http://home.armourarchive.org/members/j ... quence.jpg - Image 1
This chart can be used with either explanation. The key difference in my two interpretations is the action of the scholar's sword from half-shield. The first interpretation, seen here: http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=36224 , was based on the idea that the scholar was striking down and to the right as is roughly illustrated in this image:
Image 2
Note that the blue line illustrates the rough path of the sword, the yellow illustrates the movement of the shield for a shield-strike. This is the most simple solution, so I have tended to come back to it. But there are elements of the manuscript that lead me to doubt that this action is always the correct action. To begin with, the text on page 4 of the manuscript clearly states that the scholar has TWO options once he has overbound the priest's blade.
Extract from Dieter Bachmann's Translation at: http://freywild.ch/i33/i33aen.html
N otandum est etiam quod scolaris nichil habet aliud facere quam schiltslac vel circumdare sinistra manu brachia sacerdotis videlicet gladium & scutum
It is to be seen, that the pupil has no option but to do a schiltslac, or to grip the arms of the priest with his left hand, namely sword and shield.
Note the use of the term vel. ...facere quam schiltslac vel circumdare sinistra manu.... I'm not a Latin scholar but I will note that the manuscript uses two different Latin terms for 'or' when describing actions. Sive (siue) or vel. Sive is a simple 'or'. Vel, however, can mean 'or even' and carries the connotation of a continuation of action. So the statement made in the text is that the scholar has no choice but to execute a shieldstrike or even to use his left hand to grapple the arms of the priest. The implication being, I believe, that the grapple is a continuation of the same basic motion that constitutes a shield-strike. No big news there. But the manual does not illustrate a left-handed grapple from this position. There are, in fact only two left handed grapples in the manuscript. They are both the same and one is shown in the image below.
[img]http://freywild.ch/i33/i33_pix/p08.jpg[/img] Image 3
Note that the situation at the top of the image is essentially the same position the scholar and the priest find themselves in. Note also that the person who is underbound is executing this action (and remember from the previous interpretation that one of the priest's options is to do a grapple and it was originally a left-hand grapple but was altered to be a right hand grapple). I think that this means that the option to do a left arm grapple is available to both the underbound and the overbound in this situation.
I also think that the down and to the right motion of the overbound's sword (Image 2) may be incorrect. I think this largely because of the sequence illustrated in the following two images:
[img]http://freywild.ch/i33/i33_pix/p60.jpg[/img] Image 4
[img]http://freywild.ch/i33/i33_pix/p61.jpg[/img] Image 5
Bear with me here. The situation at the top of Image 4 is that the scholar is underbound on the left, the priest is overbound on his right. Same situation seen in Image 2, but the roles are reversed. The text accompanying the illustration at the bottom of Image 4 says:
Extract from Dieter Bachmann's Translation at: http://freywild.ch/i33/i33aen.html
Ex illis ligacionibus superius ductis scolaris ducit illam plagam per caput ducendo gladium [median]te schiltslac
From these above bindings, the pupil executes this strike lifting his sword to the head by means of a schiltslac.
So, the scholar (the pupil in Dieter's words) is executing a shield-strike. Now look at the top of Image 5. The text accompanying this illustration says:
Extract from Dieter Bachmann's Translation at: http://freywild.ch/i33/i33aen.html
N otandum quod plagam superius ductam per scolare sacerdos defendit hic in hunc modum quia scolaris gladius fuit inferior & cum esset in actu ducendi plagam ducendo gladium seorsum sacerdos vero antequam scolaris ducat gladium suum ad usum debitum recipit plagam vt patet hic per exemplum
It is to be seen that the priest deflects the above strike delivered by the pupil in this way, as the pupil's sword has been below, and as he was about to deliver the strike, moving his sword, the priest has the opportunity for a strike before the pupil could put his sword to its use, as shown here in the example.
So, if I am understanding this correctly the scholar is going from the position at the top of Image 4, to the position at the top of Image 5, and ending in the position at the bottom of Image 4. Roughly sketched out that would mean that he is NOT cutting down and to the right as show in Image 2, but down and to his left (transitioning to a hanging guard on the left), across his body as is shown in the image below.
Image 6
If correct this significantly alters the basic interpretation. The shield strike is not being done on the scholar's right in Image 2, but on his left. This seems to be validated by yet another shield-strike illustration seen below.
[img]http://freywild.ch/i33/i33_pix/p35.jpg[/img] Image 7
Note that at the bottom of Image 7 the shield-strike clearly shows the priest's blade on the scholar's left. There is no illustrated instance of the priest's blade clearly being on the scholar's right within I.33. That said, the Manesse Codex and the Jorg Wilhalm manuscript both show the shield-strike being done with the priest's blade on the scholar's right. So, if the shield-strike is being done to the scholar's left, then according to the argument I have constructed, the grapple is also being done on the left as is illustrated in the manuscript (Image 3).
It is possible to fit all of the actions described in the first interpretation into this new framework. In fact, I like this second interpretaion better (it feels right to me). I'll cover the revised interpretation in part 3. So stay tuned!
