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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think there's a point to be made there, yeah. On the flip side, you could also argue that European martial arts weren't forgotten, they just were 'sportified' into competitive fencing, boxing, Greco-Roman wrestling, etc, where the original martial intent was greatly obscured with sporting-specific rules and techniques but not completely lost.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
"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.
> 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.
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).
"(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.
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.
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.
> 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!
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.
45 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 89.3 ms ] threadWhich 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).
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.
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.
I believe that is often credited to Col. Jeff Cooper, or at least for popularizing it.
There are definitely use cases where an under 6 pound short barrel rifle is going to be more effective than a pistol in close quarters though.
Some people think that getting into the Olympics is the worst thing that ever happened to Judo. I am inclined to agree with them.
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?
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.
[1] https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/caesars-elite-germ...
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.
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)
What was not true?
Edit: ah, so their mounted fencing category includes Duarte's book, and other horsemanship books outside the cannon.
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.
Can't say how much is accurate or true, but that's history for you.
Zen and the Art of Destrier Maintenance?
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
"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 ;)
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).
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.
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.
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!
I was pleasantly surprised to see this link up on HN.