Though no one ever turns down a knighthood!
Though no one ever turns down a knighthood!
OP
GouRonin
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #42
Just watch me.
OP
white dragon
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #43
Still Id rather have a monarchy than live in a country with which is based upon the genocide of its indigenous race.
Ummm however, what was the topic again? Something about martial arts?
Ummm however, what was the topic again? Something about martial arts?
OP
GouRonin
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #44
The monarchy's track record with native cultures isn't in any way better.
Posted by WhiteDragon:
"Most people hit by a sword like that would die of broken bones caused by the weight of the blade. These later changed to thinner lighter blades to get through the gaps in the armour."
Actually, blades were almost useless by the time armor reached its peak. Axes and warhammers became more common. Smaller thinner weapons became the norm only after the advent of firearms (and longbows, but to a lesser degree because only England had them) reduced the effectiveness of the mounted knight.
Posted by Vincefuess:
"They lacked the insight to out-move their attackers and take out the back of the knees or whatever- they just didn't have the brains. Lord knows, put anybody in a suit of armor, no matter how bad they are, and I will kick their *** in my underwear today. (Good idea for pay-per-view). They would be grass."
I'm glad to see your confidence. But there is a reason why armored infantry ruled the ancient world, armor allows you to make mistakes and live through it. You can trade "shots" and make it out alive, and given the quality of ancient medicine, the losers died outright or due to disease and infection.
I also think you are greatly underestimating the quality of the swordsmanship of the medieval knight. I suspect they are much faster and well trained than the movies would make it seen. If you care to give it a try, there should be a HACA group near you, they are based out of Houston.
I don't know, just my opinion, but I think you are a bit overconfident.
Lamont
"Most people hit by a sword like that would die of broken bones caused by the weight of the blade. These later changed to thinner lighter blades to get through the gaps in the armour."
Actually, blades were almost useless by the time armor reached its peak. Axes and warhammers became more common. Smaller thinner weapons became the norm only after the advent of firearms (and longbows, but to a lesser degree because only England had them) reduced the effectiveness of the mounted knight.
Posted by Vincefuess:
"They lacked the insight to out-move their attackers and take out the back of the knees or whatever- they just didn't have the brains. Lord knows, put anybody in a suit of armor, no matter how bad they are, and I will kick their *** in my underwear today. (Good idea for pay-per-view). They would be grass."
I'm glad to see your confidence.
But there is a reason why armored infantry ruled the ancient world, armor allows you to make mistakes and live through it. You can trade "shots" and make it out alive, and given the quality of ancient medicine, the losers died outright or due to disease and infection. I also think you are greatly underestimating the quality of the swordsmanship of the medieval knight. I suspect they are much faster and well trained than the movies would make it seen. If you care to give it a try, there should be a HACA group near you, they are based out of Houston.
I don't know, just my opinion, but I think you are a bit overconfident.
Lamont
OP
white dragon
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #46
Ah yes, but at least all we did was slaughter them, plant our flag there, then let them fight in our wars for us. Anyway, we're going way off topic so I'm not going to continue this in this thread. But I will just say that I'm proud to be British. But that's the Britain I know now and have grown (and am growing) up in, where, like america, people are accepted no matter what race, religion or nationality and the state (tries) to look after all those living there. I don't condone what people have done in the past, but no where is perfect. Now come on everyone.... group hug!!!
Going back to the point about armour, another reason why people in armour lived longer was the fact that they didn't always have to do any fighting. Even now good armour costs money and "back in the day" most people couldn't afford a decent sword let alone a suite of armour. They also started to get so heavy that moving about in them get stupid. In the tower of London there are pieces of armour that kings actually wore. These things are so heavy that the wearer would have to be lowered onto their hourse with a pully system because they were too heavy to climb up!
As for the longbow, have you tried one of those?! My grandfather trained in it since about the age of 10 or something (which I believe was considered kinda old when they first came into use!) and he had forearms the size of a.... well something with big forearms. They had to train them young because the muscles required to fire them needed to be developed, it's well worth having a go with if you ever get the chance.
Going back to the point about armour, another reason why people in armour lived longer was the fact that they didn't always have to do any fighting. Even now good armour costs money and "back in the day" most people couldn't afford a decent sword let alone a suite of armour. They also started to get so heavy that moving about in them get stupid. In the tower of London there are pieces of armour that kings actually wore. These things are so heavy that the wearer would have to be lowered onto their hourse with a pully system because they were too heavy to climb up!
As for the longbow, have you tried one of those?! My grandfather trained in it since about the age of 10 or something (which I believe was considered kinda old when they first came into use!) and he had forearms the size of a.... well something with big forearms. They had to train them young because the muscles required to fire them needed to be developed, it's well worth having a go with if you ever get the chance.
OP
vincefuess
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #47
Oh, I wouldn't say over-conident, maybe a little outspoken...
I agree that the mounted, armored knight was the juggernaut of his era, for he exemplified the latest technology of the time for combat machinery. By and large, the masses were ignorant (even more so than the ignorant masses of today). An unarmed or underarmed peasant had not a chance against a well equipped, trained warrior. But by todays standards of even empty-hand combat, the knights of yore would be found lacking in both skill AND tactical ability. Not to put them down, but things have really progressed in the effectiveness of training and application since those dark days.
That being said, I am quite familiar with their weapons and tactics, and have trained in both medieval longsword (two-hand claymore type) and staff fighting, supposedly in the same technique employed in the period. I collect hand weapons, and love playing with them!! I have engaged in many demonstrations at local medieval festivals (which is a blast!). The techniques employed there, while somewhat effective, are nothing compared to the martial arts we practice.
On the topic of armor- have you ever worn a suit of armor? I have- and while I will admit it was not sized properly for me, I fail to see where it would be much better if it was. If a suited knight found himself off his horse, in full armor with any weapon of his choice (mace, sword etc) and squared off against an opponent who posesses skills that many in this forum do- his butt would be grass! Limited mobility, combined with odd weight distribution and limited vision would render him a sitting duck- just knock him down and sit on him!
I agree that the mounted, armored knight was the juggernaut of his era, for he exemplified the latest technology of the time for combat machinery. By and large, the masses were ignorant (even more so than the ignorant masses of today). An unarmed or underarmed peasant had not a chance against a well equipped, trained warrior. But by todays standards of even empty-hand combat, the knights of yore would be found lacking in both skill AND tactical ability. Not to put them down, but things have really progressed in the effectiveness of training and application since those dark days.
That being said, I am quite familiar with their weapons and tactics, and have trained in both medieval longsword (two-hand claymore type) and staff fighting, supposedly in the same technique employed in the period. I collect hand weapons, and love playing with them!! I have engaged in many demonstrations at local medieval festivals (which is a blast!). The techniques employed there, while somewhat effective, are nothing compared to the martial arts we practice.
On the topic of armor- have you ever worn a suit of armor? I have- and while I will admit it was not sized properly for me, I fail to see where it would be much better if it was. If a suited knight found himself off his horse, in full armor with any weapon of his choice (mace, sword etc) and squared off against an opponent who posesses skills that many in this forum do- his butt would be grass! Limited mobility, combined with odd weight distribution and limited vision would render him a sitting duck- just knock him down and sit on him!
OP
Kirk
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #49
Reminds me of a tale a friend of mine told me, just the other
day. There's a Sensei Craig, of Houston, who teaches Jiu Jitsu,
Kendo, Eido (SP???) Sensei Craig at one time owned this
Japanese village at the Renaissance Festival there in Houston.
One time, a member from the Society For Creative Anachronism
challenge him to a duel. This SCA guy was apparently SUPER
rude and slapped him in the face with a glove. heheheh .. at
this point that I was told the story I already knew .. BIG MISTAKE!
So they duel. This guy had some heavy heavy wood sword, and
the Sensei used his wooden samarai sword (is it called a bocan?).
Needless to say, in less than 5 seconds, the S.C.A. member was
being carted off, and ended up going to the hospital. Apparently
in their camp now, at the renaissance festival, a memo is posted
there now, saying not to mess with the guys from the Japanese
village. They know how to use those swords, VERY well. hehehe
day. There's a Sensei Craig, of Houston, who teaches Jiu Jitsu,
Kendo, Eido (SP???) Sensei Craig at one time owned this
Japanese village at the Renaissance Festival there in Houston.
One time, a member from the Society For Creative Anachronism
challenge him to a duel. This SCA guy was apparently SUPER
rude and slapped him in the face with a glove. heheheh .. at
this point that I was told the story I already knew .. BIG MISTAKE!
So they duel. This guy had some heavy heavy wood sword, and
the Sensei used his wooden samarai sword (is it called a bocan?).
Needless to say, in less than 5 seconds, the S.C.A. member was
being carted off, and ended up going to the hospital. Apparently
in their camp now, at the renaissance festival, a memo is posted
there now, saying not to mess with the guys from the Japanese
village. They know how to use those swords, VERY well. hehehe
OP
Dennis_Mahon
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #50
"Eido" is most likely Iai-do; both Kendo and Iai-do are Japanese swordfighting arts.
Most commonly spelled bokken; Miamoto Musashi once won a duel with a bokken he carved from a boat oar the night before.
OP
vincefuess
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #51
Yes, Iaido is the art of drawing the sword, which in true conflict among samurai signaled the beginning/ end of a conflict. There was no "swordplay" as depicted in movies, swords were drawn and an opponent fatally slashed in one whack usually. No drama, no chick crying for her man, simple slash-die.
One skilled in this sort of swordplay brandishing a bokken would have the pleasure of striking his opponent a few times before his demise, though it wouldn't take MUCH longer. At least he could practice a BIT longer. I keep a bokken by my bed as my "go search for that strange noise I heard weapon" (though my .380 is in my waistband). If one don't work the other will.
The fellows I work with in these demos are usually also asian-influenced in their practice, so we all crank it to a good (medeival believable) degree- but respect each other greatly. We know we could get as nasty as Hades at any point, but keep it light and entertaining for those who watch. We jack each other up once in awhile- but its all in good fun!
Vince
One skilled in this sort of swordplay brandishing a bokken would have the pleasure of striking his opponent a few times before his demise, though it wouldn't take MUCH longer. At least he could practice a BIT longer. I keep a bokken by my bed as my "go search for that strange noise I heard weapon" (though my .380 is in my waistband). If one don't work the other will.
The fellows I work with in these demos are usually also asian-influenced in their practice, so we all crank it to a good (medeival believable) degree- but respect each other greatly. We know we could get as nasty as Hades at any point, but keep it light and entertaining for those who watch. We jack each other up once in awhile- but its all in good fun!
Vince
OP
Kirk
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #52
It is. I had no idea how to spell it, I don't study either art.
OP
Ms J
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #53
I would like to sort of clarify the Savate similar to boxing quote made above, the only relatation to boxing is that you have punches as part of the art the core of the art though when taught is either a balance of both kicking, and punches, with it leaning to the more of a kicking art in most cases.. but...... its hard for me to agree that its like western boxing.... i never saw any western boxing where they allowed you to kick as much as you wanted to lol......
here is one of the closest discripts of what savat is today, as taught in france now, this is one of the arts that i have worked with and covered some. but most of what is found in Savat is found in the core concepts and level one training of JKD......
French Savate
Boxe Francaise-Savate is the French national sport of kicking and punching differing from kickboxing in its constant movement and emphasis on skill over sheer power.
Savate, known as boxe Francaise savate or la boxe Francaise is a French martial art. Its development began in 17th century Marseilles, and was originally a type of kicking brawling style. Early in the 18th century, it was synthesized with English boxing maneuvers, and is today a comprehensive and respected martial arts style.
Savate combines boxing-style punches with a variety of kicks, but the style also includes some cane-fighting techniques, an interesting bit of trivia not very well known. A savate fighter is called a savateur (fem. savateuse) or tireur.
Ms. J....
OP
fist of fury
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #54
More Savate links:
http://www.martialtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=551&highlight=savate
Don't forget about the Search facility here:
http://www.martialtalk.com/search.php?s=
http://www.martialtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=551&highlight=savate
Don't forget about the Search facility here:
http://www.martialtalk.com/search.php?s=
