German Sword Stances

[Leo Medii]

Also, Hugh you are incorrect. I have had a lot of success using the techniques in the SCA combat I do. I had much MORE success using them in such things at the COTT, but they still do work in normal SCA combat as well. So say they "just won't work" is just untrue.

I didn't say they wouldn't work, I said they weren't applicable.

When fighting SCA I don't consider myself to be armored, nor my opponent. The way the SCA rules are for combat it just isn't believable, or accurate in any way to having armor on, and using the weapons available. So, to me, they are perfectly applicable. Sure, there are some things that are more difficult to perform in armor, but the idea is I am facing an unarmored foe, and with a "good strike" I can disable or kill him. I would have to say that because of my experience with baton combat and historical tournaments, I can no longer look at combat with "one stike kills" as a baton tourney.
I am not really arguing with you Hugh, as I too a lot of the time am riding in the same wagon you do.

[Thomas MacFinn]

Also, Hugh you are incorrect. I have had a lot of success using the techniques in the SCA combat I do. I had much MORE success using them in such things at the COTT, but they still do work in normal SCA combat as well. So say they "just won't work" is just untrue.

I didn't say they wouldn't work, I said they weren't applicable.

I don't understand the difference.

[Leo Medii]

Also, Hugh you are incorrect. I have had a lot of success using the techniques in the SCA combat I do. I had much MORE success using them in such things at the COTT, but they still do work in normal SCA combat as well. So say they "just won't work" is just untrue.

I didn't say they wouldn't work, I said they weren't applicable.

I don't understand the difference.

Thomas, there is a HUGE difference between fighting in and out of armor. Most SCA people do not care, nor understand this difference, but it is undeniable and extreme. Much of the sword work of the 15th C on is unarmored in the texts, with seperate portions on armored and even horse combat. Many of the techniques that made me a crown level SCA fighter would never work with a real weapon, much less on an armored man. In facing an armored opponent, my best bet is to get him on the ground, or pointed to the ground ASAP, and jabbing the point of my (half)sword(ing) into his neck, eyes, groin or armpits, or bashing through his stationary and immobile body with a beak, point or spike into something vital. Much of the unarmored books do not show these techniques as "unarmored".
I could go on and on, but I hope that covers it.

[Thomas MacFinn]

I personally do not care for pflug as it is easily broken by a krumphau or an sheilhau, not to mention a zwerchhau. Also you can thrust at someone in pfulg and then turn the thrust into a cut and hit him very easily. It is not a safe posture.

I don't understand your use of the word broken. I'm guessing that you are implying some type of static position, which is incorrect. It is far more likely that I misunderstand you.

I'm also unclear on how somebody can turn a blocked thrust into a successful cut, assuming the thrust is blocked away from the body.

[Thomas MacFinn]

I didn't say they wouldn't work, I said they weren't applicable.

I don't understand the difference.

Thomas, there is a HUGE difference between fighting in and out of armor...

On that I strongly agree. What I meant was that I do not understand the difference between these two sentences.

1) Also, you should all be aware that these guards about which you are discussing are not applicable to the kind of fighting you do in the SCA.

2) Also, you should all be aware that these guards about which you are discussing are not [effective for] the kind of fighting you do in the SCA.

If they are effective, they should be applied.

[Leo Medii]

I personally do not care for pflug as it is easily broken by a krumphau or an sheilhau, not to mention a zwerchhau. Also you can thrust at someone in pfulg and then turn the thrust into a cut and hit him very easily. It is not a safe posture.

I don't understand your use of the word broken. I'm guessing that you are implying some type of static position, which is incorrect. It is far more likely that I misunderstand you.

I'm also unclear on how somebody can turn a blocked thrust into a successful cut, assuiming the thrust is blocked away from the body.

I do it all the time thrusting from Phlug to the face, and when the thrust is turned away going into a Zwerchhau to the head. It is by far one of the best counters I have learned against SCA fighters, who almost always use the standard "lightsaber" block.

[Count Johnathan]

I've tried to figure out how to use the techniques from the period manuals but I have a hard time standing in a one dimensional stance. I'm sure it's easier to do when you are a flat drawing on a peice of paper and someday I will master it without looking like an egyptian wall carving.

All kidding aside I think it is easier for people who have fought a great deal to figure out what the techniques are best used for and in what situations. I have little respect for the fighting ability of anyone who tries to learn (solely) from the period manuals. Just like learing karate from a book. It can't be done effectively. I am sure many of the period styles work like a champ in SCA combat when used correctly by someone who has a grip on the actual combat side of the action. If you tried to draw SCA fighting techniques using crappy one dimensional art I am certain it would look a lot like what is in the period manuals.

Often I have had people say "wow you just did a spectacular perfectly executed (something in german or french)!" to which I reply Oh yeah? Is that what you call it?

BTW I love Bastard sword in SCA combat and in nearly every fight my sword is in each one of those positions as well as others during the bout. With Bastard sword initiative is key. Letting an opponent take the offensive when using a bastard sword is a good way to get hit.

My stance is always based on what position my opponent is in. I rarely start with a "favorite" position and attempt to use some special transition into another position. Fighting is based on action and reaction so one must always transition into the appropriate position (both offensively and defensively) for the given situation. Trying to use a specific technique that doesn't fit the scenario is folly and leads to failure. Yes learn techniques and master them so that your body and mind can react appropriately when called for but don't box yourself in mentally to a specific method. Always be ready to abandon a technique that is not appropriate for what is happening at the moment. The ability to adapt and exploit is the mark of a master swordsman.

[SyrRhys]

Also, Hugh you are incorrect. I have had a lot of success using the techniques in the SCA combat I do. I had much MORE success using them in such things at the COTT, but they still do work in normal SCA combat as well. So say they "just won't work" is just untrue.

I didn't say they wouldn't work, I said they weren't applicable.

I don't understand the difference.

Then you should have caught me back when I was still trying to help SCAdians. I'll give you a hint, though: You're mistake lies in not understanding the different kinds of fighting that occurred in the middle ages, and in the different approaches to fighting that were used in each. Stop pretending that your SCA experience has taught you anything meaningful about medieval combat and, instead, start from a fresh approach that admits ignorance. Most of the mistakes SCAdians make about medieval combat arise from invalid extrapolations.

[SyrRhys]

Thomas, there is a HUGE difference between fighting in and out of armor...

On that I strongly agree. What I meant was that I do not understand the difference between these two sentences.

1) Also, you should all be aware that these guards about which you are discussing are not applicable to the kind of fighting you do in the SCA.

2) Also, you should all be aware that these guards about which you are discussing are not [effective for] the kind of fighting you do in the SCA.

If they are effective, they should be applied.

Oh, really? Can you fight effectively with a viking sword and shield while wearing a 16th-century close helm?

[SyrRhys]

alber is not a very safe stance. you do not threaten a thrust all that much and the danger of a cut from that posture is not very great, if the enemy is experienced. Better to use the boar's tooth or the right weschel, if you must lie low. But against an experienced enemy I would not risk lying low because if he knows krumphau or zwerchhau, he will break your low posture very easily.

Damn! It's a pity you weren't around to correct Liechtenauer back in the day! He could have avoided all those stupid mistakes in his teachings, then.

[Count Johnathan]

Then you should have caught me back when I was still trying to help SCAdians. I'll give you a hint, though: You're mistake lies in not understanding the different kinds of fighting that occurred in the middle ages, and in the different approaches to fighting that were used in each. Stop pretending that your SCA experience has taught you anything meaningful about medieval combat and, instead, start from a fresh approach that admits ignorance. Most of the mistakes SCAdians make about medieval combat arise from invalid extrapolations.

Ahh the "I learned swordfighting from a book that I interpreted myself" kind of attitude that I totally disrespect. Always reminds me of that scene in karate kid where Daniel is trying to learn Karate from pictures in a book. Same same. Of course he didn't call himself an expert and try to correct Mr. Miyagi though.

You can't tell people who have practiced full speed sword combat for decades that they know nothing about using swords. Throughout history in every culture that used swords they trained with the same things. Wood of various types but wood nonetheless. Wasters, batons, Bokkens etc...

The best swordsmen in history learned to fight with wooden swords. All of them.

[SyrRhys]

Then you should have caught me back when I was still trying to help SCAdians. I'll give you a hint, though: You're mistake lies in not understanding the different kinds of fighting that occurred in the middle ages, and in the different approaches to fighting that were used in each. Stop pretending that your SCA experience has taught you anything meaningful about medieval combat and, instead, start from a fresh approach that admits ignorance. Most of the mistakes SCAdians make about medieval combat arise from invalid extrapolations.

Ahh the "I learned swordfighting from a book that I interpreted myself" kind of attitude that I totally disrespect. Always reminds me of that scene in karate kid where Daniel is trying to learn Karate from pictures in a book. Same same. Of course he didn't call himself an expert and try to correct Mr. Miyagi though.

You can't tell people who have practiced full speed sword combat for decades that they know nothing about using swords. Throughout history in every culture that used swords they trained with the same things. Wood of various types but wood nonetheless. Wasters, batons, Bokkens etc...

The best swordsmen in history learned to fight with wooden swords. All of them.

My friend, you read that wrong. I actually think SCA fighting can teach you a *lot* about *how* to fight--distance, footwork, timing, etc., etc. I am a huge fan of the SCA in that regard, and one of its greatest supporters because of it. I learned much more from those books you despise *because* of my 25+ years in the SCA.

But you can't learn anything about the forms and styles of medieval combat from doing SCA fighting because your rule system is inaccurate and your techniques are ahistorical (to meet the needs of your inaccurate rule system). Therefore, to learn anything about real historical forms of combat, you have to actually study them.

That's what I meant by invalid extrapolations; for example, what does SCA fighting teach you abou the difference between friendly Arms and kampffechten? You can learn about those things while *in* the SCA, but only by going to the source material--books. So next time, ask what someone means before you leap so far off base trying to get to your conclusion.

[SyrRhys]

Incidentally, the things that started this discussion aren't stances, they're guards. Guards consist of how you position your feet--that is, your stance--how you hold your weapon and how you position your body. For example, vom Tag ("from the roof") is the name of a guard that uses the "balance stance" (die Waage; see Codex Wallerstein fol. 3r) with the sword held over the shoulder or over the head. So we shouldn't talk about 'the stance Pflug' since it's really a guard.

[gaius]

I personally do not care for pflug as it is easily broken by a krumphau or an sheilhau, not to mention a zwerchhau. Also you can thrust at someone in pfulg and then turn the thrust into a cut and hit him very easily. It is not a safe posture.

I don't understand your use of the word broken. I'm guessing that you are implying some type of static position, which is incorrect. It is far more likely that I misunderstand you.

I'm also unclear on how somebody can turn a blocked thrust into a successful cut, assuiming the thrust is blocked away from the body.

I do it all the time thrusting from Phlug to the face, and when the thrust is turned away going into a Zwerchhau to the head. It is by far one of the best counters I have learned against SCA fighters, who almost always use the standard "lightsaber" block.

Yes, this is exactly how it is done when using a thrust to break a pflug.

Thomas: "break" means to defeat. It is a word used in this fashion in many of the German texts and we in hema have largely adopted it.

[SyrRhys]

Yes, this is exactly how it is done when using a thrust to break a pflug.

Gaius, have you considered using the Schielhau to break Pflug?

[gaius]

[quote="Count Johnathan"]I've tried to figure out how to use the techniques from the period manuals but I have a hard time standing in a one dimensional stance. I'm sure it's easier to do when you are a flat drawing on a peice of paper and someday I will master it without looking like an egyptian wall carving.

All kidding aside I think it is easier for people who have fought a great deal to figure out what the techniques are best used for and in what situations. I have little respect for the fighting ability of anyone who tries to learn (solely) from the period manuals. quote]

Jon, in hema we are trying to rediscover how the old masters actually fought with sharps. The process involves deciphering the text, attempting techniques slowly and then rigorously testing them in vigorous freeplay. If you cannot make an interpretation work in freeplay or others cannot do so, the interpretation is a failure. In this sense, it is wrong to contend that we do not fight a great deal. Hang around with some of us and you find that we fight quite a lot.

As for the postures, there is no doubt that they were used in the old days. Therefore, those who fought for real believed they had great value. So you ignore them to your peril. However, it is a mistake to think they are static. Every master to write about the postures, such as Dobringer or Meyer, always advises you not to lay in a posture for long, but to be contantly in motion.

[gaius]

Yes, this is exactly how it is done when using a thrust to break a pflug.

Gaius, have you considered using the Schielhau to break Pflug?

Rhys, if you read the post more closely you'll see that I mention using Scheilhau, which is an excellent way to break pflug (and the one that Ringeck recommends as the mastercut of choice against that posture).

[gaius]

Incidentally, the things that started this discussion aren't stances, they're guards. Guards consist of how you position your feet--that is, your stance--how you hold your weapon and how you position your body. For example, vom Tag ("from the roof") is the name of a guard that uses the "balance stance" (die Waage; see Codex Wallerstein fol. 3r) with the sword held over the shoulder or over the head. So we shouldn't talk about 'the stance Pflug' since it's really a guard.

Yes, they are more "guards" or wards than "stances," as that term is usually understood in the martial arts world. I often call them postures, however, as a text I read once (can't remember the name of it tho) translated the thing as "posture." Essentially they are positions of readiness from which to attack or defend. All blows proceed from one ward and end in another, more or less.

[Russ Mitchell]

All right, Rhys, let's try this a different way.

What is the zufechten, and what does it mean to come to it?
And what is the equivalent for Fiore?

I submit to you that even absetzen from alber in the case of being surrounded by multiple opponents is still not the same as what Fiore's doing, let alone the other examples you're giving (none of which are meant to be standalone, but that's a discussion requiring a lot more detail, probably in person, definitely with beer).

Regarding "broken"
I have always interpreted a broken guard as a specific move which wards the opponent from your action and therefore requires an adjustment on your part, as opposed to a geometrically ineffective action which may be more or less disregarded while you gakk him.

[gaius]

What Leo said about initiative. Unlike Fiore, you NEVER wait to counterstrike/exchange thrusts.

Actually, Russ, that's incorrect. It's true that most sources say to never await your opponent's attack, but a careful reading of the Fechtbücher makes it clear that the medieval masters were no strangers to hyperbole. They often say to "always" do a thing, then give plenty of examples where you shouldn't do that thing. There are numerous places the Fechtbücher tell us to wait for our opponent to attack. Not just things to do if we get out-timed and our opponent is able to attack first so we have to respond, but cases where we are actually told to wait and let the enemy attack first. One example is the plays of the Sprechfenster as described in both Ringeck and von Danzig: In both sources, we are directed to assume Long Point and wait for the enemy to attack us. Another exmple is all of the plays of the 3rd guard of the halfsword in Ringeck and von Danzig; the very nature of the 3rd guard is one of waiting for the attack. You can read a more detailed argument on this subject here:
http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-we-always-supposed-to-attack-first.html

Also, you should all be aware that these guards about which you are discussing are not applicable to the kind of fighting you do in the SCA. You do not practice unarmored swordsmanship.

Yes, quite true.

[SyrRhys]

All right, Rhys, let's try this a different way.

What is the zufechten, and what does it mean to come to it?
And what is the equivalent for Fiore?

The Zufechten is the coming to the fight; it's the moment when you're both out of range and you take up your guards before one of you strikes. Fights are broken into two phases, the Zufechten (before a strike is launched) and the Krieg, which is what happens after you bind (later sources also include a third phase in which you break away after the engagement called the Abzug, but the earlier sources I study don't mention that). I have no idea what the Fiore version of this is, I don't study the Italian school in that much detail.

I submit to you that even absetzen from alber in the case of being surrounded by multiple opponents is still not the same as what Fiore's doing, let alone the other examples you're giving (none of which are meant to be standalone, but that's a discussion requiring a lot more detail, probably in person, definitely with beer).

I can't begin to understand what you mean by "standalone" in this context. I showed you a case where von Danzig says that before you start fighting, you should assume Long Point and wait to see what he does to you. That is *obviously* not a case of attacking first, nor even of just being out-timed by an opponent who does attack first. It's clearly a case in which you are told to take up a guard and to stand there, allowing your opponent to attack before you respond.

Then I went on to show you several other examples of similar instructions, including Döbringer's Absetzen. It's the same situation. He says:
"Here rightly begins the very best fencing by the aforesaid master know, this I tell you that it is called the iron gate, which you will understand soon. If you are set upon by four or six peasants, then place either foot forward and with the gate you will create a shield by placing the point towards the ground. Hear how you should do this, place yourself so that they are right in front of you and that no one can get in behind you. Now hear what you should do, when they strike or thrust at you, set them aside [Absetzen] with strength going up from the ground and then you will shame them well." (Hs 3227a fol. 44v)

So, in other words, you assume what Döbringer calls Iron Gate (just his term for Alber) and wait. When one attacks, you are to lift up your sword and thrust with an Absetzen (a single-time thrust with opposition) that both displaces the attack and kills in one motion. Now tell me how this isn't waiting for an attack and then responding? In principle, this technique is identical to von Danzig's Sprechfenster, which is *clearly* a technique in which you wait for your opponent to attack--the text is not open to interpretation.

Whether this is different from Fiore or not is immaterial: I didn't respond to that, I responded to your adamant claim that in the German system you are NEVER (emphasis yours) supposed to wait for an attack, but are always supposed to attack first if you can. Since I've shown you numerous techniques with *clear* instructions to wait and allow your opponent to attack first, I fail to understand why we're still debating this. Having said that, in what way is this different from Fiore? I've taken Fiore seminars, and this is exactly what we did there--assume a guard, wait for the enemy to attack and then respond. Silver does it too.

Regarding "broken"
I have always interpreted a broken guard as a specific move which wards the opponent from your action and therefore requires an adjustment on your part, as opposed to a geometrically ineffective action which may be more or less disregarded while you gakk him.

Actually, bruch can be used in a wider sense in the texts, if I understand what you're trying to say. They do speak of breaking specific attacks (and arms, for that matter; joint locks are called Armbruch or Beinbruch) and guards. There's nothing wrong with saying "this breaks that."

[SyrRhys]

Rhys, if you read the post more closely you'll see that I mention using Scheilhau, which is an excellent way to break pflug (and the one that Ringeck recommends as the mastercut of choice against that posture).

Ah yes, so you did; I missed that. My apologies--I was just checking.

But you spoke of Pflug being a bad guard because it could be broken so easily; if that's the case, why is it listed among the only four guards the masters say to use?

As for breaking it, the masters tell us how to break each of the four guards--this is in the vier Versetzen. Zwerchhau breaks vom Tag; Schielhau breaks Pflug; Scheitelhau breaks Alber; and Krumphau breaks Ochs. Since each guard has a specific way it can be broken, as you said about Pflug, does that mean all the guards are bad?

[Count Johnathan]

You guys misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that while many SCA fighters don't know the german or french words to describe what they are doing I think the medieval masters would be quite impressed with many of the SCA techniques and would recognize most if not all of what we do. What you seem to indicate is that because we don't have a working knowledge of the german language we therefore don't know or understand period technique. The reality is that the rules and limitations of what we do strengthen the techniques that we can use but does not limit the understanding of actual fighting. For example stabbing a man in the foot might be a technique we are unable to use in our sport but we get it and we know that to slash a mans ankle would end a fight. It is easy to do. It requires little or no skill to do it. Just because we don't use it and perhaps we don't describe it in german doesn't mean we don't know how.

I am not saying there is a problem with researching and trying to figure out period medieval sword fighting manuals. They have their value and place of importance. As far as actual fighting is concerned it is learned through doing and practice not looking at pictures. I don't have an issue with your working knowledge of period techniques. I have issue with the insult of thinking that SCA fighting is limited in skill because we have rules limitations. If you spent a great deal of time in the SCA than you know that the highly skilled fighters are fantastic swordsmen who would easily slice people to ribbons with a real blade.

The insulting statement if you care to read it again .....

Stop pretending that your SCA experience has taught you anything meaningful about medieval combat and, instead, start from a fresh approach that admits ignorance. Most of the mistakes SCAdians make about medieval combat arise from invalid extrapolations.

That's pretty rude and off base. Of course SCA fighters would take offense to it which I did.

[Dafydd]

My friend, you read that wrong. I actually think SCA fighting can teach you a *lot* about *how* to fight--distance, footwork, timing, etc., etc. I am a huge fan of the SCA in that regard, and one of its greatest supporters because of it. I learned much more from those books you despise *because* of my 25+ years in the SCA.

But you can't learn anything about the forms and styles of medieval combat from doing SCA fighting because your rule system is inaccurate and your techniques are ahistorical (to meet the needs of your inaccurate rule system). Therefore, to learn anything about real historical forms of combat, you have to actually study them.

I've been doing both SCA combat , heavy and light, and historical sword combat for a very long time myself (about 30 years), and I tend to agree. You can indeed learn a good bit about swordfighting from SCA combat (although it helps tremendously if you do both heavy and light...). This is particularity true if your approach is one of actually learning swordfighting (rather than focusing strictly on success at the sportfighting aspect of SCA heavy).

And yes, the SCA ruleset can get in the way of that learning process...if you let it. That's where the WMA, historical manual-based approach can work wonders. Some of the bad habits and techniques the SCA rules can unconsciously insert into your personal fighting style become glaringly obvious when you also take a WMA approach to what you're doing.

For me, it's a best-of-both-worlds situation. From my very first forays into all this, what I was looking for was to become a swordfighter. Not necessarily a successful sportfighter (although I did okay at that) and not necessarily a historical swordfighter (although I quickly discovered that those old masters knew what they were about). I just wanted to learn what I was doing with swords and other hand weapons. It's really all about how you approach it, about what you're looking to get out of both SCA and WMA combat...

[deflagratio]

SyrRhys would you agree that your stated examples of waiting for the attack actually maintain the initiative? By assuming Alber you are forcing your opponent to maneuver around your blade and so you control the fight. You are mentally prepared for the various techniques the opponent will likely use to counter it and thus have your counter attack ready.

With my little knowledge of the german school I can only compare it to "point-in-line" in olympic sabre fencing. By extending your arm and pointing the sword directly at the opponent you force him to have to deal with your blade at a greater range than normal providing for an excellent situation to parry and reposte.

[DukeAvery]

I've always been a big fan of apple, but Nissan got me wavering over the peculiar properties of pecan, but then the Outlands raised the stakes at Battlemoor with bacon-apple.

However, after this last Pennsic I just can't stop thinking about cherry.

I should think that adherents of any fighting school posting here should do so with tolerance and respect for a variety of opinions, some well formed, some not, from a variety of sources.

Also, the invention of the time machine excepted, none of us has or will have any experience in "real medieval combat". My apologies to any lurking immortals.

Otherwise, I'll make a batch of popcorn.

Regards

Avery

[Russ Mitchell]

The Zufechten is the coming to the fight; it's the moment when you're both out of range and you take up your guards before one of you strikes. Fights are broken into two phases, the Zufechten (before a strike is launched) and the Krieg, which is what happens after you bind (later sources also include a third phase in which you break away after the engagement called the Abzug, but the earlier sources I study don't mention that). I have no idea what the Fiore version of this is, I don't study the Italian school in that much detail.

I see the problem now. I believe your definition of zufechten is faulty. Allow me to lay out how and why.

Whether this is different from Fiore or not is immaterial

Sir, it is the essence of MY quote with which you're taking issue. To wit:

Edited to add: My god, I can't believe you did this. This is so infuriating I had to come back to it. Your original quote was:

"Unlike Fiore, you NEVER wait to counterstrike/exchange thrusts."

FIORE's openings from the wide distance work in the manner you describe, but the "German" group does not. Allow me to explain what I mean by this, thus either bringing you to agreement with me, or else allowing us to disagree in peace.

Respectfully, I believe you have a faulty understanding of what the zufechten entails (as well that you've neglected Abzug, but that's a separate issue from this discussion). Allow me to quote Forgeng translating from Meyer:

1.2R (Forgeng pg50)

Now the beginning I call the Onset (Zufechten), when one lays on against the opponent he has before him… The Onset takes place in the beginning, using the cuts from the postures.

If you accept this translation -- I do, your linguistic chops may be better than Forgeng's -- then you ought to see a very clear difference. Rather than zufechten being the before, and the Krieg being what happens at the bind... which then leaves us wondering "well, which phase creates the bind?" ... the zufechten is the *engagement* within distance that brings us to the bind.

Therefore, if you stand in Long Point during zufechten, you are not adopting a Fiore-like posta from a position of safety. Rather, you are creating a direct threat while yourself remaining within distance.

Again, you may not accept the translation. But I submit to you that the von Danzig quotes you present themselves make far more sense using Forgeng's definition than they do otherwise.

"How you shall put yourself in the Sprechfenster
When you go to him in pre-fencing with whichever strike, coming then onward as with a low or high strike, then let your point always shoot in long to his face or chest by which you force him to displace or bind on the sword and, when he has thus bound, then stay freely with the long edge strong on his sword and straight into the intent of what he would fence against you. If he seems to go back off of the sword, then follow with it or to an opening; or if he flies off the sword striking around to your other side, then bind strongly against his strike high to the head; or if he will not pull away from the sword after striking around then work by doubling or with other similar elements afterward as you find him weak or strong on the sword." (Goliath fol. 60v-61r)

Edit: I accidentally lifted the quote most convenient to the argument, but the other one works just as well, since it describes moving to Long Point against the opponent just as one would to bind (ergo, clearly well within measure, and threatening the opponent, thus forcing a response).

If the zufechten were as you originally described it, sir... why would letting my point shoot forwards force him to displace or bind? Out of distance, he could simply choose not to engage at all. But if you accept Forgeng's translation, that it seems impossible to me not to define your movement here as an attack.

Now, I grant you: if you dispute this definition of the zufechten (which is perfectly reasonable), or to sufficient commonality of systems that Ringeck, von Danzig, Meyer, etcetera, are relevant to each other (which would not seem reasonable to me, given the nature of your article), then we simply have to agree to disagree.

Regarding "broken"
I have always interpreted a broken guard as a specific move which wards the opponent from your action and therefore requires an adjustment on your part, as opposed to a geometrically ineffective action which may be more or less disregarded while you gakk him.

Actually, bruch can be used in a wider sense in the texts, if I understand what you're trying to say. They do speak of breaking specific attacks (and arms, for that matter; joint locks are called Armbruch or Beinbruch) and guards. There's nothing wrong with saying "this breaks that."

I agree with you here; I was responding to the specific context of the other post.

[gaius]

Rhys, if you read the post more closely you'll see that I mention using Scheilhau, which is an excellent way to break pflug (and the one that Ringeck recommends as the mastercut of choice against that posture).

Ah yes, so you did; I missed that. My apologies--I was just checking.

But you spoke of Pflug being a bad guard because it could be broken so easily; if that's the case, why is it listed among the only four guards the masters say to use?

As for breaking it, the masters tell us how to break each of the four guards--this is in the vier Versetzen. Zwerchhau breaks vom Tag; Schielhau breaks Pflug; Scheitelhau breaks Alber; and Krumphau breaks Ochs. Since each guard has a specific way it can be broken, as you said about Pflug, does that mean all the guards are bad?

Yes, pflug is one of the four guards advocated by Lichtenauer. However, I do not feel safe in it and I never remain there long, and I have had some success breaking it so that I am glad to see an opponent lie in it. It's just my personal opinion and means nothing beyond that. Others may have a different experience.

As for the others, I am wary of ochs because of its vulnerability to krumphau. Alber doesn't threaten anything but a thrust and if directly before you is not favorable for defense, at least it has not been for me.

I tend to favor weschel now and then but only because it is so useful for baiting the unwary.

I am most fond of the wrath guard because of its general versatility. You can throw anything from there, including thrusts, and the variability that is possible from the wrath guard allows you to catch people unaware. Just my opinion.

[Russ Mitchell]

Gaius: I suck with longsword (really, sabre's my thing), but I find that the German stuff works like a charm so long as you take a mindset of "yeah, yeah, break my (guard, strike, leg-of-lamb) so I can gitcha!"

[SyrRhys]

The Zufechten is the coming to the fight; it's the moment when you're both out of range and you take up your guards before one of you strikes. Fights are broken into two phases, the Zufechten (before a strike is launched) and the Krieg, which is what happens after you bind (later sources also include a third phase in which you break away after the engagement called the Abzug, but the earlier sources I study don't mention that). I have no idea what the Fiore version of this is, I don't study the Italian school in that much detail.

I see the problem now. I believe your definition of zufechten is faulty. Allow me to lay out how and why.

Whether this is different from Fiore or not is immaterial

Sir, it is the essence of MY quote with which you're taking issue. To wit:

Edited to add: My god, I can't believe you did this. This is so infuriating I had to come back to it. Your original quote was:

"Unlike Fiore, you NEVER wait to counterstrike/exchange thrusts."

FIORE's openings from the wide distance work in the manner you describe, but the "German" group does not. Allow me to explain what I mean by this, thus either bringing you to agreement with me, or else allowing us to disagree in peace.

Respectfully, I believe you have a faulty understanding of what the zufechten entails (as well that you've neglected Abzug, but that's a separate issue from this discussion). Allow me to quote Forgeng translating from Meyer:

I didn't ignore the Abzug, I specifically said that later-period sources talk about it but that the sources I use do not.

1.2R (Forgeng pg50)

Now the beginning I call the Onset (Zufechten), when one lays on against the opponent he has before him… The Onset takes place in the beginning, using the cuts from the postures.

If you accept this translation -- I do, your linguistic chops may be better than Forgeng's -- then you ought to see a very clear difference. Rather than zufechten being the before, and the Krieg being what happens at the bind... which then leaves us wondering "well, which phase creates the bind?" ... the zufechten is the *engagement* within distance that brings us to the bind.

Actually, that's a clumsy definition. I prefer the one Tobler has in his book Fighting With the German Longsword:
"Zufechten--(The Approach) The first phase of combat, where one closes with the opponent." (p. 230)

Therefore, if you stand in Long Point during zufechten, you are not adopting a Fiore-like posta from a position of safety. Rather, you are creating a direct threat while yourself remaining within distance.

Again, you may not accept the translation. But I submit to you that the von Danzig quotes you present themselves make far more sense using Forgeng's definition than they do otherwise.

Sorry, but you're cherry picking now. The entire set of third guards of the Halfsword deny your implication. There, you create no threat at all--you merely stand there with your point not even aimed at the enemy. Here's a video of one such play (from von Danzig fol. 70v):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsiSxLqQtIA

No once can possibly deny that this is *exactly* what you were talking about. And it's not just in the halfsword. Consider the Krumphau from Schrankhut:
"You should also try the arc strike from Schrankhut, from either side, And thus set yourself in this guard: when you come to him in the Zufechten, then stand with the left foot forward and hold your sword close on your right side with your point to the ground so that your long edge is above, and give an opening on the left side. If he strikes to the opening, then burst out from the strike with your right foot toward him well to your right side, and strike him with crossed hands, from the long edge with the point out to his hands." (Goliath fol. 19r)

Note that in this play you start in a guard in which your point is not threatening your opponent at all, and the master says to "give an opening on the left side," which is *obviously* what we've been discussing.

["Quotation from SirRhys' essay, for public convenience"]"How you shall put yourself in the Sprechfenster
When you go to him in pre-fencing with whichever strike, coming then onward as with a low or high strike, then let your point always shoot in long to his face or chest by which you force him to displace or bind on the sword and, when he has thus bound, then stay freely with the long edge strong on his sword and straight into the intent of what he would fence against you. If he seems to go back off of the sword, then follow with it or to an opening; or if he flies off the sword striking around to your other side, then bind strongly against his strike high to the head; or if he will not pull away from the sword after striking around then work by doubling or with other similar elements afterward as you find him weak or strong on the sword." (Goliath fol. 60v-61r)

Edit: I accidentally lifted the quote most convenient to the argument, but the other one works just as well, since it describes moving to Long Point against the opponent just as one would to bind (ergo, clearly well within measure, and threatening the opponent, thus forcing a response).

If the zufechten were as you originally described it, sir... why would letting my point shoot forwards force him to displace or bind? Out of distance, he could simply choose not to engage at all. But if you accept Forgeng's translation, that it seems impossible to me not to define your movement here as an attack.

Sorry, but you picked a quote above not relevent to our discussion. If you re-read the essay, you'll see that this refers to a different issue--that of answering the question of whether the masters always want us to continue attacking after the bind. What you don't seem to understand is that there are *two* versions of the Sprechfenster: One is done before you have engaged (that's the one I've been talking about in this debate), and another in which you do bind, then you hold hard in the bind and wait for your opponent to do something (which is the quote you've copied above). They are similar, but one applies to this discussion while the other does not.

Now, I grant you: if you dispute this definition of the zufechten (which is perfectly reasonable), or to sufficient commonality of systems that Ringeck, von Danzig, Meyer, etcetera, are relevant to each other (which would not seem reasonable to me, given the nature of your article), then we simply have to agree to disagree.

I've shown you that your definition of Zufchten is a misinterpretation of the word. I'll agree that most people talk about an attack from the Zufechten because *normally* the masters do want us to attack first. But the definitions people use have to be made to support the facts, and I've shown you several examples in which you do not threaten or attack anyone during this phase.

[SyrRhys]

Yes, pflug is one of the four guards advocated by Lichtenauer. However, I do not feel safe in it and I never remain there long,

You're never supposed to remain in *any* guard for long, not even in the Sprechfenster where you are told to stand and await an attack (the text says that if he doesn't attack soon you should attack him).

As for the others, I am wary of ochs because of its vulnerability to krumphau. Alber doesn't threaten anything but a thrust and if directly before you is not favorable for defense, at least it has not been for me.

Ochs is vulnerable to the Krump, but then vom Tag, which you like, is vulnerable to the Zwerch! That's the point: All of the guards suffer the same vulnerabilities.

And you're mistaken about Alber: It can also be used for other things. For example, in the Sigmund Amring (Ringeck) Fechtbuch in Glasgow, we see the Hinderbinden done from Alber just as the earlier Ringeck shows them being done from Nebenhut. I have depicted this in my new longsword book (I believe I am the first to have demonstrated an interpretation of this text). Likewise, you see applications for it (indirectly, I'll admit) in one of the plays of the Nachreisen

[Russ Mitchell]

Actually, all you've told me is that you prefer one definition to the other. I see nothing wrong with that, but if we cannot agree on primary terms, there's just no point in discussing any of the rest of this, let alone how somebody is supposed to give an opening from out of distance.

[SyrRhys]

SyrRhys would you agree that your stated examples of waiting for the attack actually maintain the initiative? By assuming Alber you are forcing your opponent to maneuver around your blade and so you control the fight. You are mentally prepared for the various techniques the opponent will likely use to counter it and thus have your counter attack ready.

With my little knowledge of the german school I can only compare it to "point-in-line" in olympic sabre fencing. By extending your arm and pointing the sword directly at the opponent you force him to have to deal with your blade at a greater range than normal providing for an excellent situation to parry and reposte.

Hello,

That can be said of Long Point, I'll agree, but then, Fiore uses something similar, so it's still just about taking up a guard and waiting as I've said all along. And as I wrote in my most recent post in response to something similar from Russ, the third guard of the Halfsword and the Schrankhut, both guards in which you are to wait for your opponent to attack you, do *not* threaten your opponent.

[SyrRhys]

Actually, all you've told me is that you prefer one definition to the other. I see nothing wrong with that, but if we cannot agree on primary terms, there's just no point in discussing any of the rest of this, let alone how somebody is supposed to give an opening from out of distance.

Russ, you act as if it's just a lexicological dispute! I showed you two different sets of techniques in which you do *not* threaten your opponent in the Zufechten, therefore, any definition that requires you to do so is demonstrably *wrong*. This isn't open to interpretation. Did you look at the play of the halfsword I posted?? How is that different from taking up a guard at the beginning of the fight and waiting to be attacked??

As it happens, you're also wrong about the Sprechfenster, since the one I quoted on the previous page of this debate *clearly* says to take up the position *before* you bind, but I didn't mention that because it might not be simple enough, and because I didn't need to since I had the other examples.

You can *not* deny this argument!!

[Russ Mitchell]

It's not a lexicological dispute. It's a lexicological dispute *with consequences.*

To wit:

Sure I can. Your krump example gives no threat because of your interpretation. In mine, it presents the direct threat of being grappled and thrown.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, or definitions, or, hell, my taste in clothing. But if you try to argue that you happen to possess the world's only valid set of interpretations, prepare to get snickered at.