Have there been serious challenges to the idea that the "Oben abgenomen" in early texts of the Liechtenauer "school" can be equated with "Abnehmen" in later texts? I've been going over some old videos from the now-defunct group I used to belong to and I noticed that we spoke of "abnehmen" even though we were focusing on the early texts and as such we should have been talking about "oben abgenomen" instead since that was the term in the texts we were studying. Unfortunately I'm not as familiar as I'd like with how the concept of "abnehmen" is laid out and explained in the later texts, especially in Meyer and his ilk, so I'm starting to worry that the identification between the two might not be 100% warranted.

Of course this question is rather pedantic, and the fact that I haven't done any in-depth study of Meyer or other late sources means that I'm going to miss some nuances in even the best explanation provided by the most skilled and most articulate practitioners who have studied these later masters, so I'm not going to be too stressed if nobody can give me a clear answer to this. But I'd certainly be grateful is anybody is idle enough to humour my curiosity.

Abnehmen and oben abgenomen - 2 terms used in Liechtenauer swordfighting.
Abnehmen - remove
Oben abgenomen - taking away the top

Unfortunately, just repeating the literal meaning of the terms isn't going to help. What I'm looking for is some sort of explanation by somebody who has studied the later texts' explanations of Abnehmen, which tend to be significantly more detailed than the simple mention of oben abgenomen in the texts I've been concentrating on.

I have a hard time with this one because Sean is right, they are basically the same word in different tenses - though one with the adjective "oben" attached to it.

This makes it tricky to decide whether one is the correct term to use, because they are not fixed terms but merely verbs (albeit in one case a verb turned into a noun to be used as a name).

If you happen to describe a particular technique you did in correct German it would be abgenommen while describing the technique as you do it is abnehmen.

From a purely semantic standpoint there is not much of a difference with either and depending on the tense you are speaking in either one can be right, but that's not what you are after at least I think not.

You want to know whether - and how - the different accounts of what is, in name, the same technique differ from one another and without specific sources in mind that one is hard to answer.

There are small - but sometimes crucial - differences between treatises that are otherwise fairly close together (Ringeck & von Danzig for example) which only increase if there is a larger amount of time between both sources and they are influenced by other styles and masters.
I'm not overly familiar with Meyer, but I know he has a lot of influence from sources outside of the old Liechtenauer School, so anything he does will be altered in some way to encompass his additional knowledge.
The fact that he does so while using (partially) the old names can be confusing if you associate a name with only one particular version of a technique rather than a general idea that can come to life in different shapes.

Let me just steal some bits off Wiktenauer, then:

Ringeck wrote:

Wirt er es gewar So nÿms oben ab an far •: Glosa Wann du mitt dem zorn haw den ort ein schüst wirt er dann deß orts gewar vñ verseczt den stich mit störcke So ruck dein schwert übersich oben ab von dem sinen Vñ haw im zu° der andren sÿtten an sine~ schwert wider oben ein zuo dem kopffe ~~

And Keith Farrell's translation:

Quote:

Another technique from the Zornhau. If he recognises this, so lift off above without danger. Glosa When you thrust after a Zornhau and he becomes aware of the point and strongly defends against the thrust, twitch your sword up, over and away from his sword and cut him on the other side of his sword up into his head.

Or not-quite-Peter von Danzig:

Quote:

Das ist der text vnd die glos aber eins stuck des zorñ haus Wirt er es gewar So nÿm oben ab ane far Glosa Merck das ist wenn du nn im mit dem zorñhaw ein haust So seuß im den ort lanck ein zu dem gesicht oder prüst als vor geschriben stet wirt er denn orts gewar vnd vor setzt starck vnd druckt dir dein swert auf die seittñ So reiß mit deinem swert an seiner swertz clingen vber sich auf oben ab von seinem swert vnd haw ÿm zw der anderñ seitten aber an seiner swertz klingen wider ein zu° dem kopff das haist oben ab genomen

And Cory Winslow's translation:

Quote:

This is the text and the gloss of yet another technique of the Wrath-hew: Becomes he aware of it, Then take off above without danger. Gloss: Mark, that is when you hew in on him with the Wrath-hew, then shoot the long point into the face or breast as before described states. If he becomes aware of the point and parries strongly and presses your sword to the side, then wrench with your sword on his sword’s blade up over it, above off from his sword, and hew him to the other side, still on his sword’s blade into the head. That is called “taking off above”.

It's pretty easy for me to cross-reference these early texts with each other since I'm at least moderately familiar with their organisation. I don't know later texts anywhere near that well, though, and a very hasty search through Meyer's longsword shows that his explanation for "abnemen" is spread over many different sections rather than concentrated in one verse/chapter. Which is why I'm going to need some guidance from somebody who has studied these later texts and figured out what is really meant by "abnehmen/abnemen" there. You know, things like whether the play in which it is first taught also follows a failed Zornhau-Ort sequence and all that kind of stuff.

Oops. Sorry. I was replying to Sean, and Marik's reply hadn't shown up yet when I posted. Anyway, to reiterate the point in my original post, I've always seen these terms ("abnehmen" and "abgenom(m)en") spoken of as if they mean essentially the same thing in the context of medieval and Renaissance German fencing. However, I'm only familiar with the early treatises and not with later ones (especially the ones beyond the first decade of the 16th century or so), so I can't really tell whether these terms consistently referred to the same idea across different eras and texts. Which is what I'm curious about.

All of this just passed over my head like an F-16 fighter jet with afterburners on. :lol: ........McM

Just had a chat with some folks from the old group. A couple of them wound up studying Meyer in their off-hours (when they're not working on their postgraduate stuff), and they pointed a strong similarity with the idea of "abnemen" as explained in Meyer's section on the Schlussel. In this case "abnemen" is apparently used for striking to an opening to the other side after the opponent had parried a thrust from the Schlussel, so the general idea isn't very different from the "nym(s) oben" after a Zornhau-ort sequence.

I suppose that's old news since I vaguely remember reading the same idea many years ago (though perhaps not in so many words, and I forgot where I read it). I guess what I'd really like to see now are interpretations that challenge the idea that the "abnehmen" in the later texts isn't the same as the earlier manuals' glosses of Liechtenauer's "nym oben ab an far" because that's going to be rather more interesting -- rather like if the Higgs boson candidate last year had turned out to not have been the Higgs boson after all.

I forgot to update this thread with a tale of how I found out the answer in the most embarrassing way possible just a couple of days after I wrote the last post here. The story goes that I was trying to go over the early Liechtenauer glosses (particularly Ringeck and pseudo-Von Danzig, with the aid of Paulus Kal's illustrations) by reading the sections in sequence rather than hopping around between the "more interesting" sections as I used to when I had a group to practice with. I was hoping to find some passages that I hadn't read or worked on adequately so that I could fill the gaps I hadn't previously noticed in my knowledge.

Anyway, I was working very slowly, taking days or weeks to process each couplet in the original Zettel and its detailed explanations, so it took me a while to progress from the first Zornhau-Ort play to a slightly later section titled -- guess what --

"Ain bruc[h] wider das abneme[n]."

Yes, "A counter to the abnemen."

So I would have found the answer anyway if I had been patient and had read on for a couple more sections instead of panicking over the terminology when I saw that the first response to the Zornhau-ort didn't contain the word "abne(h)men" in its text. For those of you who actually know how the sources were structured and have been silently laughing in the background until now, mock away -- I've earned all that ridicule.