a great technician, but I would never have had the patience for his style if I had gone to him as a true novice.
You're very expressive, Matt. I could probably pause at any point in one of your videos and say "ah, there's the background for my next 'context' meme."
5 лет назад+24
oh and another point. a very good instructor teaching a good system can sometimes because they fall in love with their own ego or image wind up also teaching bullshitt.
I'd like to see a similar topic. Authors intentionally adding bad plays to their manuals. I've heard many theories that people like fiore added a couple of bad teachings into their manuals to cull incompetent people from practicioners.
This reminds me of that pugilism text from the Discworld series that was written by some noble who had never been in a real fight, so every time someone uses the stances in the book they leave a huge opening. Captain Carrot usually loses fights because he falls back on that training.
Which ones were that? From my recollection, Captain Carrot was raised by dwarves and fights like dwarves and I don't ever remember him losing any fights.
@@kwanarchive I think the first book Carrot was introduced he nearly got killed because he was falling back on the Marquise de Fantailler (thanks eldric grubbidge), but Angua took a bullet for him, and then when Carrot was fighting Angua's brother he assumed the main stance of the fighting style and Wolfgang punched him directly in the gut before he could realize his mistake. He doesn't lose fights often, but when he does it's because he slipped into the Marquise de Fantailler fighting style. I said "usually" because I'm only on Thief Of Time, and don't know if he loses any fights later in the series (there are, after all, a good fifteen books left IIRC). His losses also haven't had much lasting impact up to the point I am at in the series (beyond proving that he has flaws even though he is the goodest of boys).
Nice chops. Also, this is a good argument for looking at Sport sources for insight since Kenjutsu, for instance, has a through-line through Kendo that can be seen through the sport texts even if they aren't lethal combat texts. Those insights might not always be relevant but they can definitely shine a light on problems in a system that is related, even if directed at a different objective. Especially as HEMA moves more toward a sport in general (since I doubt we all want to be running around killing each other to show off our skill).
There are charlatans and quacks in every industry and there always have been. It was just a helluva lot more expensive back then to be a charlatan with a treatise when every copy was hand written and drawn...
The subject of this video spans both pre- and post-printing press. Human nature: there will always be people who try it on. A con being expensive only reduces the number of people who will try it, not eliminate the con completely.
The exact same thing happens in traditional Asian martial arts, unfortunately. Heaven forbid you point out the fact that the document that the Bodhidharma legend is based off of was proven to be a forgery, or that the founder of Shotokan karate was actually not considered a master in his time
@mxt mxt I'm fully aware, and have digital copies of the original Japanese versions of his books, and have looked into it. I wasn't putting into question how much he knew versus how much he taught. I was just pointing out that he was not considered a master by the masters on Okinawa--he wasn't a karateka of any real importance until he was sent to Japan.
@mxt mxt No, I didn't mean fighters, I meant the state of the art itself after being repressed for some 200+ years (both thanks to Okinawans and Japanese) and passed through the thin grapevine of some pretty bad tutors.
@mxt mxt The problem is, due to secrecy, you can be almost sure there *were* bad tutors in the lineage just because there were so few of them. This is due to simple math. If three people know it really in depth, one is subpar at teaching but two others die, what survives of the art?
@mxt mxt Head on against whom? Resisting opponents? The Chinese during raids? Themselves during Sengoku? In what armor? The arts were already somewhat dying during Edo period... Early Edo period jujutsu which is strike heavy being vastly different from earlier more vital striking and major standing grappling jujutsu before then, and finally evolving into the lock and throw and groundwork heavy modern "softer" form in 18th century. The only combat art that actually is alive somewhat is the old jujutsu, which is geared towards armored grappling combat in original form - and it is probably still a shadow of the original. This was actually tested in actual combat, 15-17th century at least. Enough that Chinese had to emphasize hand to hand combat. Kobudo degenerated heavily into a dance and excercise, so much that we have trouble tracing it back - and most everything extant is 20th century. Sumo is a ritual wrestling system mostly for contest and show, though it is ancient. Aikido, karate and judo are all modern and new (karate being late 19th century), not that well tested and especially not in combat. (Judo and aikido derive from jujutsu with major limitations and specializations and developments. BJJ is a good all around modern and developed variant.) This does not mean they cannot be made to work of course, but the impetus was to turn them into some sort of spiritual attainment, sport and excercise instead of combat.
It's funny how many of these fencing treatises are found in manuscript compilations that include dubious medical texts and the like, but everyone assumes the fencing masters knew what they were talking about.
Nice video Matt, clear, comprehensive and IMO exactly right - can be applied to so many other fields as well, as you said... Cheers! Happy new year!!!!
Fascinating perspective Matt! Matt, you mentioned before that many or most medieval fight manuals do not present the standard, or common system, but instead present an alternative or "secret" system for defeating the common system. Most of these "tricks" might be useless if they are not surprises. So it's kind of funny to see members of a salle practicing these "tricks" where all members see the trick coming and learn to defeat it easily. They then form the opinion that since the trick is easily defeated (if they know what's coming), then the trick must be "rubbish".
Thank you! I trained as a historian, and when I started to write fights, these are some of the things I started to think, intuitively. I'm no expert in this field! But among other things, it seemed to me: * As you say, people made up texts, and/or plagiarized other people's texts (medical, travel, literary, etc), sometimes with very little understanding or knowledge of the field. Why would this not have happened in the field of weapons and fighting? * There must have been swordmasters/trainers who were excellent, and others who were rubbish (same as you now get, say, some ballet teachers or tennis instructors who are good and some who are bad). This means students would learn different techniques, and some would learn bad techniques or learn things incorrectly. * What we have in written sources (texts or treatises) is probably only the tip of the iceberg with regard to knowledge or practice of past times, at least before the invention of printing. There must have been a great many swordmasters, perhaps with their own systems, or particular techniques/tricks, which never got written down. * If everyone simply knew the few main, *best* systems, or just one system exactly as it appears in a treatise, fights and opponents would have been rather predictable. Fights or duels would almost have appeared choreographed (if that makes sense), because you would know what an opponent would do in any specific situation. Fighters and duelists might well have adjusted or adapted techniques, and mixed and matched bits of knowledge/techniques from different systems?
These issues arise in historical European dance texts as well. Sometimes they presume a lot of knowledge from the reader, and sometimes techniques are described in such vague terms as to be nearly useless. Sometimes, it's just impossible to make the the choreography work unless you accept that Playford simply mixed up 'left' and 'right' a couple of times.
You should read 'The Inner game of Tennis' if you have not already. The way you approach physical learning makes me suspect you have already lived this book's philosophy for a time. I came across the thing as a musician, but martial artists also use it, and of course tennis players and other people who engage in competition based on muscle memory.
My friend and instructor Dr. Ken Mondschien recently published a complete translation of Agrippa with all of the original illustrations. Which i bought because Ken is my friend and instructor and all of those reasons. It is a very interesting book and tells us a lot about the period and what ideas and concepts were trending in mathematics and philosophy. I would maintain that any unbiased reading would regard the rapier system described as essentially a death sentence for the practitioner. And yet it was at the time of its publication apparently a very popular and widely bought book. Very prestigious to have on the period equivalent of your coffee table.
Dear Matt, you are a genuius! I was thinking about going into some stick or staff fighting, and there you are - suggesting a book about basics of singlestick fighting, with chapters about walkingstick, quarterstaff etc. And there is a list with books about other martial arts, like boxing and wrestling, and about indian clubs. Great! Cheers!
Really interesting! I must say however that I felt a lot safer, watching with a screen between us - you waved that sword around throughout the whole thing! ;) Great video and happy new year to you too :)
Would truly love to see you in action. Do you have a video that show you in action? I love what you are doing and have gained knowledge about the weapons you show. Awesome keep up the good work!
It's not just those written by people who don't know what they're talking about (Not a new thing, and far from gone.) Also, there's minor erors in there that come out of the Medium, especially in the plates. Those are drawn by byestandars, not snapped as photographs, but I only have to assume that at some point, the demonstration was over, and the illustrator sat down with a candle, and finished up by memory. This is particularly easy to see with their grips. The stances tend to be bye, and large fairly plausible, but those could be sketched in broad strokes, in real time. Then, I figure that they drew in a hilt, and put some fingers in there. Probably weren't really paying attention to how they were holding them in the battle, fight, judicial duel, or fencing class, but I have told people time and again to hold the hilt the way that feels comfortable. (The same with firearms, one of the most overlooked things in grip is being comfortable enough to not think about it, whilst retaining it against attempts to disarm.) Do Not Try To Hold It Like The Pictures. They're wrong. More often than not, even when the fingers, and thumb are on the right side of the hand. (I've also seen a lot of hands like that, where the fingers bend backwards, or the thumb is up side down. Or, their wrist is somehow turned 180 degrees.)
2:37. There, you see that? Look at all 4 hands. Does that look right, to you? Perfect example. 6:35 "Deliberately trying to defraud the reader." Particularly when it comes to things like the secrets of warfare. Less so when it comes to single combat, but let's just assume you have a kingdom with an unbeatable (Or OP with regards to the immediate enemies) system, and you write a playbook. Let's say you have a Football team, with a playbook. Your enemies, and rivals would very much like to get their hands on that book. So, the Master at Arms writes up a whole lot of copies of fraudulent techniques, which he "Oops!" lets get in the wrong hands, and only personally teaches his men, or keeps the real treatise under lock and key. Centuries later, you're more likely to get your hand on the copy than the original.
As someone who translates Italian 16th century treatises, I think the biggest inconvenience isn't that the masters themselves didn't know fencing, but were very poor writers. Sticking to the Italians, there are quite a few earlier treatises that just have unclear prose, or are written in a language that is inherently difficult, Pedro Monte's bizarre Latin for example. Other treatises are incomplete or not intended/ready for publication. Domingo Luis Godinho couldn't get his treatise published and it seems to me to be a rough draft. I think Altoni's "Monomachia" also does. The Anonimo Riccardino doesn't even seem to be written for anyone, but the author. As such it doesn't even tell you what the guards are. The treatises aren't perfect, but I'm more than happy that we have then.
Spanish is my first language and as part of my undergrad I did a fair amount of reading of texts going back to the 16th century. (Texts before that take a lot of effort to understand) I think what strikes me about older texts and especially things like letters and chronicles, is that most people were terrible writers. Their logic was often all over the place. They rambled on and on from topic to topic. They often just assume you know what they know. We underestimate just how much training in proper writing all of us have nowadays, even by the time we are teenagers our writing skills are way above the average medieval writer. Of course, there were also fabulous writers like Calderon de la Barca and Miguel de Cervantes.
We do see an attitude in the Middle Ages (and sometimes today too) that ‘book learning’ just trumps firsthand experience - Christine de Pizan wrote a tome on military strategy having never fought a battle and no one apparently thought that was weird
So basically even before my time there were followers of my personal philosophy "If you can't blind them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit."
This is a great point that I think just goes over the head of most historical martial artists. But one thing I like to look at is the explosion of contemporary low-quality martial arts & self-defense instructors who teach sports styles or ineffective techniques as if they were going to save your life in a fight. They don't know what they're doing, but their students aren't in a position to know any better. It's only through years of education and hands-on experience that you can learn to sort out what really works from what doesn't. But if some of those ineffective instruction books were what survived into the future - actually kind of likely, given how many more of them there are - then how would future historians know to tell the difference between what actually worked for us and what was poor instruction? It's a huge oversight to just assume that historical texts must've been effective.
Over a decade ago, I remember asking on (IIRC) Sword Forum International if there was a chance that some surviving treaties were potentially "Bullshido" - that did not go over well, as I recall.
Hey Matt I’ve been subscribed for a long time and this is the first time I noticed that gangster scar you have. Don’t know if you’ve covered it before in a video but I’m sure it has an awesome story. Probably fighting a dragon 🐉 or some shite.
Our favourite word 'context' applies. Context is constantly changing. Tactics is constantly under development by finding counter-tactics to tactics already known. Even the most outlandish way to swing a sword may have been sound within a fraction of this ever-changing context, because neither the opponent nor anyone else at the time knew any better. In order to build a strong case that a certain treaty is 'rubbish' one would have to show that at that particular moment in time, in that particular region, everyone already knew a counter-tactic to that particular outlandish way of swinging a sword. Bear in mind that, out of context, every way to swing a sword would be as flimsy and ridiculous as trying wantonly small-swording the surroundings to oblivion, when faced against a hydrogen bomb. Apart from that, I find it a bit disturbing to watch a grown man absent-mindedly swinging a sword about in his study while using eery expressions as 'there is more than one way to skin a cat'. I am now deeply concerned about the whereabouts of Cat Easton. Matt, what have you done?
On historic BS written in books: I think a man named Lansford Hastings is an illustrative example. In 1845 he published the Emigrants Guide to Oregon and California. He wrote much of this guide without actually traveling the route. His motives were not what they seemed to be. He hoped to create a new country in the American West. He famously advocated departing from the Oregon trail near the Great Salt Lake in Utah, it's known as Hastings' cutoff. The route crosses the Wasatch mountains innefficiently, and much of the rest of it crosses playa (it works like a solar oven, reflects light like snow! and if it gets a little wet, it turns into a soft mess.) It's objectively a bad route through country that is inhospitable enough on a good day. That didn't stop some idiots from Saint Louis (notable among them the Reeds, Breens and Donners) from taking Hastings' cutoff. An experienced wagon captain even tried to talk them out of it. The route was slow and bad for the animals, further delaying the already tardy group. The Donner Party, in my opinion, pursued stupidity and self-confidence, and reality caught up to them in the Sierras. You can't save the stupid. But, Lansford Hastings, lawyer and bullshitter, definitely contributed to their famous ordeal. Books have a certain weight and authority to them, even bad ones. I wonder how many people died from bad fencing manuals...
A lot of manuals are like learning American Football from Bill Bellichecks [1] Playbook but without ever saw a game or read a rule book. This leads to problems like: What is a nickel and dime or a shotgun vs Pistol formation. Is a quater back like two dimes and a nickel back or half a half back and what is the advantage of a shotgun vs. a Pistol formation. But more important. When do you do a punt? When do you go for a two point conversion? When do you do a kick off..... All those things are normal to someone knowing the game ..... Same with fencing manuals. Like "All attacks come from a launch...." would be known to people of the time. [1] One of the most successful coaches in the game. Some say he cheats, other say he outsmarts everybody else....
I read a lot of books and watch DVDs on shooting. I've never come across any that were BS, but I have seen some are better than others, some are more advanced or basic, and that while there is 95%+ overlap in how these masters describe how a gun (usually auto-loading pistols) there are differences to. Reid Henrichs is a famous firearms instructor on YT and wrote a book that contradicts one of his videos on a particular detail (the usefulness of XS Big Dot type sights vs. traditional notch and post). Hearing the same person argue full force on this detail both ways just a couple years apart really helps illuminate the issue.
It's similar in modern target archery. The US head coach, Kisik Lee, has 2 books with notable differences, plus errors. Plenty of other coaches and athletes disagree and it hasn't been the rewriting the rule book sort of thing he states. It's not BS, it can work, but it ain't the best.
Between Hope's original system and his New Method, Hope has another method of fencing that uses what is basically the "Horse Stance" to fence from. Theory being is you no longer really have lower lines to worry about. I tried it out with one of the guys from Linacre - it wasn't something I would do, but it was interesting never the less.
Good points but hard to get through to young people and old folks stuck in this mode, many people especially those from traditional schooling, tend to only apply and only maybe, when they hit their mid thirties more commonly or fourties.
Nice video. Thanks for sharing this. What's the standard we hold them to? Did they see combat? Did their students see combat? Have they fought in duels? Were they employed to teach their art by important employers such as a crown, court or branch of the military? A lot of these questions could be hard to answer for all periods. Perhaps, just limiting ourselves to one country and time period/ context would make things easier to determine the answers to what it really boils down to. Could he fight? Could he teach people to fight effectively? Was this system effective and able to be taught quickly to many people? Great video and things to keep in mind when studying.
This video got me thinking about something. If I'm not mistaken, Liechtenauer warns against the practice of techniques that just look cool, but that don't work in a fight. If a fencing master needed to warn against the practice of flashy, ineffective nonsense, that implies there were people in those time periods practising flashy, ineffective nonsense. Are there any examples of that?
Similar to any martial arts training, a good teacher who knows how to interpret the good from the bad is essential. Also like all martial arts, anyone who is any good at it will end up adapting any system to their own capabilities, limitations, and experience. Thereby changing the system with every practitioner.
Personally i believe Agrippa is an excellent example of this, his first book in 1553 was rewritten by himself a few more times and republished them. Possibly making changes or explaining things better. Other example would be comparing Capoferro to Fabris. Fabris book is way more detailed and his technique and guard covers more lines than Capoferro, this does not mean Capoferro is bad, especially when you consider Fabris had patronage from a king so he had more money to write an extensive work while Capoferro was an University teacher so most likely he could not write an extensive work and his work itself has some few concepts that are harder to understand because they are not explained throughly. I like both authors but I find funny that there are many out there that keep discussing how one is rubish and the other is better nowadays. One book that is the rapier equivalent to the one you mentioned for singlestick for beginners would be Bondi di Mazo, his technique is simple and can give a general idea to the beginner on how to hold a rapier and dagger properly without many theoretical concepts, but some of his definitions on tempo and distance can be questionable. Sorry for the long comment and excellent video as always matt.
I think Richard Francis Burton probably had a working system just he was terrible at trying to explain it and had an overly complicated way describing his cuts.
I'm great at watching RUclips videos, though I don't know how I developed this skill. That said, I'm terrible at commenting. On a separate note, I'd like to wish Matt and all of his subscribers a Very Happy New Year.
I think another good example of a situation where we can see evolution of a person's style and interpretations is Joachim Meyer. He wrote what was essentially commentaries on previous masters, laying out what he felt was important that they had taught, then he wrote his 1568 which was much more "him," then he wrote his 1570 which is much better laid out and organized for a mass audience. Then he died, at a young age. So we have no great idea what his system would have looked like had he been able to have a full career as a fencing teacher and writer. I feel pretty strongly that any later books he would have written would have been of even higher quality, as he clearly wanted to communicate clearly what he was teaching, and his understanding of what he wanted to teach clearly evolved over just a few years.
@@Tkoutlosh But is it rapier, though? I was under the impression that it was more of a sidesword. Maybe for sidesword it is better than for later period rapier?
@@thelonerider5644 Yeah, I got that info - "Meyer's rapier sucks, it doesn't work" from experienced but rapierists... few other HEMA guys told me that it has to be considered "sidesword manual" instead of rapier one which changes the situation quite a lot...
keep the sideburns. bring them back into style. i need the victorian facial hair to become popular because i have a few ideas for my own beard. p.s. love the channel. keep it up
If you are interested I will add another reason a treatise could be unintentionally wrong. Physical variation in an individual. My example is anecdotal Bruce Lee, I have been told his stances and footwork were influenced by the fact that one leg was longer than the other. Some people may have had something similar or incorrectly healed injury that they did not realize changed how or why they used and found effective some part.
I'm not an expert (not even close), but I've suspected that Thomas Page was full of it when he wrote his treatise on the Broadsword. One reason I suspect it is because he was an English shop owner who served in an Artillery Company that would defend the city of Norwich against possible invasion during the Jacobite Rebellion. His potential to have been exposed to any Scottish Broadsword system thus would have been rather limited (especially since the city never did come under attack during that time).
The problem is that in medieval times, most European military forces had to constantly fight off the attacks of dragons (St. George basically did nothing but fight dragons, as you can see from his many depictions on church windows, frescos, etc.) Fighting just dragons obviously deforms your style, and makes you forget the finer nuances of courtly dueling and rapier jabber-stabbing.
The geometric schools of fence would seem to argue against what you say. They would insist that anything "good" in other systems is easily enough explained in their terminology. The Spanish and Thibault, specifically, seek to methodically prove their superiority over other styles in Europe (remember that martial scholars were communicating quite a bit at this time, just as Fiore implies. Unfortunately, I can't find a lecture on youtube describing just that phenomenon in the renaissance...). The books set down a sort of principle on which one acts in all situations, whether cutting, thrusting, grappling, fighting multiple opponents, pommeling, etc. The Lichtenauer tradition, also, seems to believe in a "true art," parts of which can be seen in many styles. In another continent, Musashi describes a philosophy that he applies to all disciplines, not just fighting. While a treatise is limited by, as you said, not containing the master himself, we should heed their desire to find the true art of fighting.
Which would then bring us back to the following questions, would it not? To wit: Just how good are the writers of these superior, universal systems at explaining their ideas, and how good -are- their ideas. Which leaves us, as the reader, having to do just as the writer did - compare what we're presented with with what we already know, and seek out new knowledge to confirm or challenge what we've already learned. Loranna
I think the philosophy or spirit of the school itself is something fascinating and of major importance if you want to study a system as originally intended. It is the source of how to justify an approach to a technique that may have the exact same objective as a very different approach from another school or culture. We are used to dealing with the practical approach in our daily lives and picking up what we feel works from different ideas, but I think immersion in the system is necessary to understand and pass on the tradition.
@@klavakkhazga3996 I am finding a lot of similarities between Lichtenauer's german longsword tradition and Miyamoto Musashi's Go Rin No Sho... it is really interresting to see same conclusions and principles in two different regions....
Great video Matt, it's amusing how so many people regard any historical text as invaluable information. Some authors were, for lack of a more precise term, full of shite from any time period. Just out of curiosity, what is the history on the two sabers hanging vertically on your right in this video? I acquired an antique blade that is very similar to them some years ago with sadly little paperwork attached.
What some HEMA practitioners seem to overlook is that not all authors were necessarily aware of other martial arts like Krabi Krabong and Kalaripayattu, so what they write would be limited to what they know. They couldn't just use Google to find these arts from across the globe and study them in detail. The HEMA community is fortunate in that they can compare and contrast their arts to others that originated from different continents and gain greater insights into how their arts work in the first place.
I can definitely find some similarities between Lichtenauer's longsword tradition and Musashi's Go Rin No Sho. Can't say about Kalaripayattu coz I don't know much but from YT it seems to be quite different but maybe close to other styles....
What defines HEMA are the underlying principles that make the art work. If you know what the principles are and can use them effectively, then you can hold your own against other martial arts. ruclips.net/video/3SPFafsia98/видео.html
The tennis example is very good to show how materials can change the arts, the old wooden tennisrackets made for a different way to play tennis and the new era of rackets made it change drastically. Björn Borgs "Tennis Treatise" from 1979 wouldn't show the perfect way to play tennis in -89.
Matt, you mentioned those who are naturally talented in a particular skill, and I'm implying you were referring to HEMA students; despite their inability to explain why they were good, or what they did that made them good, did they become better from learning from any of the treatises or through personal instruction? Did learning the "basics" benefit them? Also, comparing the different methodologies of various teachers, do you ever recognize obvious hybrids of previous systems?
I was reading my copy of "The Art of the Rifle" the other day and my son asked about it which brought up several things. First, while the author was an excellent shot, the book is really only good for improving the shooting of someone with a basic understanding (military basic training level) of shooting. The other thing is that the author was a major scumbag who was so racist that the USMC told him to be gone after the Korean War and later went on to make his name working for white supremacist regimes in Africa. Sometimes you have to separate the author from the materials as well.
I actually have a question that has nothing to do with this topic: I believe I have not yet seen a video of you in which you spoke about Dusack swords. Is there anything to say about them? I have seen pictures and some of them look rather unique, at least for european blades. Might be an idea for another video.
Its also worth noting different people do well in different syles an mma analogy take daniel Cormier(oylmpic wrestler)and mirco cro cop(k1 kickboxer)you wont training the two the same way mirco you send to a school that teaches him to defend takedowns how to deal with small gloves and get back up cormier you teach him standup ground & pound and submissions
Nice lesson on objectivity and critical thought. Scientism is rooted in egoism and both are rooted in ignorance and insecurity, it’s an eagerness of ignorant people to recycle other’s opinions in search of praise/status.
Yeah, it's like my old history textbooks from school - sure the people who wrote it are professionals; but they still tried to sell the dinosaurs as giant Jurassic Park lizards, Columbus as a hero, and France as never winning a war.
As a professional historian from Denmark, this warms my heart. You are applying what we call "source criticism", which sounds simple but actually is one of the most fundamental and sometimes hardest methods in professional historical work. Often we write many pages with extensive explanations and alternative methods when criticizing an authors source-criticism-method. So I am pleased that someone in the HEMA environment finally acknowledge some of the points of criticism that are so apparent in the fencing manuals throughout history.
I tip my hat dear sir.
@@F1ghteR41 Indeed. +1
When you say, "There is more than one way to skin a cat" while holding a sword conversationally.
By the way, where is Cat Easton? :-O
I was figuring that as he said that, there needed to be a quick cut to Catt Easton looking annoyed.
Why the hell does he need more than one?!?😨
@@fatman80000 = )
@@fatman80000 Skinned and trussed up temporarily.
I want to imagine martial artists and pseudoscholars from the future, combing through our detritus, discussing our combat style and incredible devotion to fighting based on a random collection of surviving documents.
"According to the famous Deadpool Fragment, we see this soldier using two katana swords, two submachine guns, and two pistols. Additionally, note his skin-tight elastic combat uniform. With few other examples of early 21st century battle dress surviving, we are very lucky to have found this contemporaneous and - we hope! - representative example of early third millennium warriors. We trust that everything has been drawn accurately as the artists of this time would have had immediate visual reference to contemporary soldiers as cameras had been invented in approximately the same historical period."
Oh boy, imagine they come across one drawn by Rob Liefeld.
@@rolfs2165 "People of that day seemed to have horribly mutated feet."
I appreciate this video and how attention can be given to it w/arguably more clarity than if it had been say ~'When Historical East Asian Martial Arts Treatises Are Wrong' b/c if that had been the case there'd be a somewhat different stream of argument in the comment section given how it's somewhat more difficult to make ppl accept how the effectiveness of historical East Asian martial arts for all their 'fanciful repertoires' have been 'stretched out' all the more by centuries and decades of legends, folklore and media which ultimately are meant to generative 'thrilling enough' narratives and not be accurate depictions of combative self-defense or even competition for that matter -- no disrespect for to historical East Asian styles; the 'is it as or more effective as modern MMA' debate is left elsewhere even before say looking into the recent struggles of Xu Xiaodong.
__
^_^ Also that was a funny comment Carlos Caro
So youre saying that fighting giant snails is not historical?
No but the penis bunnies were totally a thing
They are actually a representation of Burgundians AFAIK, just like we have our stereotypical Jews and Arabs cartoons today...
@Grundy Malone i was busy fighting dragons with hundreds of eyes on the entire surface of their body
If you're going to fight a giant snail, then your shield needs a face on it.
Re-read the sacred texts please, and take heed of every line. Otherwise, you will grow two extra testicles of gigantic sizes with hair the size of trees.
"Just cause you can write a book doesn't mean you know anything." Followed up with a photo of Sir Richard Burton LOL
No not the sacred text of HEMA treaties!!! First you went after the katana now the treaties!!!! Oh the humanity!!!! What's next the pommel?!!! LOL.
That is the first pommel joke that actually made me laugh
Lets end him rightly. :-P
@@YerbaDelDiablo agreed this one made me laugh, that and/Or the rum, not sure if both or one specifically, need more rum to test
I heard the Sacred Pommel is protected by a Dwarf-Canadian Gnome called Skal-ah- Gnome
@@sushanalone nah that honors has gone to Shad.
Yes. Very true.
Let's take Mike Tyson for example one of the best boxers who ever lived. How many champions has he trained? Big Zero. How many champion's coaches were champions? Next to Zero.
Thank you for addressing this very important issue. As a practitioner of Kendo And Hema I have come across many people who hold up Miyamoto Musashi‘s book of five rings as gospel. I think he is a good example of an extraordinary practitioner Who wasn’t really good writer. My greatest take away from his writing was his observation Regarding the many teachers of martial arts in his era. He Use the metaphor of seeds and flowers: there are many more flowers than seeds of wisdom.
I guess we can consider them dandelions, flowers that are actually weeds.
At least everybody should agree about which end of the rapier to hold
What do you mean end? You grab it smack down the middle for the stabby stabby dagger plays and mace swings
Indeed, you hold it by the thin end so you can beat them with the heavy end.
@@Mukinrestak And by heavy end you mean pommel :)
Dammit! Now someone is going to start talking about half-swording and murder strokes with rapiers! What have you done!
Yeah, everyone knows the point is where you hold one.
2:40 “Dammit, Fred, we can’t BOTH be skins! One of us has to be shirts. Pants optional, though”
gordon thomas Who hasn’t gotten into a naked rapier duel or two, in their time?
@@calamusgladiofortior2814 agreed me mates and i do it all the time, just without the rapiers.
studentdrake Without rapiers? Well then what do you poke each other with....
ohhhhh.
gordon thomas Maybe they are trying to minimize wound infections from dirty clothes. Or maybe they are trying to illustrate the muscles used and exposed soft spots during each move.
I have noticed that people often confuse training Technique for how something is actually done. Training is to teach your body how to do a given move and teach you various ways to respond to a given move. In Karate for example students are taught Kata's which involve all the movements they would use while sparing but you do not perform a Kata while sparing. You use what you learned doing the Kata to attack and defend but you are not married to the specific moves or patterns.
Thank you for this material Matt. This really reminds me of workshops in Poland we did on dagger from Fiore. With the simplest techniques even everybody had their own interpretations, especially on follow throughs of the techniques. This really opens one's mind for interpreting treatises. Kudos!
The proliferation of sword-themed RUclips channels is a good proxy. Some people know what they are talking about but aren't particularly entertaining. Some are enteraining but full of bad information. Some are neither, some are both. But as a general rule the ones with the most subscribers are the ones that have held up to scrutiny and judged to be the most worthwhile.
While the ones with the most views make the best click bait!
The two halves of a good master are definitely hard to find together. My first judo teacher is a terrific instructor who has a great skill for getting beginners into the art. It was only a few years into my study that I realized he is not a great technician, and decided to find a higher ranking more technically nuanced sensei. The man I ended up with is a great technician, but I would never have had the patience for his style if I had gone to him as a true novice.
You're very expressive, Matt. I could probably pause at any point in one of your videos and say "ah, there's the background for my next 'context' meme."
oh and another point. a very good instructor teaching a good system can sometimes because they fall in love with their own ego or image wind up also teaching bullshitt.
senk iu
Definitely one of my top five channels out there. It's all in the context
I am glad to see you have stockpiled enough 'context' to use such a considerable amount of it on the first day of the year.
I'd like to see a similar topic. Authors intentionally adding bad plays to their manuals. I've heard many theories that people like fiore added a couple of bad teachings into their manuals to cull incompetent people from practicioners.
You can tell which manuscripts are rubbish and which ones are good by the amount of Super-Dry gear the figures are illustrated with.
I can attest to this.
Someone should make a drawing of this.
This reminds me of that pugilism text from the Discworld series that was written by some noble who had never been in a real fight, so every time someone uses the stances in the book they leave a huge opening. Captain Carrot usually loses fights because he falls back on that training.
Which ones were that? From my recollection, Captain Carrot was raised by dwarves and fights like dwarves and I don't ever remember him losing any fights.
The marquis de fantailler
@@kwanarchive I think the first book Carrot was introduced he nearly got killed because he was falling back on the Marquise de Fantailler (thanks eldric grubbidge), but Angua took a bullet for him, and then when Carrot was fighting Angua's brother he assumed the main stance of the fighting style and Wolfgang punched him directly in the gut before he could realize his mistake.
He doesn't lose fights often, but when he does it's because he slipped into the Marquise de Fantailler fighting style. I said "usually" because I'm only on Thief Of Time, and don't know if he loses any fights later in the series (there are, after all, a good fifteen books left IIRC). His losses also haven't had much lasting impact up to the point I am at in the series (beyond proving that he has flaws even though he is the goodest of boys).
@@PsylomeAlphaThanks.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!! (It's exactly the first minute of 2019 where I'm at)
Lol...still couple hours to go, here... XD
And here is still 6 pm of 2018.
It’s 08 January 2020. Welcome to the future.
Nice chops.
Also, this is a good argument for looking at Sport sources for insight since Kenjutsu, for instance, has a through-line through Kendo that can be seen through the sport texts even if they aren't lethal combat texts.
Those insights might not always be relevant but they can definitely shine a light on problems in a system that is related, even if directed at a different objective. Especially as HEMA moves more toward a sport in general (since I doubt we all want to be running around killing each other to show off our skill).
Swordmasters not being able to write a sequel to their work... well, I wonder how that came about :D
Cheers, thanks for the great video, as usual;)!
There are charlatans and quacks in every industry and there always have been. It was just a helluva lot more expensive back then to be a charlatan with a treatise when every copy was hand written and drawn...
Guttenberg
@@davidingle8983 If you mean the movable letters guy, He's called Gutenberg.
Guttenberg was in Police Academy.
The subject of this video spans both pre- and post-printing press.
Human nature: there will always be people who try it on.
A con being expensive only reduces the number of people who will try it, not eliminate the con completely.
The exact same thing happens in traditional Asian martial arts, unfortunately. Heaven forbid you point out the fact that the document that the Bodhidharma legend is based off of was proven to be a forgery, or that the founder of Shotokan karate was actually not considered a master in his time
@mxt mxt I'm fully aware, and have digital copies of the original Japanese versions of his books, and have looked into it. I wasn't putting into question how much he knew versus how much he taught. I was just pointing out that he was not considered a master by the masters on Okinawa--he wasn't a karateka of any real importance until he was sent to Japan.
And that's considering Okinawa karatekas being way past their prime in the applicability of the art.
@mxt mxt No, I didn't mean fighters, I meant the state of the art itself after being repressed for some 200+ years (both thanks to Okinawans and Japanese) and passed through the thin grapevine of some pretty bad tutors.
@mxt mxt The problem is, due to secrecy, you can be almost sure there *were* bad tutors in the lineage just because there were so few of them. This is due to simple math. If three people know it really in depth, one is subpar at teaching but two others die, what survives of the art?
@mxt mxt Head on against whom? Resisting opponents?
The Chinese during raids?
Themselves during Sengoku?
In what armor?
The arts were already somewhat dying during Edo period... Early Edo period jujutsu which is strike heavy being vastly different from earlier more vital striking and major standing grappling jujutsu before then, and finally evolving into the lock and throw and groundwork heavy modern "softer" form in 18th century.
The only combat art that actually is alive somewhat is the old jujutsu, which is geared towards armored grappling combat in original form - and it is probably still a shadow of the original. This was actually tested in actual combat, 15-17th century at least. Enough that Chinese had to emphasize hand to hand combat.
Kobudo degenerated heavily into a dance and excercise, so much that we have trouble tracing it back - and most everything extant is 20th century. Sumo is a ritual wrestling system mostly for contest and show, though it is ancient.
Aikido, karate and judo are all modern and new (karate being late 19th century), not that well tested and especially not in combat. (Judo and aikido derive from jujutsu with major limitations and specializations and developments. BJJ is a good all around modern and developed variant.) This does not mean they cannot be made to work of course, but the impetus was to turn them into some sort of spiritual attainment, sport and excercise instead of combat.
It's funny how many of these fencing treatises are found in manuscript compilations that include dubious medical texts and the like, but everyone assumes the fencing masters knew what they were talking about.
Yeah... like Meyer's rapier...
@@Tkoutlosh What's so bad about it?
@@grumpyginger99 It doesn't work
@@Tkoutlosh bit more detail?
Nice video Matt, clear, comprehensive and IMO exactly right - can be applied to so many other fields as well, as you said... Cheers! Happy new year!!!!
I can imagine medieval and renaissance europe had the occasional Ashida Kim or Count Dante type muddying the waters
Fascinating perspective Matt!
Matt, you mentioned before that many or most medieval fight manuals do not present the standard, or common system, but instead present an alternative or "secret" system for defeating the common system. Most of these "tricks" might be useless if they are not surprises. So it's kind of funny to see members of a salle practicing these "tricks" where all members see the trick coming and learn to defeat it easily. They then form the opinion that since the trick is easily defeated (if they know what's coming), then the trick must be "rubbish".
Id argue that teaching, and developing an all encompassing system or philosophy are 2 discrete skills themselves.
German fencing meathead hefting pommel: "Hey guys, you know what would be cool?"
-probably how most "wrong" bits from hema came about
temperededge hold mein bier moment ey
Great food for thought Mr Easton! Enjoy the channel.
I came here for the subject but also stayed because of your wonderful articulation.
Thank you! I trained as a historian, and when I started to write fights, these are some of the things I started to think, intuitively.
I'm no expert in this field! But among other things, it seemed to me:
* As you say, people made up texts, and/or plagiarized other people's texts (medical, travel, literary, etc), sometimes with very little understanding or knowledge of the field. Why would this not have happened in the field of weapons and fighting?
* There must have been swordmasters/trainers who were excellent, and others who were rubbish (same as you now get, say, some ballet teachers or tennis instructors who are good and some who are bad). This means students would learn different techniques, and some would learn bad techniques or learn things incorrectly.
* What we have in written sources (texts or treatises) is probably only the tip of the iceberg with regard to knowledge or practice of past times, at least before the invention of printing. There must have been a great many swordmasters, perhaps with their own systems, or particular techniques/tricks, which never got written down.
* If everyone simply knew the few main, *best* systems, or just one system exactly as it appears in a treatise, fights and opponents would have been rather predictable. Fights or duels would almost have appeared choreographed (if that makes sense), because you would know what an opponent would do in any specific situation. Fighters and duelists might well have adjusted or adapted techniques, and mixed and matched bits of knowledge/techniques from different systems?
These issues arise in historical European dance texts as well. Sometimes they presume a lot of knowledge from the reader, and sometimes techniques are described in such vague terms as to be nearly useless. Sometimes, it's just impossible to make the the choreography work unless you accept that Playford simply mixed up 'left' and 'right' a couple of times.
You should read 'The Inner game of Tennis' if you have not already. The way you approach physical learning makes me suspect you have already lived this book's philosophy for a time. I came across the thing as a musician, but martial artists also use it, and of course tennis players and other people who engage in competition based on muscle memory.
My friend and instructor Dr. Ken Mondschien recently published a complete translation of Agrippa with all of the original illustrations. Which i bought because Ken is my friend and instructor and all of those reasons. It is a very interesting book and tells us a lot about the period and what ideas and concepts were trending in mathematics and philosophy.
I would maintain that any unbiased reading would regard the rapier system described as essentially a death sentence for the practitioner. And yet it was at the time of its publication apparently a very popular and widely bought book. Very prestigious to have on the period equivalent of your coffee table.
Dear Matt, you are a genuius! I was thinking about going into some stick or staff fighting, and there you are - suggesting a book about basics of singlestick fighting, with chapters about walkingstick, quarterstaff etc. And there is a list with books about other martial arts, like boxing and wrestling, and about indian clubs. Great!
Cheers!
Really interesting! I must say however that I felt a lot safer, watching with a screen between us - you waved that sword around throughout the whole thing! ;) Great video and happy new year to you too :)
Would truly love to see you in action. Do you have a video that show you in action? I love what you are doing and have gained knowledge about the weapons you show. Awesome keep up the good work!
It's not just those written by people who don't know what they're talking about (Not a new thing, and far from gone.) Also, there's minor erors in there that come out of the Medium, especially in the plates. Those are drawn by byestandars, not snapped as photographs, but I only have to assume that at some point, the demonstration was over, and the illustrator sat down with a candle, and finished up by memory. This is particularly easy to see with their grips. The stances tend to be bye, and large fairly plausible, but those could be sketched in broad strokes, in real time. Then, I figure that they drew in a hilt, and put some fingers in there. Probably weren't really paying attention to how they were holding them in the battle, fight, judicial duel, or fencing class, but I have told people time and again to hold the hilt the way that feels comfortable. (The same with firearms, one of the most overlooked things in grip is being comfortable enough to not think about it, whilst retaining it against attempts to disarm.) Do Not Try To Hold It Like The Pictures. They're wrong. More often than not, even when the fingers, and thumb are on the right side of the hand. (I've also seen a lot of hands like that, where the fingers bend backwards, or the thumb is up side down. Or, their wrist is somehow turned 180 degrees.)
2:37. There, you see that? Look at all 4 hands. Does that look right, to you? Perfect example. 6:35 "Deliberately trying to defraud the reader." Particularly when it comes to things like the secrets of warfare. Less so when it comes to single combat, but let's just assume you have a kingdom with an unbeatable (Or OP with regards to the immediate enemies) system, and you write a playbook. Let's say you have a Football team, with a playbook. Your enemies, and rivals would very much like to get their hands on that book. So, the Master at Arms writes up a whole lot of copies of fraudulent techniques, which he "Oops!" lets get in the wrong hands, and only personally teaches his men, or keeps the real treatise under lock and key. Centuries later, you're more likely to get your hand on the copy than the original.
As someone who translates Italian 16th century treatises, I think the biggest inconvenience isn't that the masters themselves didn't know fencing, but were very poor writers. Sticking to the Italians, there are quite a few earlier treatises that just have unclear prose, or are written in a language that is inherently difficult, Pedro Monte's bizarre Latin for example. Other treatises are incomplete or not intended/ready for publication. Domingo Luis Godinho couldn't get his treatise published and it seems to me to be a rough draft. I think Altoni's "Monomachia" also does. The Anonimo Riccardino doesn't even seem to be written for anyone, but the author. As such it doesn't even tell you what the guards are.
The treatises aren't perfect, but I'm more than happy that we have then.
Spanish is my first language and as part of my undergrad I did a fair amount of reading of texts going back to the 16th century. (Texts before that take a lot of effort to understand)
I think what strikes me about older texts and especially things like letters and chronicles, is that most people were terrible writers. Their logic was often all over the place. They rambled on and on from topic to topic. They often just assume you know what they know.
We underestimate just how much training in proper writing all of us have nowadays, even by the time we are teenagers our writing skills are way above the average medieval writer.
Of course, there were also fabulous writers like Calderon de la Barca and Miguel de Cervantes.
Are you saying the answer is not black or white but most probably a shade of green?
We do see an attitude in the Middle Ages (and sometimes today too) that ‘book learning’ just trumps firsthand experience - Christine de Pizan wrote a tome on military strategy having never fought a battle and no one apparently thought that was weird
Excellent point, that being good at something doesn't automatically mean you're a good teacher too (and the other way around).
So basically even before my time there were followers of my personal philosophy "If you can't blind them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit."
This is a great point that I think just goes over the head of most historical martial artists. But one thing I like to look at is the explosion of contemporary low-quality martial arts & self-defense instructors who teach sports styles or ineffective techniques as if they were going to save your life in a fight. They don't know what they're doing, but their students aren't in a position to know any better. It's only through years of education and hands-on experience that you can learn to sort out what really works from what doesn't. But if some of those ineffective instruction books were what survived into the future - actually kind of likely, given how many more of them there are - then how would future historians know to tell the difference between what actually worked for us and what was poor instruction? It's a huge oversight to just assume that historical texts must've been effective.
Interesting video. :) All the best in the upcoming New Year! :)
Over a decade ago, I remember asking on (IIRC) Sword Forum International if there was a chance that some surviving treaties were potentially "Bullshido" - that did not go over well, as I recall.
Happy New Year Matt!!!
Hey Matt I’ve been subscribed for a long time and this is the first time I noticed that gangster scar you have. Don’t know if you’ve covered it before in a video but I’m sure it has an awesome story. Probably fighting a dragon 🐉 or some shite.
Our favourite word 'context' applies. Context is constantly changing. Tactics is constantly under development by finding counter-tactics to tactics already known. Even the most outlandish way to swing a sword may have been sound within a fraction of this ever-changing context, because neither the opponent nor anyone else at the time knew any better. In order to build a strong case that a certain treaty is 'rubbish' one would have to show that at that particular moment in time, in that particular region, everyone already knew a counter-tactic to that particular outlandish way of swinging a sword. Bear in mind that, out of context, every way to swing a sword would be as flimsy and ridiculous as trying wantonly small-swording the surroundings to oblivion, when faced against a hydrogen bomb.
Apart from that, I find it a bit disturbing to watch a grown man absent-mindedly swinging a sword about in his study while using eery expressions as 'there is more than one way to skin a cat'. I am now deeply concerned about the whereabouts of Cat Easton. Matt, what have you done?
Happy new year, Matt!
On historic BS written in books: I think a man named Lansford Hastings is an illustrative example. In 1845 he published the Emigrants Guide to Oregon and California. He wrote much of this guide without actually traveling the route. His motives were not what they seemed to be. He hoped to create a new country in the American West. He famously advocated departing from the Oregon trail near the Great Salt Lake in Utah, it's known as Hastings' cutoff. The route crosses the Wasatch mountains innefficiently, and much of the rest of it crosses playa (it works like a solar oven, reflects light like snow! and if it gets a little wet, it turns into a soft mess.) It's objectively a bad route through country that is inhospitable enough on a good day. That didn't stop some idiots from Saint Louis (notable among them the Reeds, Breens and Donners) from taking Hastings' cutoff. An experienced wagon captain even tried to talk them out of it. The route was slow and bad for the animals, further delaying the already tardy group. The Donner Party, in my opinion, pursued stupidity and self-confidence, and reality caught up to them in the Sierras. You can't save the stupid. But, Lansford Hastings, lawyer and bullshitter, definitely contributed to their famous ordeal. Books have a certain weight and authority to them, even bad ones. I wonder how many people died from bad fencing manuals...
Those burger grippers are epic, where's my razor, I want some!?
A lot of manuals are like learning American Football from Bill Bellichecks [1] Playbook but without ever saw a game or read a rule book. This leads to problems like: What is a nickel and dime or a shotgun vs Pistol formation. Is a quater back like two dimes and a nickel back or half a half back and what is the advantage of a shotgun vs. a Pistol formation. But more important. When do you do a punt? When do you go for a two point conversion? When do you do a kick off.....
All those things are normal to someone knowing the game .....
Same with fencing manuals. Like "All attacks come from a launch...." would be known to people of the time.
[1] One of the most successful coaches in the game. Some say he cheats, other say he outsmarts everybody else....
I read a lot of books and watch DVDs on shooting. I've never come across any that were BS, but I have seen some are better than others, some are more advanced or basic, and that while there is 95%+ overlap in how these masters describe how a gun (usually auto-loading pistols) there are differences to. Reid Henrichs is a famous firearms instructor on YT and wrote a book that contradicts one of his videos on a particular detail (the usefulness of XS Big Dot type sights vs. traditional notch and post). Hearing the same person argue full force on this detail both ways just a couple years apart really helps illuminate the issue.
It's similar in modern target archery. The US head coach, Kisik Lee, has 2 books with notable differences, plus errors. Plenty of other coaches and athletes disagree and it hasn't been the rewriting the rule book sort of thing he states. It's not BS, it can work, but it ain't the best.
Happy New Year Matt.
Between Hope's original system and his New Method, Hope has another method of fencing that uses what is basically the "Horse Stance" to fence from. Theory being is you no longer really have lower lines to worry about. I tried it out with one of the guys from Linacre - it wasn't something I would do, but it was interesting never the less.
P R O P E R T Y O F S U P E R D R Y
He's the company's man now...
This is also true about many fields even today, horsemanship clinicians are a great example in the USA.
Good points but hard to get through to young people and old folks stuck in this mode, many people especially those from traditional schooling, tend to only apply and only maybe, when they hit their mid thirties more commonly or fourties.
Nice video. Thanks for sharing this. What's the standard we hold them to? Did they see combat? Did their students see combat? Have they fought in duels? Were they employed to teach their art by important employers such as a crown, court or branch of the military? A lot of these questions could be hard to answer for all periods. Perhaps, just limiting ourselves to one country and time period/ context would make things easier to determine the answers to what it really boils down to. Could he fight? Could he teach people to fight effectively? Was this system effective and able to be taught quickly to many people? Great video and things to keep in mind when studying.
This video got me thinking about something. If I'm not mistaken, Liechtenauer warns against the practice of techniques that just look cool, but that don't work in a fight. If a fencing master needed to warn against the practice of flashy, ineffective nonsense, that implies there were people in those time periods practising flashy, ineffective nonsense. Are there any examples of that?
"Demonstrable Talent" new band name called it.
Something that needed to be said, from the only man who could say it
Awesome video
Similar to any martial arts training, a good teacher who knows how to interpret the good from the bad is essential. Also like all martial arts, anyone who is any good at it will end up adapting any system to their own capabilities, limitations, and experience. Thereby changing the system with every practitioner.
Hey, Matt, what was the source you reference but don't identify in this? Have you published yet and thus may lift the veil?
Personally i believe Agrippa is an excellent example of this, his first book in 1553 was rewritten by himself a few more times and republished them. Possibly making changes or explaining things better. Other example would be comparing Capoferro to Fabris. Fabris book is way more detailed and his technique and guard covers more lines than Capoferro, this does not mean Capoferro is bad, especially when you consider Fabris had patronage from a king so he had more money to write an extensive work while Capoferro was an University teacher so most likely he could not write an extensive work and his work itself has some few concepts that are harder to understand because they are not explained throughly. I like both authors but I find funny that there are many out there that keep discussing how one is rubish and the other is better nowadays. One book that is the rapier equivalent to the one you mentioned for singlestick for beginners would be Bondi di Mazo, his technique is simple and can give a general idea to the beginner on how to hold a rapier and dagger properly without many theoretical concepts, but some of his definitions on tempo and distance can be questionable.
Sorry for the long comment and excellent video as always matt.
I think Richard Francis Burton probably had a working system just he was terrible at trying to explain it and had an overly complicated way describing his cuts.
I'm great at watching RUclips videos, though I don't know how I developed this skill.
That said, I'm terrible at commenting.
On a separate note, I'd like to wish Matt and all of his subscribers a Very Happy New Year.
I think another good example of a situation where we can see evolution of a person's style and interpretations is Joachim Meyer.
He wrote what was essentially commentaries on previous masters, laying out what he felt was important that they had taught, then he wrote his 1568 which was much more "him," then he wrote his 1570 which is much better laid out and organized for a mass audience.
Then he died, at a young age. So we have no great idea what his system would have looked like had he been able to have a full career as a fencing teacher and writer. I feel pretty strongly that any later books he would have written would have been of even higher quality, as he clearly wanted to communicate clearly what he was teaching, and his understanding of what he wanted to teach clearly evolved over just a few years.
Well...his rapier is total BS.
@@Tkoutlosh Well, I've had good luck with it.
@@Tkoutlosh
But is it rapier, though? I was under the impression that it was more of a sidesword. Maybe for sidesword it is better than for later period rapier?
@@thelonerider5644 Yeah, I got that info - "Meyer's rapier sucks, it doesn't work" from experienced but rapierists... few other HEMA guys told me that it has to be considered "sidesword manual" instead of rapier one which changes the situation quite a lot...
Happy New Year, Matt. Were you referring to Burton as one of those B.S. people?
keep the sideburns. bring them back into style. i need the victorian facial hair to become popular because i have a few ideas for my own beard.
p.s. love the channel. keep it up
Like the historical version of Lindy Beige, the Wikipedia Warrior
Really good, thoughrful video, hanks!
If you are interested I will add another reason a treatise could be unintentionally wrong.
Physical variation in an individual. My example is anecdotal Bruce Lee, I have been told his stances and footwork were influenced by the fact that one leg was longer than the other. Some people may have had something similar or incorrectly healed injury that they did not realize changed how or why they used and found effective some part.
I'm not an expert (not even close), but I've suspected that Thomas Page was full of it when he wrote his treatise on the Broadsword. One reason I suspect it is because he was an English shop owner who served in an Artillery Company that would defend the city of Norwich against possible invasion during the Jacobite Rebellion. His potential to have been exposed to any Scottish Broadsword system thus would have been rather limited (especially since the city never did come under attack during that time).
The problem is that in medieval times, most European military forces had to constantly fight off the attacks of dragons (St. George basically did nothing but fight dragons, as you can see from his many depictions on church windows, frescos, etc.)
Fighting just dragons obviously deforms your style, and makes you forget the finer nuances of courtly dueling and rapier jabber-stabbing.
The geometric schools of fence would seem to argue against what you say. They would insist that anything "good" in other systems is easily enough explained in their terminology. The Spanish and Thibault, specifically, seek to methodically prove their superiority over other styles in Europe (remember that martial scholars were communicating quite a bit at this time, just as Fiore implies. Unfortunately, I can't find a lecture on youtube describing just that phenomenon in the renaissance...). The books set down a sort of principle on which one acts in all situations, whether cutting, thrusting, grappling, fighting multiple opponents, pommeling, etc. The Lichtenauer tradition, also, seems to believe in a "true art," parts of which can be seen in many styles. In another continent, Musashi describes a philosophy that he applies to all disciplines, not just fighting. While a treatise is limited by, as you said, not containing the master himself, we should heed their desire to find the true art of fighting.
Which would then bring us back to the following questions, would it not? To wit: Just how good are the writers of these superior, universal systems at explaining their ideas, and how good -are- their ideas. Which leaves us, as the reader, having to do just as the writer did - compare what we're presented with with what we already know, and seek out new knowledge to confirm or challenge what we've already learned.
Loranna
I think the philosophy or spirit of the school itself is something fascinating and of major importance if you want to study a system as originally intended. It is the source of how to justify an approach to a technique that may have the exact same objective as a very different approach from another school or culture.
We are used to dealing with the practical approach in our daily lives and picking up what we feel works from different ideas, but I think immersion in the system is necessary to understand and pass on the tradition.
@@klavakkhazga3996 I am finding a lot of similarities between Lichtenauer's german longsword tradition and Miyamoto Musashi's Go Rin No Sho... it is really interresting to see same conclusions and principles in two different regions....
Great video Matt, it's amusing how so many people regard any historical text as invaluable information. Some authors were, for lack of a more precise term, full of shite from any time period. Just out of curiosity, what is the history on the two sabers hanging vertically on your right in this video? I acquired an antique blade that is very similar to them some years ago with sadly little paperwork attached.
Now you've got the most British facial hair I've ever seen. And Happy new year everyone.
What some HEMA practitioners seem to overlook is that not all authors were necessarily aware of other martial arts like Krabi Krabong and Kalaripayattu, so what they write would be limited to what they know. They couldn't just use Google to find these arts from across the globe and study them in detail. The HEMA community is fortunate in that they can compare and contrast their arts to others that originated from different continents and gain greater insights into how their arts work in the first place.
I can definitely find some similarities between Lichtenauer's longsword tradition and Musashi's Go Rin No Sho. Can't say about Kalaripayattu coz I don't know much but from YT it seems to be quite different but maybe close to other styles....
What defines HEMA are the underlying principles that make the art work. If you know what the principles are and can use them effectively, then you can hold your own against other martial arts.
ruclips.net/video/3SPFafsia98/видео.html
The tennis example is very good to show how materials can change the arts, the old wooden tennisrackets made for a different way to play tennis and the new era of rackets made it change drastically.
Björn Borgs "Tennis Treatise" from 1979 wouldn't show the perfect way to play tennis in -89.
Mr. Easton, is R.F. Burton not well regarded in historical fencing circles? I was under the impression that he was quite competent.
ruclips.net/video/CRZJxGi8Z44/видео.html
Thank you
Matt, what do you think is a great beginners book for german longsword? I have Tobler, and Edelson but I'm curious if you have any suggestions.
I'd like to know this as well
Matt, you mentioned those who are naturally talented in a particular skill, and I'm implying you were referring to HEMA students; despite their inability to explain why they were good, or what they did that made them good, did they become better from learning from any of the treatises or through personal instruction? Did learning the "basics" benefit them?
Also, comparing the different methodologies of various teachers, do you ever recognize obvious hybrids of previous systems?
I was reading my copy of "The Art of the Rifle" the other day and my son asked about it which brought up several things. First, while the author was an excellent shot, the book is really only good for improving the shooting of someone with a basic understanding (military basic training level) of shooting. The other thing is that the author was a major scumbag who was so racist that the USMC told him to be gone after the Korean War and later went on to make his name working for white supremacist regimes in Africa. Sometimes you have to separate the author from the materials as well.
I actually have a question that has nothing to do with this topic:
I believe I have not yet seen a video of you in which you spoke about Dusack swords. Is there anything to say about them? I have seen pictures and some of them look rather unique, at least for european blades. Might be an idea for another video.
Its also worth noting different people do well in different syles an mma analogy take daniel Cormier(oylmpic wrestler)and mirco cro cop(k1 kickboxer)you wont training the two the same way mirco you send to a school that teaches him to defend takedowns how to deal with small gloves and get back up cormier you teach him standup ground & pound and submissions
I'm curious what separates a beginner from an internediate fencer in your opinion?
Is there a recomended reads list for Hema noobs and beyond?
Nice lesson on objectivity and critical thought. Scientism is rooted in egoism and both are rooted in ignorance and insecurity, it’s an eagerness of ignorant people to recycle other’s opinions in search of praise/status.
'Just because you can write a book, doesn't mean you know anything' - Matt Easton...
pls write your own commented version of your favorite sources as a book. A lot of work, a lot of good
Waving that smallsword around somehow makes me nervous.
Yeah, it's like my old history textbooks from school - sure the people who wrote it are professionals; but they still tried to sell the dinosaurs as giant Jurassic Park lizards, Columbus as a hero, and France as never winning a war.
200, years from now, will people look back at some of our recent RUclipsrs' videos and consider this the Dark Ages.