Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Tue 28 Aug, 2007 4:02 pm
| Greg Mele wrote: |
I could have just missed it, too! Agreed on the poleaxe. I like a shorter axe - about 5.5 feet, which sometimes is as little dicier to strike below the knee and ward the head unless you've move in deep, but even then, knee hooks are easy.
And yes, they are one of the few weapons that can threaten both head and shin while playing from dagger range! That's why I think they are some of the most exciting - and most challenging - weapons to play with. |
I personally prefer a 6-foot axe, but there's no doubt they were used in a variety of sizes. And you don't necessarily need to ward the head as you close--you can often void such attacks; the action of moving in reduces the felt impact of the blow even if it lands anyway.
And yes, the pollaxe is the ultimate medieval weapon, no question. The hardest part to get people to understand is that it is, as you put it, a "dagger" range weapon (except in melee). It's fast, close, effective, *brutal* and elegant, all at the same time.
Sorry for the de-rail on the thread, I just love pollaxes. :)
Posts: 356 Location: Chicago, IL USA
Tue 28 Aug, 2007 9:42 pm
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
| [Sorry for the de-rail on the thread, I just love pollaxes. :) |
That's ok, me too! You do mention other point that we should also emphasize - once you can assume a reasonable level of harness, it isn't necessarily required to completely close a line, only to close *enough* of it so that anything that gets through will just turn on the harness. A bascinet, armet, etc goes a LONG way to allowing one to take some chances with where they strike.
Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Wed 29 Aug, 2007 8:15 am
I checked and found one strike to the legs in Meyer's halberd section. It comes after a feint.
Silver has stabs to the shins with the pike.
Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Wed 29 Aug, 2007 3:04 pm
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| I thought of something that problematizes this idea: how do you break Alber with confidence if your opponent starts the fight, out of range, in Alber and then closes into range? |
Hi Craig,
The thing is that we've been talking about the Vier Versetzen, and those specifically require the Versetzen to be used to close with someone, not the other way around. You're talking about the person in Alber stepping in, but Alber is not an attack, it's a guard. To do any good the person in Alber has to attack, and attacks from Alber are almost certainly either an Unterstich or Unterhau. If someone steps in toward me with an Unterstich or Unterhau my most likely response is a Krumphau.
Posts: 8,310 Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Wed 29 Aug, 2007 3:28 pm
Just want to say I'm enjoying the discussions about this a lot more since I started training as I can sort of follow and understand the terms used. :D :cool: Before it was just a bunch of " words " !
Not yet ready to contribute though. ;) :lol:
Posts: 254 Location: Lubbock, TX
Wed 29 Aug, 2007 7:02 pm
Hugh, I think what Craig is responding to is your idea that Vier Versetzen represents a technique properly employed to correspond to a transition in guards.
| Quote: |
| In my opinion, the only time to use the Vier Versetzen (and *especially* Sheitelhau against Alber) is just as someone moves into guard. When you look at them that way, the Vier Versetzen work phenomenally well. |
So Craig set up a situation where the opponent does not move into alber and therefore give you the opportunity to employ Vier Versetzen in this capacity. I could be miss understanding Craig, but my understanding is that Vier Versetzen is used to break the guards whenever the opponent is in the guard. It is not for indes but for vor. It isn't about striking the counter to alber when the opponent goes into alber but whenever the opponent is in alber. You may have found a specific time to strike that works for you, but I don't think that is what the vier versetzen are about.
Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Wed 29 Aug, 2007 7:11 pm
| Greg Coffman wrote: |
Hugh, I think what Craig is responding to is your idea that Vier Versetzen represents a technique properly employed to correspond to a transition in guards.
| Quote: | | In my opinion, the only time to use the Vier Versetzen (and *especially* Sheitelhau against Alber) is just as someone moves into guard. When you look at them that way, the Vier Versetzen work phenomenally well. |
So Craig set up a situation where the opponent does not move into alber and therefore give you the opportunity to employ Vier Versetzen in this capacity. I could be miss understanding Craig, but my understanding is that Vier Versetzen is used to break the guards whenever the opponent is in the guard. It is not for indes but for vor. It isn't about striking the counter to alber when the opponent goes into alber but whenever the opponent is in alber. You may have found a specific time to strike that works for you, but I don't think that is what the vier versetzen are about. |
Sorry, Greg, I can't agree. The vier Versetzen are attacks *you* make against an opponent in guard (I would argue that you make against an opponent who has *just* moved into guard). Craig suggested a scenario in which the person in guard comes to you, and my response was that he must be about to attack if he's doing that, so I'd simply respond to the attack, not to his guard. It's apples and oranges--they're two unrelated scenarios.
Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Wed 29 Aug, 2007 7:53 pm
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| But this isn't consistent with the writings found in the Hanko Döbringer Hausbuch which instructs "And you shall not disdain any following or contacts made, but always work to remain in motion so [that] he cannot come to blows" (Emphasis mine). Likewise, he says "The word Vor means that a good fencer will always win the first strike". And "With the word Vor as has been told before, [Liechtenauer] means that you with a good first strike shall close in without fear or hesistation and strike at the Blossen..." |
If that were what that meant then you'd never use any Nachschlag--such as Krumphau. There are dozens and dozens of techniques you use when your opponent attacks, Craig.
Posts: 4,194 Location: Northern VA,USA
Wed 29 Aug, 2007 9:40 pm
| Craig Peters wrote: |
Hugh,
I thought of something that problematizes this idea: how do you break Alber with confidence if your opponent starts the fight, out of range, in Alber and then closes into range? |
Well, if the person is in Alber and closing, you should take that tempo to strike the schietelhau.
If the opponent has already closed, and then enters Alber, then adjust for the distance. Which generally would mean stepping back as you strike rather than forward.
Posts: 254 Location: Lubbock, TX
Wed 29 Aug, 2007 9:57 pm
Craig suggested a scenario in which the person assumes alber and then comes into range, not to close. But this is missing the point. Does he mean to attack? Maybe, maybe not. He should attack instead of sitting there and waiting. But if he hasn't yet then the time is still appropriate for the vier versetzen. The situation is not that the fighter in alber has attacked. The exercise is to provide an example of not giving you an opportunity to practice your interpretation of vier versetzen at all because he hasn't *just* moved into any guard. That was the point of the scenario, if I understand Craig correctly.
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
| (I would argue that you make against an opponent who has *just* moved into guard) |
This is where I'm disagreeing with you.
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
Well, if the person is in Alber and closing, you should take that tempo to strike the schietelhau.
If the opponent has already closed, and then enters Alber, then adjust for the distance. Which generally would mean stepping back as you strike rather than forward. |
And that is what the vier versetzen is teaching: strike the proper master cut that corresponds to the guard your opponent is in. Not: strike as your opponent changes into a guard because at this point he is especially vulnerable. These are strikes meant to take advantage of the inherent and individual weaknesses present in all of the guards. They are not tied to particular timing issues beyond striking first. They are tied to the issues of range and placement. Arguably, they can even be applied to situations after the first strike. For example, if the opponent strikes and ends up in ochs, then strike krumphau. If the opponent thrusts and recovers to pflug, then strike schielhau.
Posts: 4,194 Location: Northern VA,USA
Wed 29 Aug, 2007 10:10 pm
| Greg Coffman wrote: |
| These are strikes meant to take advantage of the inherent and individual weaknesses present in all of the guards. They are not tied to particular timing issues beyond striking first. They are tied to the issues of range and placement. Arguably, they can even be applied to situations after the first strike. For example, if the opponent strikes and ends up in ochs, then strike krumphau. If the opponent thrusts and recovers to pflug, then strike shielhau. |
I very much agree. I used to think more along the lines of what Hugh is saying, so I definately see where he is coming from. However, I feel that the texts themselves really emphasize seizing the initiative with the displacement against the guards. At the same time, I feel it is also vitally important to be flexible with the initial attack (which I believe to be true for all attacks, not just these displacements), because any strike can be defended against, and you may need to attack in second intention. (i.e. I strike a scheitelhau against alber, the opponent lifts into kron, and I change through to attack the low line within the same tempo)
Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Wed 29 Aug, 2007 10:11 pm
| Greg Coffman wrote: |
| And that is what the vier versetzen is teaching: strike the proper master cut which corresponds to the guard your opponent is in. Not: strike as your opponent changes into a guard because at this point he is expecially vunerable. These are strikes meant to take advantage of the inherent and individual weaknesses present in all of the guards. They are not tied to particular timing issues beyond striking first. They are tied to the issues of range and placement. Arguably, they can even be applied to situations after the first strike. For example, if the opponent strikes and ends up in ochs, then strike krumphau. If the opponent thrusts and recovers to pflug, then strike shielhau. |
Sorry, but the first part of that makes no sense to me. You haven't given any argument, you've just said it's so.
And the second part merely supports my contention: If someone thrusts and recovers back into Pflug then he's just moved into Pflug, just as I said, so he's now very vulnerable for a Versetzen.
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Thu 30 Aug, 2007 1:33 pm
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
Hi Randall,
A couple of things:
1. The stop thrust to the chest is very hard to even accomplish if your hands are high up with the Scheitelhau. The Scheitelhau, because of the positioning of the shoulders, represents the very maximum range achieveable with the longsword.
2 . If the guy doesn't frame his Scheitelhau properly, and the stop thrust does reach, then I agree with you, as the stop thrust will physically push the opponent back and away from you, shortening his stroke's range. This, however, has nothing to do with the cut completing itself, because that happens automatically: the Scheitelhau is performed with the hilt projecting high, and gravity doing most of the work of dropping the point onto him. |
Christian
I think we may have been talking pass each other a little. I assume that you though I was talking about making a thrust just by raising my blade from Alber into Longpoint. What I was actually talking about is countering an Oberhau from Alber with a thrust made by stepping into the adversary and taking the body low, a position not unlike what is seen in Meyer's Longsword image K ( http://www.higginssword.org/guild/study/manua...word_k.jpg ). In this video http://www.thearma.org/Videos/longsword05.avi you see John Clements performing a similar thrust (JC starts in Pflug but the same thrust can be made from Abler). Of couse everything depends upon timing, etc. All things being equal, I don't know if I would be money on someone performing the Scheitelhau. ;)
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 704 Location: Oxford, CT
Thu 30 Aug, 2007 3:44 pm
Hi Randall,
Unfortunately, the video won't play from me, but the Meyer plate shows the man thrusting having seized the initiative before the man at left can begin to strike. So, it's a very different situation.
The reason my money's on the Scheitelhau is simple: the masters tell us it breaks Alber. If you can't do that safely, you're doing something wrong.
All the best,
Christian
Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Thu 30 Aug, 2007 4:30 pm
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| Yes, but that's not my point- Liechtenauer clearly stresses that it is always preferable to initiate the Vorschlag. He does not state that you should attack first most of the time. So, for that reason, I cannot agree that your interpretation is the correct application, because you're basically saying that you'd wait to attack in Nach. |
With respect, Craig, saying that Liechtenauer says to always attack is an overly simplistic interpretation. There are *lots* of times when Liechtenauer (well, his students) says to wait for an attack.
Let's take this play as an example (since I happen to be studying it at the moment, there are lots of things like this):
The Absetzen
"You must learn the art of setting aside so that his cuts and thrusts may be broken. Do it like this. When he stands before you, as though to strike your lower opening, then take the guard of the plow on your right side to open your left. When he strikes to your left wind against his sword to your left and take one step with your right foot toward him: so you achieve your thrust and he has been displaced. "
Now, as we read that, we see a situation much like you described in your example. You chose to have your attacker move into Alber then start to close, this example shows someone about to strike a lower opening. We're not told what specific guard he's using since it's not important. What is important is that when he looks like he's about to attack you don't attack, as we would be told to do if your "always attack" philosophy was correct, instead you wind down into Pflug to *await* his attack.
My response to your Alber scenario is identical, in principle, to this one. When he starts moving forward in Alber I know that he *has* to move to attack, so I ready myself to Krumphau.
So, as you can see, Liechtenauer doesn't say to "always attack", there are lots of occasions when he tells you to await an attack for various reasons.
Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Thu 30 Aug, 2007 7:32 pm
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| [Is this from Döbringer? Or someone else? |
It's from Ringeck.
| Quote: |
| I interpret the inclusion of methods like Absetzen as ways to deal with attacks, particularly if for whatever reason you don't get the first strike. I also see it as something included for the sake of completeness, in order to provide one with all the options possible in a fight. But to state that one has to wait and fight in Nach in order to be safe seems rather strange when one of the fencing books that is probably contemporary with Liechtenauer is very insistent upon the importance of attacking first. I think we need to look for a method that allows us also the option of a Vorschlag that can be made with confidence before writing off the scenario I described as only being possible when fighting from Nach. |
No one says you have to wait in the Nach to be safe, that's not the point at all. And Liechtenauer *does* prefer the Attack. But it's not an "either/or" situation; you can prefer the attack but recognize there are lots of times when it is preferable to await an attack, too.
But the technique I recommended was the Krumphau. If you say that the Krumphau isn't a Liechtenauer technique then I would say you're mistaken--it's one of the Meisterhau! And yet the Krumphau isn't a Vorschlag, so your entire premise--that only Vorschlag are "true" Liechtenauer--is incorrect. And, by the way, Doebringer wrote about the Krumphau, too, so you can't claim these kinds of techniques are "add ons". The true *simple* solution to the apparent contradiction is to understand that no source really means you always attack first.
The Vier Versetzen are to be used agaisnt someone who has just moved into guard. If he's attacking, and any movement toward me must be construed as an attack, then I'm perfectly within the Liechtenauer system to use a Meisterhau! Your mixing apples and oranges here, Craig, by asking why one of the vier Versetzen shouldn't be used against an attack when they weren't intended for that.
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
cannot reply to topics in this forum
You
cannot edit your posts in this forum
You
cannot delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot vote in polls in this forum
You
cannot attach files in this forum
You
can download files in this forum