Thanks Christian for your answer,

I wasn't really disputing the meaning of 'an', if Germans say it means 'on' the shoulder as in touching then I take their word for it.

But from the passages you quoted it seemed to me that vom tag is described as two possibilities: on the shoulder or over the head. Or I'm misunderstanding the quotes completely... So what I thought was that maybe these two versions can be used at different phases of the fight with different intent. In this case the overhead and on-the-shoulder vom tag are both martially valid, it's just that they are not used exactly in the same way or context during the fight. If the illustrations show the starting position it's not too surprising to often see the most relaxed version.

That, and during the action of a cut there are plenty of intermediate positions that are not necessarily described as guards, depending on the trajectory and the way you want to generate power. It's what was thinking of when I said:

Quote:

start at the shoulder, raise the sword a bit, say head level, then cut, all during the step?

I wasn't thinking about cocking the weapon back and up all the way to overhead, I was thinking about a small motion forward and up then the actual cut forward and down. It seems natural as it just means you can end with the same trajectory whether starting from overhead or on-the-shoulder, instead of systematically having a lower trajectory when striking from the shoulder variant.

Another alternative could be to first transition to the overhead position, but it seems an unnecessary waste of time in this case.

This small arching motion may be opposite to the principles of fencing, but I'd be surprised because in kenjutsu it's quite common and taught.

Regards,

For whatever its worth, the high version of Vom Tag is far more difficult to hold when in full plate harness when compared to the shoulder variant. Certain harnesses would allow it better than others, but nice, full pauldrons do limit what the arms can do to an extent. I don't think its a very big surprise that the 15th c. sources use it so often (because whether you are fighting in armour or not, it is still part of the same system), and yet the 16th c. sources that show the more sport-oriented fighting, without an armoured component, seem to focus more on the high version of vom tag.

It's a bit contextual Johan. If you say to hold a rifle "an der Schulter" someone's going to lay the rifle on the shoulder.

And certainly, 'on' is one of several English words appearing in any English-German dictionary, along with 'at', while 'over' isn't.

All the best,

Christian

Hi Benjamin,

True, and there's an awesome story where one soldier was struck with a halberd that went 2/3 the way into his brain, for instance, but he then went to the surgeon's tent (and the incident involved an allegation of cheating at dice, not a battle). But what I mean is that you'll be affected by the blow:

I was struck accidentally by a fellow instructor while assisting him in his class. He hit me above my right eye with a roughly 2 lb. blunt single hander. He just barely missed pulling his blow properly, so he likely hit me about 1/4 power. It rendered me fully senseless for 2 full seconds.

Was I 'incapacitated' by this blow? No, but in those 2 seconds he could've hit me twice more. And if he'd hit me for real, with a sharp, he'd have shattered my face.

Now even an open faced helmet would've mitigated the blow, as the edge of the face opening would've caught most of it in this case. But without protection, you're simply not going to act as if nothing happened - it is going to unglue your game.

Best,

Christian

Jean - just out of curiosity, are you training under Patrick de Marchi? If so, he's very open-minded, so you shouldn't have too much trouble approaching him. I know that at least until our last meeting, they were holding Vom Tag high - glad to see they've adopted the 'an' shoulder version.

I know Patrick, which is why I asked. As for contact - IMO he's completely paranoid about it, but not in a bad way. :) He just takes his peoples' safety to heart. When we had an exchange in September, he came down to one of our member's homes and we did some freeplay. It was very instructional to deal with other systems and styles of fencing - we plan to do it again sometime, you should come!

That does sound about right, Christian. Head blows tend to have some immediate effect. For example, from 14th-century coroner's rolls, I remember an account of a man who took a serious cut to the head. One inch deep, three inches long, if I recall correctly. He fell to the ground, but then promptly got up, ran away, and survived thanks to medical care.

While you could expect some immediate effect from a light head cut, a stronger one would always be better. I suspect a sufficiently determined individual could still resist after certain light cuts. I can't think of a conclusive example off the top of my head, but I know this is true for piercing injuries to the brain. I remember reading about a cop who got stabbed between eyes and responded by quickly drawing his weapon and firing. Then he ran after the wounded attacker until both of them dropped from their injuries.

Hi Benjamin,

Well, don't read too much into what I said earlier - stronger is better, within reason. I feel one should train to deliver strong blows, and that's the value of test cutting, when applied properly.

But, conversely, I think some folks go too far, overcommitting to blows in a way that makes for bad fencing.

I suspect I'm preaching to the choir here, though. :)

All the best,

Christian