Binding in I.33 - Sword and Buckler

Рет қаралды 2,853

3 жыл бұрын

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like to support us, visit our patreon:
www.patreon.com/SchildwachePotsdam
Follow us on instagram:
schildwachepotsdam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello! In this video I’ll share my take on the fighting philosophy of I.33. More precisely I will discuss if binding is the central point of the manuscript. This video is inspired by a very interesting suggestion of Herbert Schmidt from Ars Gladii for the Belgian Buckler Symposium, organized by Ex Cineribus - you can find the link here:
groups/877276302812472
Herbert suggests that while many view I.33 as a system about entering the bind and fighting from there, it is more about leaving the bind. He argues that the bind is just something that naturally occurs in sword and buckler fighting and I.33 presents us ways to leave it - as many of I.33s concluding movements end without a blade bind.
While I like the approach, my take on I.33 differs quite a bit :)
I agree that I.33 actually teaches us how to fight (and that a few parts are missing unfortunately). Fighting or self defense means to control the opponent and there are different ways to achieve it. There is physical control, either via the sword (bind), the buckler or even a wrestling action. This is very prominent within i.33 as we observe it in almost every play. But there is also control in timing & position / geometry. After all we are not advised to take an obsessio and wait but not to hesitate and seize the opportunity.
So all in all while i.33 focuses a lot on binding situations (they are fairly easy and safe to teach) there are just means to an end, namely controlling & defeating the opponent.
Music: Witcher 3 OST
You can follow me on instagram :)
schildwachepotsdam
#historicalfencing #swordandbuckler #hema

Пікірлер: 28

@arsliechtenauer 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your video-answer to my video. My suggestion that the I.33 was about leaving the bind is of course in no way my complete interpretation of the fighting system of I.33, it's just a small but important part. I would agree with most of what you say in the video. While my video is basically just a conversation starter as I don't go into any details I still see that most I.33 fencers focus on the bind and completely miss that the bind is just a step towards the end of the fight. Of course there is not always a necessity for a bind as is also shown in the I.33. Still there are much more fencers capable of maintining the bind than leaving the bind in a martially sound way. To really explain my view on this it would take a seminar which was planned at the Belgian Bucklers Quarterly. Due to Covid-19 it was cancelled so I only presented the main gist of it. Thanks for your efforts!

@SchildwachePotsdam 3 жыл бұрын

Ah yes, I thought about your video as a bold thesis to start a discussion as well and like I said, I like the approach :) I agree, that it sometimes seems like "winning the bind" is somehow the final goal of some interpretations. Probably because it is really easy and safe to train to gain an advantage in leverage / angle / position without actually turning this advantage into a hit. It just gets problematic if the training doesn't progress past this point, adds more resistance, energy etc. Thank you for taking the time and I'm looking forward to future discussions! :)

@arsliechtenauer 3 жыл бұрын

@@SchildwachePotsdam I absolutely agree that the focus on the bind is just one step and without the next one - leaving the bind - is not worth much. And yes: It would be great to cross blades with you hopefully soon! Take care and have a good start in a hopefully better year!

@SchildwachePotsdam 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for watching! Sword and Buckler / i.33 was my entry into HEMA many years ago, but it is still one of the hardest manuscripts to interpret which I have read so far. I'd be happy to discuss my thoughts with you or hear your experiences! :)

@front-a-little4448 3 жыл бұрын

Great job, as always. Another reason the Ms.1.33 appears incomplete to us could be the lack of other contemporary sources for comparison. We simply can't put it in a context that proves a certain legacy or lineage like we do with the Lichtenauer sources. I think the lack of certain information in 1.33 comes from the idea that everyone (of relevance) had a certain knowledge of fencing back in the 1300s (hence the "common fencer" notes in 1.33) and you wouldn't want your expensive parchment book cluttered with basic fencing that's common knowledge anyway. +1 for the McGregor quote !

@SchildwachePotsdam 3 жыл бұрын

That's a very good point. I just recently told a student, that the Bolognese sources are very spare on things about why we do certain stuff. It's just we have so much material to work with, that we are able to recognize patterns much more easily. Same goes for the Lichtenauer tradition I guess :) Thank you!

@andyedwards9222 6 ай бұрын

My take is it is incomplete because it is improving on an existing skill set. Military combat. It may well be it was produced for a man at arms that was already familiar with sword and shield combat, the book covers mostly the differences - the buckler is smaller and cannot be relied on for cover in the same way as a shield, etc.

@Druid_Ignacy Жыл бұрын

These are right conclusions!

@incongruouscat4646 3 жыл бұрын

An excellent analysis and interpretation, Martin. Danke.

@monkeyishi 3 жыл бұрын

a game i play to show the concept of positions and counter positions and tempo is the red wippy stick game. to play the game i use the red warhammer rulers. the aim of the game is to whip your opponents hand. start just with in red wippy stick distance. no moving backwards no bringing your hand behind you. my house mate and i started playing the game one night and found our selves naturally moving to positions to strike while keeping our hands safe. or setting a trap knowing our opponents counter to the position.

@SchildwachePotsdam 3 жыл бұрын

Sounds cool :)

@alexandermartzok_vikingcombat 3 жыл бұрын

Dear Martin, you have made some interesting points. I do agree with the theory that I.33 mostly teaches techniques which should keep oneself safe due to control of the enemy. Try to bring him into a disadvantage while staying safe until you can disable him. However, I would disagree, that the obsessio use tempo to control the opponent. For me, they just control the space in front of you (protect you) until you are in an advantageous position, from where you can hit him. But probably this is just splitting hairs.

@SchildwachePotsdam 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your feedback Alexander :) I think we mean the same thing. In my mind the Obsessio creates either a tempo to attack or forces the opponent out of his position. In that way it works like a provocation in the bolognese tradition. Most of the time the Obsessio just occupies the central space, but not always as fourth guard is opposed several times by the Priest's special Longpoint for instance. :)

@tomdutoit5591 3 жыл бұрын

Nice video - and I agree with your points. I think that you and Herbert Schmidt might almost agree completely, but just have a different point of emphasis. I assume that Mr. Schmidt means leaving the bind safely and effectively - in other words, creating and capitalizing on tempo.

@SchildwachePotsdam 3 жыл бұрын

You are probably right :)

@rogerz9281 3 жыл бұрын

Great stuff! I have nothing to add - this is thought out really well.

@SchildwachePotsdam 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much!

@hafniaanonymous7605 3 жыл бұрын

Nice points.. especially the obsessio part

@SchildwachePotsdam 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you! :)

@AngryArchaeologist 3 жыл бұрын

"Do not hesitate - if you do, your advantage in timing and position is already gone." For me, this statement strikes close to the heart of the problem with the vast majority of I.33 interpretations. Most practitioners seem to be more preoccupied with striking the correct poses in the I.33 ward checklist and holding them, rather than with winning an actual life or death duel. These epic poses are then linked together by dubious interludes of mutual sword massaging at half speed. The wards should be seen as mere transitioning points on a continuum of constant motion and intention, rather than an end in and of themselves - and what happens in between should be given far more attention. Until I see more videos of I.33 sparring at full speed and intensity with non-compliant opponents, I will remain dubious of the martial effectiveness of such interpretations. I am not criticising the manuscript or your video, per se, but rather the broader tendencies of those who are studying and interpreting it in the context of HEMA.

@SchildwachePotsdam 3 жыл бұрын

No offense taken, I think we agree on almost all of these points ;)

@CapitanCarter 3 жыл бұрын

I came here to write this interpretation! I use obsessios as an intermediary position between your ward or halfshield to the final long point or thrust

@jimmynicolas4602 3 жыл бұрын

......👍😀

@SchildwachePotsdam 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for taking the time and watching :)

@jimmynicolas4602 3 жыл бұрын

Merci à vous...🤗

@MartinGreywolf 2 жыл бұрын

I think a big reason for these debates is that your average HEMA guy has a very skewed perspective when it comes to binding. The most popular traditions being Lichtenauer and Italian rapier, we're used to seeing binding all day, every day, with complex systems behind the binds - the permutations of winden can get really silly if you try to figure out how many ways there are of doing it. But is this really the norm? I don't know enough about Bolognese tradition, but Fiore at least doesn't bind quite so much as Lichtenauer. Sure, he has binds, but there isn't as much focus put on them, most of the stretto plays leave sword on sword binds, and hell, even some largo plays do as well. From parctical experience, you can almost get away with not using binds at all when fighting sword and shield - it won't be great, but it is functional and beginners can be... useful in a skirmish, let's put it that way. And then there are Asian martial arts. It's difficult to say anything of substance on them because we have very little historically supported ones, but Musashi's Book of Five Rings doesn't have very many binds. Sure, he has Zornhau-ort in there, because everyone does, but he rarely stays in a bind and works his way in, he relies more on beats and timing. Escrima/kali don't use binds at all, and most interpretations of Chinese martial arts have them in limited amount only. So, I'd agree that I.33 is less about binds than Lichtenauer, because everything is less about binds than Lichtenauer.