Talk:German school of fencing

message: This deals with Lichtenauer's system to the exclusion of others.  It's an excellent article on that topic, but it presents material as though it were true of all German masters when in fact it is specific to those operating closely in accordance with Lichtenauer.  Maybe we could add material to cover other masters, or at least a note at the top of each subheading describing in general the changes later masters made to Lichtenauer's system?
Zabieru 05:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: of course! the article is far from finished, and lots of information should be added. Feel free to improve it! dab (ᛏ) 14:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Vor and Nach are more terms of timing, not nessisarily of attack and defense.  I'm mostly from the Tobler side of things.  Anyone have something agaisnt the two possible translations in the article?
Vor and nach are positions of time of which to react to your opponent.  The vor is when you respond before your opponent has started his attack.  The nach is when you are responding after the attack has already been made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarquisCthulhu (talk • contribs) 08:15, 16 June 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. This article isn't more than a very brief writeup, and I still haven't got round to expanding it. So you are very welcome to elaborate the terms. As you say, the vor is a position of advantage, because you do not so much react, but rather force your opponent to react. But note that other systems of combat see it exactly the other way round (e.g. kendo, jogo do pau, I believe), where it is held that the one who attacks first has the disadvantage because he has to expose himself. dab (ᛏ) 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vor and nach are exactly the same as debana and nuki in kendo. In vor, you strike at the moment when the opponent begins his action. In nach, you dodge and strike at the moment when the opponent's strike would hit you. Indes attack means simultaneous attack with opponent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.107 (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vor and Nach 

message: At the bottom of the article there was a commertial link to one of the main publishers of books related to the subject of this article.  I move the link into a list of Book Publishers and added a link to another publisher who also produced books on the subject.  I know that commertial links are normally removed.  As I have purchased books from both of these publishers and know the owner of one, I don't claim to unbias.  Thus, I leave the decision to keep or move these links to someone with a NPOV on the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranp (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the chivalry bookshelf link is certainly fine, since that is a notable publisher dedicated to the topic. I am less sure about paladin, since that appears to be a publisher dealing with martial arts in general? Maybe they have some HEMA-specific subpage we could link to? (ᛎ) qɐp 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Publishers 

message: Eisenport: 'iron door', mentioned in 3227a as a non-Liechtenauerian ward, identical to the porta di ferro of the Italian school
Why is Eisenport non-Liechtenauerian.  Almost all of the itailian posta have German equivalents, why is eisenport different?  Also, 3227a is the origonal Liechtenauer merkeverse, isn't Eisenport mentioned in Meyer or at least Mair?  This ought to be examined and expanded. Sethwoodworth 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eisenport 

message: I'm not familiar enough to include it myself, but it seems that Mordhau should be included somewhere in this article.  --mordicai. 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so it should, in a section on Harnischfechten. dab (𒁳) 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mordhau]]

message: The original statements on the Schielhau were confusing and based upon a very weak understanding of the cut.  I added a clear statement on the cut with a reference to a recent article by Bartholomew Walczak, who is one of the authors of the The Codex Wallerstein : A Medieval Fighting Book from the Fifteenth Century on the Longsword, Falchion, Dagger, and Wrestling and a Senior ARMA Researcher.  Yet for some reason the article was changed back to a statement that is self-acknowledging about being confused.  I have again changed to a more clear statement with a reference.  If anyone wishes to add to the statement then please do so only if you have a valid reference.Ranp 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the description back and then added to it substantially.  My objective was to provide a description that better reflects the several different variations of schielhau that appear in several sources (notably the von Danzig).  The description you provided is a clear and accurate description but only of one version of the schiel.  This is based upon the translation by Jeffery Forgeng and Jeff Tsay and which has been recently updated.  Alas, I will not have access to the reference until next Friday.  If you have a better way of describing schiel that incorporates its variety then I would glad for the improvement. Mercutio.Wilder 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The interpretation of the Schielhau by Bartholomew Walczak and Jacob Norwood is based on all of the Geman manuals, including Von Danzig, Ringeck, Meyer, Mair, etc.  The statement I provided is general enough so that it does cover all variations.  Please keep in mind that all of the variations in the description of the Schielhau are describing a single false edge cut that can be used in many situations and contexts.  It is just a false edge Oberhau, not a feint!Ranp 18:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Schielhau]]

message: I removed the names of three books that have not yet been published.  These books should only be re-added to the list after  they have actually been published.Ranp (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature

message: Mostly this is a school directory i.e. a link farm which wikipedia is not could you explin why that all satisfy WP:EL? as while this is a german school and some German links may be appropriate lining to over dozen or so schools in 6 languages is simply not it just spam, do we link to every school that teches judo? --Nate1481 15:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the link farm.  It started with good purpose of pointing readers toward organziations of real significance in the reconstruction of the German school of fencing.  But it seems that everyone considers themselves significance, even if they have popped up only in the last three days and/or no one has heard of them.  Anyway, I deleted ALL links, thus all organizations, groups, and individuals were treated equally and fairly.Ranp (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It seems like every page remotely connected to historic swordsmanship ends up growing into a list of organizations--Wikipedia isn't supposed to be The Yellow Pages or a marketing tool.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marozzo (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: *Hooking* should be added. I just noticed that it is the only attack missing. I hope someone does the work and find out what the term is for it.
I know it's a basic attack, because I look at those old drawings and I see the guys trying to pull the legs out from under the other.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverQuixotic (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more basic attack should be added 

message: As a relatively new student of the art, I've heard both translations used for the "Tag" in "vom Tag."  Clearly, "day" is the obvious literal translation of "Tag"--but it's so obvious a translation that I can't help wondering why "roof" ("Dach") comes up at all.  Are we sure there isn't some sort of valid idiomatic translation along these lines?  Are there texts clearly demonstrating that the literal meaning is intended?  "Roof" seems naively to make more sense--I'd have expected "vom Sonne" or "vom Himmel" or "vom Kopf" or something clearly directional rather than "vom Tag" in the literal meaning.  Something explaining the background of this translation issue would make me feel a lot better about the absolute position taken in the article.
Exacerangutan (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day/Roof 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on German school of fencing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226131447/http://www.phf.uni-rostock.de/institut/igerman/forschung/litkritik/litkritik/start.htm?%2Finstitut%2Figerman%2Fforschung%2Flitkritik%2Flitkritik%2FKritiker%2FAbKaestner.htm to https://www.phf.uni-rostock.de/institut/igerman/forschung/litkritik/litkritik/start.htm?%2Finstitut%2Figerman%2Fforschung%2Flitkritik%2Flitkritik%2FKritiker%2FAbKaestner.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Link works and seems useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on German school of fencing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130412042350/http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Deutliche_Erkl%C3%A5rung_der_Fechtkunst_(Jean_Daniel_L'Ange)/Images to http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Deutliche_Erkl%C3%A5rung_der_Fechtkunst_%28Jean_Daniel_L%27Ange%29/Images
*Added  tag to http://www.lupi-venaritis.de/EuropKamfK/Dokumente/080317%20D%F6rbringer%20%DCbersetzung.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on German school of fencing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813031930/http://www.skg-im.net/Wir_lernen_Fechten.pdf to http://www.skg-im.net/Wir_lernen_Fechten.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dear All
I am a historian (well, a medievalist to be exact) and did add some of the more obscure information about Liechtenauer`s Kunst des Fechtens: that at least the very basics of this martial art has survived in German stage fencing at least until the second world war (apparently, very few interested people thought it was worth to study the German stage fencing literature of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century). Although I have added as much sources as I could find to the article, I would like to ask you to keep an eye on German stage fencing, because it includes many puzzling facts and may be seen as an unbroken line of German fencers (I have heard of living practitioners and will definitely pursue whether it is still possible to interview living, classical German stage fencers from pre world war II. I have found some old German theatrical fencing books that even include pictures (I would love to add them to the article, however, I am not sure whether these pictures are open source). Please add all information about German stage fencing that you come along to the article. Maybe the Babelsberg Studio and  the Bavaria Film GmbH have some interesting informations and/or literature about the subject (I know that at least the DEFA must have had some really old books on the subject).
Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C79:D630:4C30:3595:124C:ADBD (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Stage Fencing (Bühnenfechtunst) 

message: I find this "sentence" rather odd: In 1735, German historian Johann Büsching mentioned the existence of both the Brotherhood of St. Mark and the Federfechter as well as the existence of "Klopffechter" (artistic and stage fencers who used blunt weapons). He further stated that there were alive in 1817 at least a handful of skilled people who knew how to use "battle swords" ("Schlachtschwerter", another name for either longswords or Zweihänder).[25]
Am I to assume that Johann Büsching published and stated between 1734 and 1817? 
...or was this the work of an author of non-english descent?95.112.90.229 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely needs to be rewritten. The book was published in 1816, according to copy at referenced website, so 1817 seems odd. 1735 may refer to when the schools the author refers to were last known to exist, and certainly not when he was writing (he was born in 1783). Unfortunately, a page number for the reference isn't given; so, it may take some time to check it. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubbish, lousy english or just a german out of his depth?