quote:

---

Originally posted by tom hyle:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evans Chris:

If you do it right your hand doesn't enter into it.
WHat you call double time is fairly commonly taught with daggers. You can take classes on attack and parry type fighting with bowies in N America, with many influences from smallsword fighting.

(edited 07-08-2004).]

---

First of all, I must say that I have to allow for the possibility that we may be talking about two different things; So, if I misunderstood you, please correct me.

I have never seen any suggestion that parry-riposte type of play is possible with daggers or knives, and I have studied quite a number of historical manuals. For one, see Egerton Castle, who quite unequivocally declares that parries are not possible. I do not deny that with very long daggers, say, with blades around 15" or so, that at times a parry may not be possible, but the margin for error is non existent.

In any event, if such a parry would be possible, then wouldn't it make more sense to make a time hit on the hand or arm rather than waste the move on the blade?

Could you quote some sources re DT fencing with knives?

Cheers
Chris

PLEASE TELL ME TO STOP OR DISABLE GOOGLE !!!

Why do I have a feeling Zena is next?

Cheesecake ...

The first is the best

More, more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"I have never seen any suggestion that parry-riposte type of play is possible with daggers or knives,"
I have done more than suggest it; I have declared it.
"and I have studied quite a number of historical manuals."
You can study it with 9 to 12 inch blade bowies in a paid class in N American right now.
"For one, see Egerton Castle, who quite unequivocally declares that parries are not possible."
Quotes from books are poor evidence for martial arts abilities, and moreso for lack thereof. Paticularly books by socially accepted experts, whose expertise is filtered through social institutions (as it must be, or they wouldn't be socially accepted experts; round and round that goes), which (as all social institutions do) have interests other than truth.
"I do not deny that with very long daggers, say, with blades around 15" or so, that at times a parry may not be possible, but the margin for error is non existent."
It's not non-existant, but small. A dagger is as large as the part of your blade some would say you should parry with anyway. As for small knives, I've made a point of them being non-ideal for the purpose; that is not the same as impossibly unsuited. This is the essential difference between us on this issue; claims of IMPOSSIBLITY are on the table. Impossibile and poorly suited are two hugely, entirely different things.

"In any event, if such a parry would be possible, then wouldn't it make more sense to make a time hit on the hand or arm rather than waste the move on the blade?"
It is nice, as I said, if attack and parry can be unified. I don't see how the "timed" thing enters into it; it is a single move. Attacking the opponant's hand is an effective tactic, if he will allow it.

"Could you quote some sources re DT fencing with knives?"
No, and unless I have something laying around handy (and I don't) I rarely do that; you can look htings up as easily as I can. I don't know what use documentary sources are, really, in a case like this anyway; I don't know if you'd accept them unless their expertise were from Western sword fencing, and I don't know that I'd accept them if it were.
Now, with this point of can knives parry (they can, though not as well as daggers or swords, and only against other light weapons, which, in my opinion, you're better off to parry with your left hand and foot, but then I've always supported the use of the shield), we've entirely lost track of the matter on the table, of which it was a small, ans essentially meaningless factor. Whether a particular martial art of which you have knowledge is well applicable to a certain weapon commonly carried by a certain people is not at all relevant to whether those people have martial arts in general, let alone for that weapon. The attempt to say that it does is a good illustration of the very way that established social institutions ignore and conceal things they don't agree with, don't apply to, or that don't match their beliefs (knowledge).
The claim on the table is that Gypsies lack the social institutions and weapons to study martial arts. These are both untrue and irrelevant. Further, that fighting with small knives is not proper fighting, and is not subject to training. This is utterly unsuportable, even silly, and knive's abilities or lack thereof in regard to any particular technique transposed from other weapons is entirely irrelevant to this fact. It is, of course, important, and legitimately interesting; all I'm saying right here is that it isn't relevant to the Gypsy martial arts issue, in reference to which it has become an unintended red herring.
I seem to be shooting past your head. I keep saying "Don't take the word of social institutions, which are always close-Minded, self-serving, and bigotted," and you keep quoting me social institutions/experts. This is relevant, and even a good demonstration, because whatever abilities and training Gypsies do or don't practice, this is the exact wall you'd be out to climb to find out. This is the wall on the Gayo (nonGypsie) side; then, of course, they have their own wall, or at least a shaggy bite-dog, to keep you out, too....One of the great difficulties of intercultural communication is that each culture has its ways of looking at and talking about and doing things that its members simply know are right and proper, and it tends to be very difficult for humans to see their own cultures as collections of bigotries and obsolete or almost randomly specialized skill-sets.
[This message has been edited by tom hyle (edited 07-09-2004).]

1. For what I have read, I think we use Daggers, not knives. We use small 17cm blades, sharpen in both sides for trainning.

2. English is not my 1st language and I miss many things here, but I think "to parry" is the same of "redirecting" a received attack with your blade, since "blocking" is something you do not want to do and may not work. If thats so, we do "parry" with those daggers.

3. I was never thought the concept of 1 time, 2 times, but reading it here I can say we use both. Its common to parry an attack and then apply something (a lock, disarm using your blade, blade attack, don't know the english name, but to send your opponent to the ground removing him from his base), since your opponent is more vulnerable at that moment. Note that we learn to DO NOT TRUST on parrying blade with blade, since its risky and you are not meant to block an attack when you can't just redirect its force. You can block an attack if you parry with your blade on his arm or hand in such a way that you can't be touched with strenth.

4. You are not meant to find someone using a rapier, katana or sabre on the streets. So, the bigest opponent you may find is a "facon" or a fire gun. Maybe, someone more crazy may be carring a Kukre. Looking into this, the dagger is a very useful defence weapon for you to use day by day.

Recentily I was in a friend's birthday in a bar and when we were leaving some people started to discuss. It was stupid, since there were no real reason for people to start to fight. When I saw, someone came to punch me and all I had the time was to avoid his punch (my ear got hot) and then get out from that big mess. I didn't have a blade with me and I wouldn't use it there cause I could leave without getting hurt. BUT, some people was hurt. There was a group of FOUR guys beating one single guy. They punched him, used a chair on him, kicked him, etc.. There was another guy that was sent to the floor and got kicked on the head. He got inconscient for about 4 minutes and I think he could have lost his life if it was not his girlfriend that jumped on him to protect him. I felt myself too vunerable since I can't deal with four at once with my hands. You need to have an advantage that will help you if you get four guys on you, mainly with you are there with your girlfriend. If those four guys went on me I could not be here or maybe be blind or something and my girlfriend could get hurt too, maybe. Since this day, I plan to buy a custom dagger that I can carry with me and if I get in the middle of something like this again I will be prepered to remove some arms, fingers, hands, eyes and whatever is in my way, except fire guns. Thats the point: the dagger is a powerful and useful weapon for modern days. I just need to know what I am really learning here.

I took a picture of the daggers I use for trainning:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nechesh:
This topic has taken some interesting turns.....and curves , but i am afraid Luiz's last post has given me cause for concern. Before you start "removing peoples arms, fingers, hands and eyes and whatever is in your way" you might want to consider how the law will view you for the dismemberment of an unarmed opponent, regardless of how many there are. Fist fights are one thing. They occur between the young and immature all the time. There are even times when a reasonable and mature person is forced to fight, being left no other alternative. But if you play the arms race game and escalate to weapons beyond fists YOU become the guilty one. And if you take a life with a weapon, even if you are defending yourself from an assailant's fists, you may find youself in a great deal of trouble. Think before you act. And don't carry a weapon unless you are really prepared to use it, understanding you might possibly take a life and in doing so, pay a very heavy price for your foolishness.

---

I have thought a lot about it already and I think you have 2 different situations:

1) you can avoid fighting
2) you can't avoid fighting

If you can choose the 1st option, I have no doubt about it. RUN! BUT, if its case 2....

Some things to considere once you are involved in a fight and you can't just avoid it (my own conclusions until now):
1) You can't be sure about your risks (life, vision, walking capability, your brother, your girl, your sister, your own arm);
2) If you act, your chances get better;
3) Avoid the first wave, look around, it may stop. If not, try keep calm, see your friends, find your opponents and if thats the case, go for it; If you don't do it, you may hurt your friends and do not even know because you didn't really see what was happening; You can't imagine how dumb and dangerous your friends can be to yourself in the middle of a fight (try don't to be one of them);
4) If you have a weapon, don't show it and don't use it if you are not ready to really use it (and maybe kill someone);
5) With your weapon, other weapons may rise from the opponent side;

Something I still ask myself:
1) Once I feel in danger again, if I have a weapon with me, will I be cold enought to think before I decide to use it?
2) What is the worst risk: going to jail or loosing something important?

Well... Its hard

quote:

---

Originally posted by kohnitz:
I wore Buck Knives in a belt sheath (Models 110 and 112) for years as a work knife. Its a lock blade folder with about a 4 inch blade. Carried them everywhere. Even in bars and on dates. (knives are a big turn-on for the ladies ) It was just part of my getting dressed. I didn't often get into a bad situation (well, actually fairly often) and the only time I ever REALLY needed to draw it as a weapon, the mere act would have been the last ineffective thing I ever accomplished.
I simply was not going to be a victim and stupider people got wise and let me be. Of course I looked every bit the part of the drug crazed biker so maybe that gave them pause....
Anyway, if you carry a weapon or use a 'pick-up' weapon, you are risking aggravated assault charges despite who started it. Even if it ends with no major injury or death. If death occurs, it is pre-meditated. You carried a weapon with intent to do bodily injury. Game over. I hear you about losing something important or choosing who walks away...but you can't afford to live in fear.
Moral: If you can't make them wet their pants in fear by looking at them, cut your losses and run like the wind.
You don't have to be faster than the bear. You only have to be faster the the other guy.

---

LOL... thats not my case... I am a small guy (1.62m) and no one will wet their paints if I look to them. My lags are not big, so I will probably not be faster than them.

Well... on that situation I was talking about I got separated from my girlfriend because I left her to try keep my friends from fighting and I think that was the most stupid thing I could try to do.

In debates of this kind it is extremely easy to end up unintentionally and heatedly talking about quite different things. The description of fencing, be it with swords or knives is by necessity technical and it
is important that we stick to universally understood terms.

With this in mind, I propose that we do not deviate from scientific fencing theory derived over five centuries and use the terms and concepts thus established; After all there is no point in re-inventing the proverbial wheel.

So, to facilitate further scholarly discussion, I give here some commonly accepted definitions:

FORTE (strong): Roughly the half of the blade nearest the hilt. In the context of fencing, short swords, daggers and the like cannot be said to have a forte.

FOIBLE (weak): Roughly the second half of the blade , from the middle to the point. Again, in the context of fencing, short swords, daggers and the like cannot be said to have a foible.

HIT: A stab or cut .

Beat: An action on the opponents blade with the intent of moving it out of the way as preparation for an attack. A strong downward beat against a folding knife sometimes can break its lock. Very effective against navajas without a positive lock (the majority of the old ones).

PARRY: The interception, deflection or blocking of the opponent's blade with one's own or an auxiliary left hand parrying device such as a cape, parrying dagger, buckler, targe, or shield. Fencing theory dictates that for a blade to blade parry to be effective the defending blade's forte must meet with the opponent's foible, so as to obtain a leverage advantage - If this condition is not met, then the success of the parry is uncertain and the offending
blade may still be driven home. It is considered a near impossibility to make reliable blade to blade parries with shorter cut and thrust weapons. Equally, heavy swords cannot be relied on for blade parries
as they cannot be moved fast enough to intercept all possible incoming attacks.

RIPOSTE: A counter attack following a parry.

TIME: A fencing term denoting a move or action and has nothing to do with clock time as ordinarily understood.

TIME-HIT: A counter-attack that commences after that of the opponent has committed himself, but scoring a hit before he does. If a time-hit is not covered, or delivered with opposition, mutual wounding or
slaying is the likely outcome; An extremely common occurrence with short swords and daggers because these weapons cannot offer effective opposition. Sometimes the left hand provides the cover or opposition,
albeit at the probable expense of injury.

COVERED TIME-HIT or TIME-HIT WITH OPPOSITION: A time-hit in which one's own attacking blade, or some parrying implement is so angled, or positioned that it stands in the way of the opponent's blade.

SINGLE TIME PLAY: Attacking when an opening presents itself. Historically, rapiers and other heavy swords were fenced in single
time. ST play always carries an element of uncertainty and risk; The slightest error in judgement usually results in mutual hits. The predominant tactic in ST play is to goad the opponent into committing to an irreversible move and then countering with a covered time-hit. The basics of ST fencing, especially with knives and daggers can be easily learned, though proficiency requires unusual athleticism, nerves of steel and long practice; For this reason knife play can be found all over the world, even amongst the most disadvantaged social classes.

DOUBLE TIME PLAY: The attacking blade is first parried and once it is safely displaced from its intended path (1st time) a riposte is launched (2nd time). DT fencing is the most scientific, safest and
predictable, victory going to the most technically proficient protagonist, chance playing only a small role. Historically, DT
swordplay only became possible with the advent of the fast and light small-sword in the late 17th century. Heavy rapiers, broad swords, short swords and daggers cannot be fenced in DT. For this reason the small-sword, became the preferred blade for dueling by the gentry. Unlike ST fencing, DT sword play requires lengthy formal schooling
before proficiency can be gained and was thus traditionally only practiced by the leisured upper classes.

VOIDING: Moving out of the way of an attacking blade. This is the principal form of defence in ST play.

PASS: A step forward with the right foot during which the point is delivered to the opponent by an extension of the retracted right arm. In old Hispanic knife and dagger play the hit was invariably delivered
by a pass.
---------------------

Additional Comments:

A longish (say over 10" blade) dagger or knife can successfully parry the thrusts of a long heavy sword, but not its cuts, which must be voided. However such a dagger cannot, with any certainty parry another
dagger or short sword. If having to defend against cuts, a cape or some sort of shield was considered a better choice.

Beats with long daggers or knives are possible, but risky, because such a move opens the possibility for a counter time-hit by the opponent.

DT fencing is next to impossible and overly risky with knives and in any event serves no purpose because:

a) the parried attackers blade can be realigned so quickly that a hit from it remains possible once the defender's riposte commences; and

b) it is just as easy, or easier, to score a time-hit on the attackers hand or arm, as it is on his blade. So to parry a knife blade (with one's own) is a dangerously wasted move.

From the above we can see that fencing theory dictates that dagger or knife dueling be carried out in ST and for the sake of some certainty, preferably with an auxiliary left hand parrying implement.

Hispanic knife or dagger dueling replicates early rapier play and its fundamentals have not changed since the times of the 16th century Spanish master Carranza.

ST fencing, whilst technically simple, is always risky and requires a very highly developed feel for timing and distance. It is safest when slow and heavy rapiers oppose each other, weapons which once committed to a move cannot easily change direction or be retracted . With light fast blades, for example small-swords or knives, ST play
becomes extremely dangerous because the opponent's initial commitment to the attack is seldom total, or irreversible. For this reason, knives, whenever possible should be used in conjunction with an auxiliary parrying device. In the case of Hispanic knife play this usually took the form of a cloak. In modern settings a jacket, hat, or
for lack of anything better a rolled up newspaper is generally substituted.

A common tactic of over-aggressive Hispanic knife duelists is to rush in and try to grapple. To frustrate this tactic, the Spanish masters of old, advocated the old defensive rapier stance, that is, left foot
and parrying cape forward and the right foot and knife hand held back; In this way the would be grappler has to reckon with an awaiting deadly point. When dueling with knives or daggers alone, the right foot and
knife hand are forward, but when fighting in this manner the outcome is far from predictable because mutual hits are all too likely; In this kind of fight, taking a sacrificial hit is a much used tactic and
Heavy clothing is definitely helpful.

A problem peculiar to knife dueling with a parrying cape is that it is extremely hard to reach past the defender's cape, on account of the short blades used. Such duels tend to become games of attrition in which a clear victory is hard to achieve as long as both contestants stick with the defensive guard described above. To win, the opponent has to be enticed into making a pass, trapping or parrying his knife whilst his right foot is forward and then closing in. Stumbling and tiredness are often the deciding factor.

From the above it is clear that knife or dagger dueling leaves a lot to be desired, in terms of the fight it provides, and it is because of this that in most brawls, the man who manages to draw his weapon first is usually the winner. In gaucho lore this is a well established fact and for this reason gaining the knife side (Spanish: Ganar el
lado) of the opponent before the fight commences is tantamount to securing a huge advantage. In this respect, it can be seen that the Spanish navaja did not make for a good self defence weapon, because it was very slow and predictable on the draw and the only reason that the authorities
half tolerated it.

In Hispanic knife fighting, only the point is considered truly dangerous and cuts are reserved only for the chastisement of otherwise unworthy opponents; A cut received on the face is considered particularly shameful, because it implies extreme carelessness or gross incompetence and worst of all, being held in contempt by the opponent. In this respect it must be remembered that both in old Spain and large parts of South America (tropics excepted) substantial clothing is nearly always worn, and is thus difficult to score telling
hits by cutting. In fact the "Guapos" of old (tough guys) took always great care to be substantially dressed, which included a hat and silk scarf to protect the head and neck from cuts.

Cheers
Chris

1) Why parry the blade when you can parry the forearm or hand?

I am not sure to whom you have addressed your questions to, Luiz or myself, but I'll try and answer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fearn:
Two comments:

1) Why parry the blade when you can parry the forearm or hand?

2) If you want to be armed in public, why not wear a leather belt with a decent metal buckle? So long as your pants don't fall down when you whip the belt off, you've got a decent weapon that can outreach a knife, and it has the added advantage that it's hard to kill someone with it.

---

1) Precisely my point. Even if it were possible to parry a knife blade with another knife, it would be a wasted move as you so aptly point out, parrying the hand or arm, better known as a time-hit, would be infinitely preferable.

2) Traditionally, in rural settings, knives were carried more as a general all purpose tool than a weapon. In many countries, knife dueling eventually became a social institution amongst the lower social classes because knives were always present, the first thing that someone would reach for, something that lingers on in Latin America, and other developing nations. In this regard, it is a cultural trait developed from the practicalities of daily life.

Also we should remember that in the days of swords, adroitness with a dagger was essential for in tight quarters a long rapier, or even a small-sword, was an encumbrance.

As for self defense in modern settings, that is another matter. I don't think much of them, but that is just personal opinion. They have a few advantages, but to my mind at least, also a lot of very serious tactical drawbacks. I suppose that it often comes down to the environment and the alternatives available.

Cheers
Chris

I just did a quick serach in Google for "Duelo criollo" in the Spanish pages. Got 672 hits. Many can be translated in a very rough manner by Google - At least it gives an idea as to what it is all about.

It shows just how deeply entrencehd this kind of fighting is in Latin America

The isntances of mutual slayings are noteworthy and says something about fighting with knives.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=duelo+criollo&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_es&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=a ny&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images

2. KEEP YOUR KNIFE CHAMBERED SO THAT YOUR OPPONENT CAN'T
GRAB OR BLOCK IT AWAY FROM YOUR BODY. (SAME AS IN OTHER
MARSHAL ARTS STRIKE AND PULL BACK QUICK TO CHAMBER FOR
ANOTHER STRIKE)
3. FOOTWORK (JUMPING AROUND ) SIDESTEP OR STEP IN
OFFLINE TO AVOID STRIKES OR TO GET IN POSITION FOR ONE.

4.PARRYS WITH OPPOSIT ARM OR BEAT PARRY IF USING A LARGE
FIXED BLADE KNIFE. THERE WAS A TECKNIQUE USING A LARGE
BOWIE ,BEAT SWORD TO SIDE WHILE STEPING IN MANITAINING
BLADE CONTACT, GRAB AND CLOSE BODY TO BODY, BREAK BLADE
CONTACT AND STAB DOWN INSIDE THE COLLAR BONE OF THE
SWORDSMAN TO THE HEART.
5. TRICKS CHANGEING HANDS, THROWING STUFF, USING ANY
SUITABLE OBJECT IN THE OTHER HAND TO BLOCK AND PARRY OR
STRIKE. THROW KNIFE AND RUN LIKE HECK

FIGHTS OF ANY TYPE SHOULD OF COURSE BE AVOIDED,
DON'T GO TO PLACES WHERE TROUBLE IS LIKELY DON'T TAKE
THINGS YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE INTO SUCH AREAS IF YOU
MUST GO. MATERIAL OBJECTS AND PRIDE ARE NOT WORTH RISKING
INJURY OR DEATH.
BUT TO PROTECT SOMEONE YOU LOVE OR YOUR OWN LIFE AND
HEALTH DO WHATEVER YOU CAN NO HOLDS BARRED AND DON'T
WORRY ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES. FOR EXAMPLE IT WOULD BE
MUCH BETTER TO GO DOWN FIGHTING THAN TO BE TAKEN PRISONER
BY TERRORISTS SO THEY COULD MAKE A SNUFF FLICK FOR THE MEDIA.

I understand your points regarding knife tactical drawbacks and I will pay more attention to them and try to work them out. Its just too early in my trainning for me to say anything.

I would like, in a far future, to try a challenge against a sabre. Myself using two daggers or one dagger and one small axe. I think the best chance would be: avoid, parry with left hand dagger, strong beat with right hand axe (disarm or cut the sabre). I was just wondering... Looks crazy, but would be fun

ps: did I use the right fencing terms? :P

1. Whereabouts in Brazil do you live?

2. Do you speak, or at least can you read Spanish?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fearn:
Two comments:

") Why parry the blade when you can parry the forearm or hand? "
Why ever do so? Why do so with another sword? You see, this concept applies equally. Because that's what's coming at you; it's available, it's in front of the hand, the power isn't in it the way it's within the hand, and it's sooner in your reach.

BTW, it has been stated that (I'm adding: in Europe) in the past it was important for swordsmen to be adroit with the dagger. This is true, and one prominant reason for it in Europe, possibly the most prominant in more modern times, is to parry with. As a shield. Because under the theories of modern European fencing (And I do thank you for the dictionary, but it is A martial art, and though it is indeed the product of European industrial and proto-industrial culture, the culture that produced, or first fell under the influence of, hte concept and social institution called science, and could thus be referred to [as it prefers] as "scientific" that is, in this context, merely a cultural/religious label, and implies no true superiority of such weapons/arts or their devotees to other methods and weapons from around the world.) I am not alone in feeling that modern European smallsword and "sabre" fencing may enjoy a rather exaggerated position of superiority within European culture, and some of us are aware that pretty much every training/weapon worldwide so does in its native culture, or so claims superiority. I note that these odd and singular practices centered around thrusting and sheildlessness develope increasingly with the decreasing use of the sword, and that even in the days of actually carrying and using smallswords, they were often, perhaps usually/preferably taught and practiced with a shield, often enough a dagger. In the strong/weak conception of a sword it is not that a dagger has neither strong nor weak. To an extent, the extent to which it can cut and stab, and also parry well it is a combination of the two. Many Europian daggers are essentially all forte (while many African ones are essentially all foible). This does not entirely completely fill out all the complexities of those categories, but it does more or less fit. Moreover, because something does not fit within the categories or rules of a specific weapon/style does not mean that it cannot fulfil the same or similar roles. Those definitions and categories are a conception, a paradigm, a map, a way of looking at reality, but it is important (and sometimes difficult) to remember that they are not reality: the map is not the territory. When things don't fit them, perhaps those are things they were not meant to fit, and likely enough that's as simple as that; a limitation intrinsic to such theory structures. A Monopoly car is not a chess rook. It is, nevertheless, a proper game piece, and it does move forward a variable distance, counted in squares on a board.

") If you want to be armed in public, why not wear a leather belt with a decent metal buckle? "
Geez, when it's a chain with a lock, it's assault with a deadly weapon. They call that a "smiley" Isn't that cute?...."dvantage that it's hard to kill someone with it.

---

A certain individual likes to carry a full unopened bottle of wine. It's not a weapon, and it's not an open container of alcohol (commonly illegal in US outdoors in public). It throws well, too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smilodon Fatalis:
Now here is my one million $ question: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME ANY AND I MEAN IT, ANY OF YOU FOUGHT WITH ANOTHER MAN ? no bull, be honest with yourself !

[This message has been edited by Smilodon Fatalis (edited 07-11-2004).]

---

Hi Smilodon,

Well not an actual fight, but potentially far worse - My wife threatened me with no funds for the next antique navaja purchase if I don't get off the computer and start painting the kitchen, something I been putting off for months.

Cheers
Chris

[This message has been edited by Evans Chris (edited 07-11-2004).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smilodon Fatalis:
Now here is my one million $ question: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME ANY AND I MEAN IT, ANY OF YOU FOUGHT WITH ANOTHER MAN ? no bull, be honest with yourself !

[This message has been edited by Smilodon Fatalis (edited 07-11-2004).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evans Chris:
Hi Luiz,

1. Whereabouts in Brazil do you live?

2. Do you speak, or at least can you read Spanish?

Cheers
Chris

---

1. Rio de Janeiro, Capital.
2. Nope I can't read it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luiz:
That event I talked about in my posts was 3 weeks ago, but I didn't really fight anyone, since I could avoid it. Before that... hmm... about 12 yrs ago, I was 13 and a group 3 guys beat me for nothing. Its not usual for me to go to places where fights are common. I prefere shoppings, restaurants and cinema stuff. Its rare I go to a bar because all I drink is a good wine or japanese sake and I like confort and silent.

---

LOL... it looks like I am a nerd.... :P

Over the years I visited Rio three times - A very beautiful city, but it does have a very serious crime problem.

Bad luck about your Spanish, or lack of. The Argentinians take knife fighting very seriously and their best literary figures have so eulogized it that now it occupies a place of honour in that nation's culture. There is a very interesting book, written in 1943, and now out of print, but still available second hand: Mario Lopez-Osornio's "Esgrima Criolla". It gives a good overview of how the gauchos fought and I think that it is a fair reflection of the Spanish approach, be it with facons or navajas. Worth a read.

Something to keep in mind is that no gaucho would have chosen to fight with a knife with a blade under 12" and often chose longer facons. I don't know what that says about minimum requirement, or the modern 4" tactical folder brigade, but even in Spain navajas that were meant for business were in the range of 7.5"-10" blade length (one can tell from the blade shape what they were intended for); Maybe size matters after all

Cheers and good luck with your knife studies,
but be careful.

Chris

quote:

---

Originally posted by kohnitz:
Of course if any of us WERE to be in a serious encounter in the future and were found to have carried a weapon in anticipation of the likelyhood of the possibility of an altercation....and if "Law and Order" shows are to be believed; this thread would stand in evidence of intent & premeditation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kohnitz:
"IF".
pffbt! nyah! nyah!

---

I hardly know where to begin. I am Romani or Gypsy and I find it amazing that you actually seem to believe the ridiculous aspersions you make against my people. If you substituted African American for Romani and made these statements, you would be seen as the bigot that you obviously are and would likely be castigated severely. I would normally go over point by point and present the truth in answer to your slanders but really it is such a pack of nonesense that I will not dignify your commnets in this way. I have better things to do with my time than to duel with someone who is so obviously in need of some serious couch time. Just one or two statements of yours is enough to comment on.

You say: "They wery much preffer to be called that way in order to be confused with Romanians ..."
This is absurd. We prefer Romani because it is our name in our language and it's variants, and it has been since we left India 1000 years ago. The Romanians call us Cignay or something like that. This is not confusing to any Romanian or any Romani. What you really mean is that Romani (Gypsies) should have been able to forsee that when we got to England, the English language would make our name and the country of Romania confusing. This is obviously absurd.

You say: "The reason why you find Gypsies in such concentration in Romania is purely because our judicial system and attitude towards them was the easier to live under and Romanians threated them the nicest of all Europe ..."
This is also absurd. We were held in slavery in Romania until about 1861 or so when we were emancipated. I don't consider this nice treatment to be held in slavery. And there is a record of Prince Vlad purchasing 11,000 Romani slaves so we didn't have much choice about living in Romania. Believe me, we would have preferred not to be slaves.

I could go on but I won't. Any reasonable person can see you for exactly what you are ... a racist who perverts the facts to justify mistreatment of a subjugated people. The truth is that Romani people are no different than anyone else. This is true of humans. Any large group will be exactly like any other large group. That we have different cultural traditions, it not relevant here. Rather, it is merely superficial.

You say: "... but there should be myth busters and I am particularly put on rampage ..."
Oh, you're on a rampage, alright. But myth busting is not what I'd call it. I'd say instead that it is pure, unvarnished racism and couldn't be further from the truth. In the US, racism is considered a mental illness. Your "rampage" could also be considered "hate speech."

I anyone want to know real facts about my people, ask me.

Kushti bok,
Mengro, the Road Scholar

Mr. Fatalis wrote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smilodon Fatalis:
Gypsy - general name but pejorative today (derived from word ,,Egypt,, as Gyptsi are its inhabitants, as old Europe thought that is where they come from and they were not denying it either...)
Roma or Romany - ,,politically correct,, term applied today to the gypsies. It means ,,man,, or ,,men,, in the Romany language, a variant of Indian Punjabi. They wery much preffer to be called that way in order to be confused with Romanians, which totally different people of Latin origin of eastern Europe taken their name from the Roman Latin line of origin and so is their language (which retains more original Latin the French for example) . These words Roma and Romanians were subsequently confused and ignorants believed the two alike. Further aproximate lexicon :
Tzigan - gypsies of Eastern Europe
Gitanos - gypsies of Western Europe, chiefly Spain. (there are many differences and similarities as one would expect in betweern the two).
Forget the legend of Vlad having tzigan bodyguards ( do you really believe Bram Stoker ? ) , he actually hated and impaled plenty since their habits were perfectly in oposition with his social ideas (unsettled life, theft, cheating, vagabondage, debauchery and such ,,bohemian,, life not wrong in their culture but intolerable by European christian village and comunities). In medieval or post-Romanian and Eastern European history you find gypsies as the lowest class serfs or slaves whom unfortunatelly were disposed at will (does not aplly 100% population but to a good part of it).
There were no army regiments constituted of them and neither were wars carried by them and due to their libertine character were not holding military positions and was no ,, gypsy arms and armour,,. Knife is the only consistent weapon that you find them using due to the ease of concealment ( others can be staffs and bit axes as they dont raise much suspicion as walking aid or tool).
The reason why you find Gypsies in such concentration in Romania is purely because our judicial system and attitude towards them was the easier to live under and Romanians threated them the nicest of all Europe (this is arguably too...) and the country was the crossroad of historical great and different Empires (Poland, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Byzantin and Russia) a perfect ground for nomads. Being outcasted and never live in very large concentrations were used as spies and carriers as nomads I would imagine they`ll have to learn some fighting skills. They never had battles, never owned land, never had a banner, never had their own country, never had one supreme commander (they try now...), never fully integrated (this one can be disputed though). There is no mention of any fencing style I know or oral guidance in how to use weapons but eventualy individual or familiar self-educated fighting skills. This I say after studying a decent deal of history and ,,histories,, and living in a land that had plenty of them as actualy myself when very young, was really fascinated by their lifestyle and I had Tzigani friends and visited them often to my most enjoyment (cart waggons, crazy dancing, ,,scripca,,, (violin) music, hot women, sworing, smoky stench, bad food and peculiar language its all true and i`ve seen it intimatelly, however they dont drink as much as most people think for a change). Indeed they can be and are very violent tempers specially towards each other since if they turn against the comunity that grant them housing grounds they were and are severely punished (my earlier note...) and again maybe Gitanos are different but Eastern Europe tzigani I strongly believe have no ,,martial tradition,, not to say martial arts ... But i`ve been wrong in my life not once ...
Note: Of course not all nomads were gypsies but you may find them called so. Many people consider wrongfully the Europe arrived Cossacks (due to their somehow similar nomadic and rowdy lifestyle and culture based around the horse) to be gypsies. Well in that case Cossacks are one of the most famous and skilled horseman and soldiers world has seen but they are not gypsies but they married such.
As far as axe duels it was quiet common for the Polish, Serbian, Croatian or Romanian (Transylvania, Wallachia or Moldavia) highlanders (think shaggy coat sheppard) to be skilled in that, two types I remeber to be used a stocky francisque and a slimmer axe a crossbreed between a walking cane and a bit axe, known in the Austro-Hungarian Empire as Fokosh.
Hope this helps even though such long post is not always a good sign to me. I probably decieved you a little but there should be myth busters and I am particularly put on rampage on the ones propagated or made by Bram Stoker ( ,,the brave tzigan warriors bodyguards of Prince Vlad Dracul,, ... please)

[This message has been edited by Smilodon Fatalis (edited 07-01-2004).]

---