[HN Gopher] The largest library of historical European martial a...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The largest library of historical European martial arts books and
       manuscripts
        
       Author : Tomte
       Score  : 97 points
       Date   : 2021-02-23 10:55 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (wiktenauer.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (wiktenauer.com)
        
       | motohagiography wrote:
       | Notable that they don't include horsemanship in western martial
       | arts, given it was the deciding factor in military conflict for
       | thousands of years. There is a significant gap in writing on it
       | between Xenophon's horsemanship and cavalry general treatises,
       | and the 14th C. king Dom Duarte's book on horsemanship, which
       | includes a chapter on wrestling. I suspect early books on
       | horsemanship are rare because it was a military secret on par
       | with cryptography (which, oddly, I do both). From what I've been
       | able to tell, the next major (public) work wasn't until the 15th
       | C. with Antoine de Pluvinel's "education of the king." It may be
       | useful for the people who maintain that library to include this
       | facet of physical culture as well.
       | 
       | A couple years ago I discovered a great blog on this history
       | which can be found at http://worksofchivalry.com/ Maybe they need
       | to connect?
        
         | baxuz wrote:
         | A number of treatises cover mounted fencing, including the
         | "core" Liechtenauer's verses and Fiore:
         | 
         | https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Category:Mounted_Fencing
         | 
         | A classic one is from Von Danzig:
         | https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Pseudo-Peter_von_Danzig#Mounted_...
         | 
         | People have been researching this since the early 2010s:
         | https://youtu.be/AYxZcZE0Yyk (HEMAC Dijon 2013)
        
           | motohagiography wrote:
           | Duarte's book of horsemanship is estimated to have been
           | written before 1438. It's also about horsemanship itself, and
           | interestingly, an early philosophical self-help book.
           | 
           | What was not true?
           | 
           | Edit: ah, so their mounted fencing category includes Duarte's
           | book, and other horsemanship books outside the cannon.
        
             | baxuz wrote:
             | > Notable that they don't include horsemanship in western
             | martial arts.
             | 
             | My bad, you're right - I didn't catch the context of the
             | whole post:
             | 
             | > There is a significant gap in writing on it between
             | Xenophon's horsemanship and cavalry general treatises, and
             | the 14th C. king Dom Duarte's book on horsemanship
             | 
             | That being said, the earliest European work that can be
             | called a martial treatise is the MS I.33 from 1320, so it
             | kinda matches.
        
               | motohagiography wrote:
               | Thanks! This might be a new avenue to explore from a
               | horsemanship study perspective. There is a lot missing
               | from the narrative arc that essentially goes from
               | Xenophon to a 'dark age' where practices were brutal, and
               | then de Pluvinel brought both kindness and geometry to
               | the discipline in France after learning, but defecting,
               | from the harsher methods he learned in Italy from
               | Pignatelli. This arc also ignores Duarte and probably a
               | bunch of others. I"m interested as a practitioner, but
               | also from a philosophical perspective, as I suspect
               | equestrianism underpins the foundations of what became
               | ethics.
               | 
               | Can't say how much is accurate or true, but that's
               | history for you.
        
         | eternalban wrote:
         | This could very well be a legacy of Rome. Rome apparently
         | wasn't big on cavalry.
         | 
         | Second possibility is that it was not so much about military
         | secrets, but rather social class, as horsemanship was a
         | generally required skill for nobility and these skills were
         | taught as part of a "gentleman's" education. This was up until
         | the time that European nobility began the intermarriage process
         | with new moneyed classes, the related economic phenomena of
         | companies such as East India, and the related military matters
         | of colonizing (something new for Europe) far flung lands. Those
         | changes to social order and military requirements likely gave
         | us the impetus for "commoners" on horses; i.e. scaling the
         | officer class ranks beyond aristocracy. Your Dom Duarte's
         | timeline fits well with that speculation.
        
           | Mediterraneo10 wrote:
           | Rome wasn't as big on cavalry as later European armies
           | because the stirrup had not yet been invented at the time.
           | The stirrup appeared only in the late first millennium
           | BC/early first millennium AD in Asia, and incidentally was a
           | big part of why the nomadic steppe societies of Asia were
           | able to conquer their way so far into the west during the Age
           | of Migrations.
        
           | owyn wrote:
           | Maybe in the later empire? The Romans might not have had
           | their own cavalry but they used mercenaries heavily [1]. From
           | what I remember of the Roman history podcast, many of
           | Caesar's battles were won entirely by judicious use of
           | cavalry.
           | 
           | [1] https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/caesars-elite-
           | germ...
        
           | icegreentea2 wrote:
           | I wouldn't describe late Rome as "not big" on cavalry.
           | Certainly they were not cavalry dominant, but they had their
           | share of cavalry units. See the cataphracts in the Eastern
           | Empire. In the West, there's the famous/infamous "mobile
           | cavalry reserve" that Gallienius setup.
           | 
           | I think it's very much worth considering preservation bias.
           | For example looking at wikitaneur as a whole (so mostly one
           | on one, on foot combat), there's basically no material from
           | before the 1400s.
        
         | 99_00 wrote:
         | On the wiktenauer.com I seem scattered references to
         | 'vaulting'. Is that a horsemanship skill?
        
       | probably_wrong wrote:
       | I chose a page more or less at random and ended up in the knife
       | fight section [1]. Some of the techniques listed there are
       | techniques I had seen before in self-defense courses.
       | 
       | Which leads me to the same question I had at that moment: how
       | reliable are these techniques in a real-life setting? We know
       | that Andre Lignitzer was a great sword master, but how often did
       | he face attackers trying to stab him in the face?
       | 
       | The fact that the same techniques keep showing up in different
       | martial arts gives me hope that they must be at least good.
       | Still, it would be great to have first person accounts of how
       | these techniques fare in real life. As this guy [2] points out, a
       | real-life knife fight is probably not as easy as one thinks.
       | 
       | [1] https://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Andre_Lignitzer#Dagger
       | 
       | [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E61jnJe_1SI
        
         | alfiedotwtf wrote:
         | > Which leads me to the same question I had at that moment: how
         | reliable are these techniques in a real-life setting? We know
         | that Andre Lignitzer was a great sword master, but how often
         | did he face attackers trying to stab him in the face?
         | 
         | Martial arts is about raising the probability of your opponent
         | dying before you. So if two people had knives, the person
         | trained with knife fighting would more than likely be better
         | off than the person who didn't have raining.
         | 
         | ... but what's also been taught in different schools of Kung
         | Fu, is if they have a knife and you don't have anything - run!
        
         | hef19898 wrote:
         | The main difference beween back then and todays is the fact
         | that basically everyone back then carried at least a long
         | dagger. Whch chnages the dynamic of a fight, if I'm the only
         | one with a knife I don't have to worry about getting hurt. If
         | the other guy has a pointy, cutty weapon as well that's not the
         | case.
         | 
         | If a technique shows up in various treaties from multiple
         | countries, and cultures, it is quite likely legit in its
         | context. Also funny how similar, equal even, HEMA wrestling and
         | Japanese Jiu-Jitsu is. Not surprising, both thing are a
         | solution to the problem going close with someone with a bladed
         | weapon.
        
         | nitwit005 wrote:
         | Any one person isn't going to have all that many people attempt
         | to stab them with a knife. At best you might get someone who
         | has talked to a number of people who were trained in some
         | technique and have been in knife fights.
        
         | stinkytaco wrote:
         | Does one think that a knife fight in real life would be easy?
         | Anyone with even a basic level of martial arts training knows
         | that if a knife comes out, someone is getting cut. I would say
         | that _most_ people instinctually know that if someone pulls a
         | knife, this is a situation they want out of.
         | 
         | But to answer your question, many martial artists train with
         | weapons. It's fairly easy to use a dummy knife to simulate real
         | combat without harming anyone. And many fighters throughout
         | history would have trained with weapons to simulate real
         | combat. I cannot speak for these knife techniques in particular
         | because that was never my specialty, but there are plenty of
         | legitimate techniques out there. In terms of what they are
         | teaching in self defense classes, I find that a very mixed bag.
         | Some focus strictly on tricks that seem cool to the untrained,
         | but are hard to pull off in real life without a great deal of
         | practice, while some instructors take a more realistic approach
         | (be aware, have a plan, use a minimum of physical technique to
         | extricate yourself as quickly as possible)
        
           | jlangemeier wrote:
           | This exactly; most of my martial arts training has included
           | the caveat of "try and de-escalate" as a form of neutralizing
           | the weapon/target, including just talking with them, there
           | are a myriad of ways to talk someone down from stabby-stabby
           | or shooty-shooty unless they are intent on that purpose alone
           | (and you're pretty screwed at that point without a lot of
           | training), so verbal de-escalation techniques are almost more
           | important than a disarm technique, which should be an
           | absolute last resort.
        
           | hutzlibu wrote:
           | "Anyone with even a basic level of martial arts training
           | knows that if a knife comes out, someone is getting cut."
           | 
           | I think that is a bit overdramatic. I would say, most of the
           | time when a knifes come, nothing happens, except for exchange
           | of bad words. (seen that)
           | 
           | And a professional would not show his knife. The great
           | advantage and danger of a knife is, that it is a hidden
           | weapon. Revealed (and used) only in the right moment, if
           | necessary - as a surprise.
           | 
           | And self-defense against a knife. Well, the basics are
           | actually quite easy - if you see a enemy with a knife - grab
           | a stick. Or a chair. Or a rock. Keep distance.
           | 
           | Only if you are really superior trained and you face against
           | a drunken idiot for example, about to do something stupid
           | against someone else - then you should consider doing some of
           | your special moves to disarm.
           | 
           | But talking them out of it, should be prefered.
        
             | stinkytaco wrote:
             | > I think that is a bit overdramatic. I would say, most of
             | the time when a knifes come, nothing happens, except for
             | exchange of bad words. (seen that)
             | 
             | I guess I should have used the words "attacked with a
             | knife". My point is that movie combat where an armed
             | attacker is quickly disarmed and detained is quite rare. If
             | a weapon gets involved in combat, someone's getting hurt.
             | Even if you grab a chair, etc. it's still likely one of you
             | are getting hurt, even if you win.
             | 
             | Which brings us back around to the core point that I think
             | we agree on: don't get involved in a knife fight, or really
             | any fight if it can be avoided.
        
               | hutzlibu wrote:
               | Yeah, I actually know what you meant and it was maybe a
               | bit pedantic from me. So, to take that further:
               | 
               | "if in a close combat situation a knive gets drawn, it is
               | very likely that someone will get cut"
               | 
               | would have been the wordy formal correct version ;)
        
         | jlangemeier wrote:
         | Haven't been in any knife fights recently; but have done
         | practice with "live weapons" and the base of the techniques are
         | fairly solid.
         | 
         | How likely are you to use them in an actual confrontation
         | though? Probably not likely, you would have to be put in a
         | situation where other forms of neutralizing the situation are
         | not possible (this includes running the fuck away); and at that
         | point, primary importance is having a very limited set of
         | general techniques that can be applied in multiple situation
         | with the weapon so that through practice and training it's more
         | of an autonomic function of your body (you don't want the lag
         | of having to 'think' about which technique to use); secondary
         | importance is experience with these situations - i.e. one of
         | the marital arts groups I worked with would have us go to, and
         | shoot at, a firing range so that we were used to the sounds
         | that a gun would make at close range so that we were used to it
         | in the unenviable case of being in that situation.
         | 
         | Generally, disarm techniques are going to be extremely similar,
         | but with any sharp object it's going to be - expect to get cut,
         | deflect with non-vital parts of your body (such as the outsides
         | of your arms, not the supple insides of your wrists), and
         | neutralize the weapon as quickly and safely as possible. Some
         | martial arts systems even have scarf techniques for doing
         | disarms with soft objects from a distance (it's super cool
         | seeing someone do a gun disarm with a cloth/scarf).
        
           | hutzlibu wrote:
           | "(it's super cool seeing someone do a gun disarm with a
           | cloth/scarf). "
           | 
           | Don't try that in real life, though. And definitely not
           | against a person who know what he's doing. Unless you really
           | have no choice and are about to be beheaded by Taliban or
           | alike.
           | 
           | And to the technics from the Book, well, from first glance
           | they seem to work. But the description seems very static.
           | "when the enemy does this, you do this - and then this and
           | then this".
           | 
           | Well, doing so is a good practice to get a feel for what is
           | possible - but never try to do that exactly in a real combat.
           | Because a real situation is always more complex. Nobody is
           | ever moving like in a book. There are variations. In speed,
           | in position and in a fraction of a second the enemy knive can
           | move another way. There are obstacles around you (that can
           | also be weapons to throw or just distract). There are often
           | other people around who complicate or ease things. There is
           | the sun that can blind the oponent, or you, etc. etc.
        
       | baxuz wrote:
       | I wish Wiktenauer was around back in 2009.
       | 
       | All we had were a few early transcriptions, some pretty bad
       | English translations of a few more popular works and that's it.
       | 
       | To get the good stuff you had to talk to people on international
       | seminars and internet forums and do your own transcriptions and
       | dig out library scans.
       | 
       | A huge shout out to Dierk Hagedorn from Hammaborg for providing
       | the one of the first quality Early > Modern German translations
       | for some of Liechtenauer's works.
        
       | sillyquiet wrote:
       | Manuscripts and treatises like the ones here are what
       | practitioners are using to try to resurrect the historical
       | European martial arts. There are even folks reviving armored
       | combat forms and techniques.
       | 
       | Which for those who don't know, are as effective, varied, and
       | storied as the currently-more-famous Asian martial arts.
       | 
       | But unlike the Asian martial arts they were forgotten and died
       | out sometime into the age of firearms in the 16th - 17th century
       | (although several sword-fighting forms survived to the 20th
       | century).
        
         | decafninja wrote:
         | I'm wondering if it could be argued that true Asian martial
         | arts have also been forgotten. A few exceptions aside, a lot of
         | what exists today is closer to dancing than combat.
        
         | sillyquiet wrote:
         | Curious about the downvotes on this - I know I recapitulated
         | the summary on the main page of the Wiki, but I thought I added
         | some context.
        
         | stonemetal12 wrote:
         | I find it weird how little we know about our own martial arts.
         | For example the last official US Army sword manual was
         | published in 1913 and was written by George S. Patton. He even
         | designed the sword to be used with the manual.
        
           | stryan wrote:
           | Eastern martial arts were often tied to
           | religious/philosophical practices. For example, many Chinese
           | martial arts are from an evolution of Taoist "physical
           | alchemy" and massage practices. It's a lot easier to forget a
           | martial art when it's no longer useful in war and has nothing
           | else going for it.
        
             | baxuz wrote:
             | A lot of early German books included alchemy: https://wikte
             | nauer.com/wiki/Pol_Hausbuch_(MS_3227a)/11r_-_12...
        
               | stryan wrote:
               | Interesting! I'll have to look more into that.
               | 
               | Chinese internal alchemy is a bit different though; it's
               | more like the martial art is the alchemical process
               | itself, with the practitioners body being the
               | reagent/substance. This looks more like alchemy being
               | used in creating weapons.
        
           | madhadron wrote:
           | It's because the weaponry used changed. A modern US
           | infantryman is the inheritor of a continuous development in
           | western martial arts. The weaponry and context changed and so
           | did the skills. Bayonets are still taught as part of
           | combatives as far as I know, but the days of fire a volley
           | followed by a bayonet charge are long gone. A soldier I know
           | told me that knives and pistols are tools you use to steal a
           | rifle from someone.
        
             | aksss wrote:
             | > pistols are tools...to steal a rifle
             | 
             | I believe that is often credited to Col. Jeff Cooper, or at
             | least for popularizing it.
        
               | hutzlibu wrote:
               | Still, in close quarters I rather have a pistol than a
               | rifle.
        
             | josefx wrote:
             | WWII had trench warfare, sharpened entrenching tools beat
             | anything too long to effectively wield in a trench.
        
               | madhadron wrote:
               | Yes, and the entrenching tool is still in the hand to
               | hand manuals.
        
           | sillyquiet wrote:
           | Something like a sword fighting technique that needs to be
           | trained often, starting early in life, would not take much to
           | die out - probably less than a generation of disuse.
           | 
           | And its funny you mention Patton's manual, WWI was probably
           | _the_ last time a sword was considered a practical fighting
           | weapon except in rare circumstances. Even the bayonet started
           | a gradual decline then.
        
             | jaegerpicker wrote:
             | Interestingly enough, melee weapons are still often used in
             | modern warfare. While not swords but machete's,
             | axes/tomahawks, and a large variety of knifes are still
             | used. I mean your are 100% correct they aren't the main
             | weapon of nearly anyone, they are still super effective in
             | close quarters. In fact within 21 feet or so they are
             | typically considered MORE effective than firearms unless
             | you already have the weapon drawn, aimed, and ready to
             | fire.
        
           | mkehrt wrote:
           | But arts that were sports remained, the same as in East Asia.
           | We still have boxing, wrestling, fencing and others.
        
             | hermitcrab wrote:
             | Sports like olympic fencing are very far removed from their
             | martial origins.
        
       | jdfellow wrote:
       | I've trained in HEMA, in the German Kunst des Fechtens tradition
       | for about 3 years (this past year, not much). Wiktenaur is my
       | primary resource for sources. It's a brilliant website. They've
       | also published a 3-part side-by-side compilation of the major
       | Liechtenauer treatises which I use regularly, and I believe an
       | updated 5-part compilation is in the works.
       | 
       | I was pleasantly surprised to see this link up on HN.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-02-24 23:01 UTC)