German swordsmanship.

Contemporary pop culture has ensured that most people associate sword arts strictly with Japanese or Chinese forms of fighting, so it's no surprise that many scoff at the concept of a Western martial art in the same vein. Despite this, a quiet movement of scholars and swordsman have been piecing together a Medieval-Renaissance German form of fencing for decades that proves itself extremely formidable. Wikipedia illuminates best:

German School of Swordsmanship.

Johannes Liechtenauer, master swordsman.

Liechtenauer's writings, hosted on a Wiki dedicated to his art.

Codex Dobringer, a partial commentary on Liechtenauer's techniques and teachings from a follower.

But here's a crash course:

The recovery of Liechtenauer's texts proves wonderfully some of the universal concepts behind excellent swordsmanship, namely the focus on simplicity and economy of movement. Unique to German swordsmanship, however, are the five 'Master Strikes', surprise attacks meant to both create and exploits weaknesses in one's adversaries with as much efficiency as possible. These aren't necessarily or strictly strikes in their own right, relying on the concept of a 'counter-hew' or 'counter-thrust'.

In either case, these counters exist as a replacement for standard methods of defending; under Liechtenauer's teachings, defending is a desperate fallback because it allows one's adversary to define the encounter and thus predict your reactions. A counter uses a reactive strike to reposition your adversary in order to set them up for a fatal blow. Liechtenauer argues that this is the only defensive action permissible for a good swordsman. Still arguing in favour of simplicity over all, Liechtenauer claims that only four guard or rest stances are required  ^*

I thought I might post this to garner some discussion on how this sits concerning general expectation and in relation to other sword-focused martial arts. Not everyone agrees with Liechtenauer's methods, of course; some Italian fencers had a different perspective and I'm certain differences in Eastern sword construction and warfare would create some dissonance. For instance, I'm aware that Japanese swordsmanship is also based around greatest efficiency, but their heavier blades would make this more of a necessity than a virtue.

Have at you.

edited 19th Mar '11 6:21:17 AM by MadassAlex

Damn, I tried to read the original German, but I was really happy for the English translation. :)

I always find it kind of sad that this tradition nearly died here, opposed to the Asian armed martial arts. Though I seem to remember we actually have a Polish troper practicing it.

The focus on simplicity and efficiency is indeed quite comparable to the more down-to-earth Japanese styles. (Most Japanese blades would, by the way, be ligher than your average longsword.) Beyond the obvious differences in the tactical environment, the greatest difference in one on one combat is, of course curved/single edged v. straight/double edged.

Comparing it with Kenjutsu (in the broadest possible sense of Japanese sword fighting), there's a surprising number of the same or very similar techniques: Vom Tag <-> Jodan, Pflug <-> Seigan, Zornhau <-> kesa giri, etc. If I weren't lazy right now, I'd probably find equivalents of every single one.

Musashi, like Liechtenauer, placed a heavy emphasis on taking initiative and enforcing your own rhythm of the duel, even from a defensive start. Using a reactive strike to reposition your adversary in order to set them up (to use your words) would roughly correspond to his concept of tai tai no sen. (Of course, there different schools of thought. Yagyu would strongly emphasize a reactionary approach, for example.)

Generally, I am not that surprised by the similarities. The basic principles are the same all over the world, and even apply in unarmed combat.

kurushio

edit: Heh, writing that caused the ad-server to promote my old dojo. Small world. :)

edited 20th Mar '11 2:54:20 AM by kurushio

I read somewhere that many Western martial arts had longer continuous use than their Eastern counterparts but they fell out of favor so spectacularly with the advent of widespread firearms that people stopped caring, while the Eastern arts were frequently "rediscovered."

That implies an unbroken tradition of practice, doesn't it? Nah, it's all reconstruction.

Also: man in the pit versus woman with rock-in-a-sock is the weirdest judicial duel ever.

And here he is.

I know, but it's good to know someone at least resurrected it.

edited 19th Mar '11 8:11:19 AM by kurushio

Americans, man. The "uber-nerds like ARMA", as our Useful Notes on swords say. Though here we do have, like, an only active (barely) ARMA section outside the Americas.

edit: and Brits. They were the first ones who dug up the manuals, I think. Though there's also been a German reprint for the Hitlerjugend. Don't know how common was the knowledge of them back in the day, but the actual practice began only after the time when martial arts in general became fashionable.

I kinda feel like Basil Fawlty, after I've mentioned Nazis.

edited 19th Mar '11 8:16:24 AM by lordGacek

It might seem that way, but I far prefer western swordsmanship to asian styles of armed martial skill. Neither is superior or inferior necessarily, but the much more brutal and aggressive German style would work well against someone with the Japanese style.

Lucky you. The only people here who know anything about it are LARPers. Though they do sometimes know quite a lot about it, to be fair.

(Don't worry, we started it.)

Well, given comparable training, I wouldn't challenge a longsword user with a katana, simply due to blade weight. But you should keep in mind that most of Kenjutsu as seen today is heavily stylized. Originally, it wasn't any less brutal or aggressive than European styles.

edited 19th Mar '11 8:33:58 AM by kurushio

I'm assuming these guys don't use Doppesoldners, as cool as they are. I agree with everyone's annoyance at Asia dominating martial arts in the media.

They both fight with 3 foot+ blades of metal and no shields. Brutality and aggressiveness are meaningless words in this conversation. It's not something I'll accuse styles in which people believe that blocking is bad of lacking.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

Here, you have it. There is a couple of articles like that, it's an interesting read if you care to look at them.

If I recall two of the oldest surviving schools of fighting from Europe are Either Italian or German Manuals. As well as the most intact tomes.

What is even more interesting is that the manuals have hand to hand and other weapons.

edited 19th Mar '11 2:26:27 PM by TuefelHundenIV

The oldest known German manual (so-called I.33, late XIIIth Century) also contains an interesting case of Action Girl. And the teacher depicted in it surely counts as a Badass Preacher.

edited 19th Mar '11 2:27:50 PM by lordGacek

I didn't mean that either style is inferior, simply that if you give someone being taught a European style 6 months, and someone learning Kenjutsu 6 months, the guy studying the European style will probably come out on top, where as the guy learning Kenjutsu will come out on top if you give him more time.

Kenjutsu seems to have much more reliance on the momentum of the opponent, while there are enough strikes to sate an aggressive fighter the meat and potatoes of Kenjutsu is being able to fight defensively, put your opponent off-balance, and then deliver a lethal counter-attack that the enemy can't recover from, similar in a small manner to Jujitsu.

It's possible that body time might have played a part in this.

Let's ask deadliest warriors! Because some raw numbers are all that's needed to determine a conflict's outcome, amirite?

"Appears in" is not reliance. The same appears in zweihander styles. Heck, the OP talks about German styles' reliance on reactive strikes.

All I'm saying is there is a different emphasis for each art that makes them fundamentally different, you don't need to nitpick.

All I'm saying is that you are fundamentally wrong. They are, surprisingly to some, in many ways the same when it comes to the basic guiding principles.

Wow ok nerd war over anytime now.

All sword combat has some degree of similarity to a point. It might surprise many of you that things like posture and how to block and strike more effectively with your blade are disturbingly similar. There is variation due to both culture and weapon types and styles for the weapons.

There is no really reliable way to measure which style is superior because as has been noted many many many times before there are too many variables from various pieces of individual equipment to varying skill levels and and learning ability of the respective warriors.

You can find many similarities in the warrior philosophies of fighting and even some in armor and weapon designs.

^^

You don't have to be Some Sort Of Prick about it, one art having an emphasis on a tactic doesn't mean other tactics can't be used. Just like how fighting with a weapon has an emphasis on fighting with a weapon, you can still kick your opponent in the nads, even though that isn't your main method of defense.(not that it couldn't be)

You dropped your pun pothole somewhere a few miles back Tuef.

edited 20th Mar '11 12:29:49 AM by Barkey

I took Olympic regulation fencing for many years. It's pretty fun, and not Asian at all.

Olympic fencing is a shadow of the combat art it used to be. I also used to do similar fencing btw.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

Here, you have it. There is a couple of articles like that, it's an interesting read if you care to look at them. -Lord Iacek

That was well worth the read, thank you. (The author really won my heart by critisizing modern methods of instruction in kenjutsu. Most of them have more in common with Olympic fencing than with an actual martial art nowadays.)

As an admirer of Bruce Lee's 'reject all restrictions imposed by form and formality' and the resulting hybrid martial arts approach, I would actually be more interested in the question what each art can learn from the other, instead of asking which one is superior. For example, the German schools thoughts on sword binds is very interesting. That's a topic that is seldom covered in kenjutsu, not because it doesn't happen, but because it shouldn't. (Which is a kind of strange approach in a martial art - things that shouldn't happen are frequently encountered in fights...)

Sorry

I have heard from kenjutsu students from the Katori Shinto Ryu school, I have heard separately from people who study German sword fighting (particularly a guy interested in zweihanders). What they say tends to be similar and particularly, I get the former pointing out the misconception that somehow it isn't aggressive and that it is somehow defensive fighitng, the latter complains about people thinking that they weren't skills, technical sword fighters with a strong emphasis on timing, opening your opponent up, putting them off balance and counter attacks.

edited 21st Mar '11 9:47:41 AM by SomeSortOfTroper