|
ASK: I've been studying and practicing Medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts for about two years now, and a much more proficient practitioner than myself brought up a question: In most of the fight manuals from 1300 - 1600 that feature the long sword (both German and Italian sources) most of the illustrations show un-armored figures. It is my understanding that the idea of using a long sword in field combat was only viable when sufficient armor was available so that a shield became less necessary. So, my (read: my stolen) question is: why do so many of the manuals feature unarmored men practicing many techniques that would only work on unarmored adversaries?? To be clear, many of the texts (Fiore, for example) feature tons of techniques that would be completely applicable to fighting someone in armor, but even his long sword section begins with a play that is just slashing a dude's arm from a sword bind! And pretty much all of Meyer's 1570 (I think...) consists of moves that you actually want an opponent to throw at you if you had armor on. Was it just because they thought that the long sword was badass and fighting with it was manly?? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance!
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 12:34 |
|