There is one important detail here that kept tripping me up - if your opponent cuts into a posta longa that has his tip at chest/face height and his hand at sternum level (as seen in the video) or lower, using the thrust counter works fine. If he likes to throw those cuts in a very high line where his tip is at the top of the head and his arm is at the shoulder (e.g. tries to hit top of your head over your parry), thrust counters will either get your fingers hit, or have to be with your hand so high it will be hard to attack and defend from there. As for what to do against those, well, the answer is already in the video, use the cut/tramazzone counter - not only will it work, it will work better than it would against lower cuts, because those high line cuts leave you with your sword and arm almost or entirely in one line, and therefore weak to sideways pressure. Something similar also happens when there is a fairly large height difference between the fighters.
Saving the fingers is more a matter of angling than everything. But that said yes, that can happen some times. But it’s no different than any other technique, there’s always a counter or a gap. Otherwise, I would say you are talking about a low percentage case, which is mitigated, and sometimes nullified if you are the taller fencer, by proper angling.
Interesting approach to use Fiore terminology for arming sword. As for the trust safety - in my opinion the opponent can hit a fendente to the attacing wrist holding the sword or the forearm, not to the sword itself. Especially whe the opposition is left side. The cross guard is too small to protect the hand.
Anyway, in my experience, what you mention it’s not a problem. Otherwise I wouldn’t have shown it ;-) It’s harder to land right opposition in Longsword funny enough.
Sidesword is arming sword, messer is arming sword, and to a degree, even saber is…. I’m not reinventing anything, I just apply what I know to this weapon. Which has some minor peculiarities of its own of course which has to be considered. The rings on the ricasso were actually made to improve control and angling of thrusts, you have a far better tip control there. Here it’s slightly different, we are talking of course about minutiae, the 1%. Bu people like to see how to use this weapon IN PARTICULAR, so I use my knowledge to give them what they like.
@@timhema5343 oh of course! But at the very least half of the HEMA practitioners do not have the desire, or time, to dig into sources. This video is mainly for them, not for who is able to quote Marozzo by memory.
@@FedericoMalagutti I am just happy that someone else is actually trying to use arming swords. Bolognese and the one hand stuff from Fiore is plenty for most people for sure. Although my personal preference still stays with the Liechtenauer tradition, it's not like there is a ton of difference in the technical part itself.
There's wisdom in using the Fiore vocabulary to frame an arming sword discussion for the following reasons: - It highlights how Fiore's system as a philosophy more than just a flow chart. Modern fencers are at risk of treating any manual/system as a set of routines to execute rather than an organic model of how living humans may think to survive combat - It highlights how Fiore's system, even though not expressly showing an arming sword, readily adapts to it because Fiore's system is pretty damned-near complete as a combat system - It highlights how this arming sword discussion belongs to Federico Malagutti (the video's author). He has sources, he has historic context, he has experimental data, and he has a mode of expressing that which are his -- and any student of historical martial arts needs to remember that we're exploring human interpretations of historical fencing and not the pure, Platonic form of historical fencing itself - It scares away the single source purists who think that Walpurgis/Leckuchner/Lignitzer/Talhoffer/whatever is the one true single-handed weapon system of the period. Those guys can eat my shorts.
I heard that your approach to arming sword changed recently, does this mean the older videos back when you used the type XIV are outdated or still fit in with the new videos ?
Of course. The way of conceiving or researching doesn’t influences the effectiveness of an action. Be it a Mae Geri or a Teep, a front kick is a front kick! Hehe
Awesome to see someone covering arming sword :)
Very interesting. Comment for the algorithm. Yay, more arming sword!
Thank you for converting all that Fiore into arming sword moves! Excellent👍
Excellente! Love this and the options presented to parries 🙂 Love the arming sword content too!
Comment for the algorithm. Yay, more arming sword!
Ahahahah! Thanks!
There is one important detail here that kept tripping me up - if your opponent cuts into a posta longa that has his tip at chest/face height and his hand at sternum level (as seen in the video) or lower, using the thrust counter works fine. If he likes to throw those cuts in a very high line where his tip is at the top of the head and his arm is at the shoulder (e.g. tries to hit top of your head over your parry), thrust counters will either get your fingers hit, or have to be with your hand so high it will be hard to attack and defend from there.
As for what to do against those, well, the answer is already in the video, use the cut/tramazzone counter - not only will it work, it will work better than it would against lower cuts, because those high line cuts leave you with your sword and arm almost or entirely in one line, and therefore weak to sideways pressure.
Something similar also happens when there is a fairly large height difference between the fighters.
Saving the fingers is more a matter of angling than everything. But that said yes, that can happen some times. But it’s no different than any other technique, there’s always a counter or a gap. Otherwise, I would say you are talking about a low percentage case, which is mitigated, and sometimes nullified if you are the taller fencer, by proper angling.
Can you whwnever you get a chance, explain Volte della Spada using the armingsword?
Well, I have a pretty long list of desires. I’ll write it down, maybe at some point I’ll able to do it
Awesome! @@FedericoMalagutti
nice job!! any sides sparring video?
Will you do more with arming swords specifically?
Yes, of course
Interesting approach to use Fiore terminology for arming sword.
As for the trust safety - in my opinion the opponent can hit a fendente to the attacing wrist holding the sword or the forearm, not to the sword itself. Especially whe the opposition is left side. The cross guard is too small to protect the hand.
Well, everything can happen. Every action has multiple counters
Anyway, in my experience, what you mention it’s not a problem. Otherwise I wouldn’t have shown it ;-)
It’s harder to land right opposition in Longsword funny enough.
@@FedericoMalaguttithat is a philosophical answer
Excellent video, my friend!
Also, do you pretend to do more spear videos ?
Thanks! Yes, but not too soon
Can't help but thinking you're just reinventing the wheel (in this case, bolognese fencing) 😅
Sidesword is arming sword, messer is arming sword, and to a degree, even saber is…. I’m not reinventing anything, I just apply what I know to this weapon. Which has some minor peculiarities of its own of course which has to be considered. The rings on the ricasso were actually made to improve control and angling of thrusts, you have a far better tip control there. Here it’s slightly different, we are talking of course about minutiae, the 1%. Bu people like to see how to use this weapon IN PARTICULAR, so I use my knowledge to give them what they like.
@@FedericoMalagutti I agree with you, but when peoples want to learn arming sword, just using the sources that exist is a better idea imo
@@timhema5343 oh of course! But at the very least half of the HEMA practitioners do not have the desire, or time, to dig into sources. This video is mainly for them, not for who is able to quote Marozzo by memory.
@@FedericoMalagutti I am just happy that someone else is actually trying to use arming swords. Bolognese and the one hand stuff from Fiore is plenty for most people for sure.
Although my personal preference still stays with the Liechtenauer tradition, it's not like there is a ton of difference in the technical part itself.
There's wisdom in using the Fiore vocabulary to frame an arming sword discussion for the following reasons:
- It highlights how Fiore's system as a philosophy more than just a flow chart. Modern fencers are at risk of treating any manual/system as a set of routines to execute rather than an organic model of how living humans may think to survive combat
- It highlights how Fiore's system, even though not expressly showing an arming sword, readily adapts to it because Fiore's system is pretty damned-near complete as a combat system
- It highlights how this arming sword discussion belongs to Federico Malagutti (the video's author). He has sources, he has historic context, he has experimental data, and he has a mode of expressing that which are his -- and any student of historical martial arts needs to remember that we're exploring human interpretations of historical fencing and not the pure, Platonic form of historical fencing itself
- It scares away the single source purists who think that Walpurgis/Leckuchner/Lignitzer/Talhoffer/whatever is the one true single-handed weapon system of the period. Those guys can eat my shorts.
Well said!
I heard that your approach to arming sword changed recently, does this mean the older videos back when you used the type XIV are outdated or still fit in with the new videos ?
Of course. The way of conceiving or researching doesn’t influences the effectiveness of an action.
Be it a Mae Geri or a Teep, a front kick is a front kick! Hehe