[Steve Hick]

[Patrick De Block]

William Carew wrote:

Thank you Eric and Steve for making this work freely available in English! It was a generous move.

I fully agree. I got the 'WMAW 2009 Montante Drills and Rules Cheat Sheet' from Steve at a simple request. He graciously gave comments to my questions about it. And when Steve and Eric published their translation I became hooked.

William,

I think I've come around to your interpretation of rule 2c. In fact, I've mainly been doing the first five simple and complex rules. My reason was that I wanted to have some 'skill' before going on. In this way I wanted to limit the possible interpretations, because, although you can indeed do kaiwaza as Steve said, I was afraid that I would end up doing what I always do and then there would be no point in learning these rules. If Figueyredo doesn't mention steps, although you can step and it can be considered within the framework, alternatives are for later. It's the same with 'circling', it can mean to turn around or also the movement of your sword. Since in some rules he's writing 'horizontal' and in some just 'circling' I think I shouldn't give a horizontal cut in 2c.

bringing the montante high in front of the
face in order to pass it over the head and behind the
shoulders, such that it falls over the left arm to give
a circling revez,

From habit, if I do this, I will cut horizontal, but as I said, in other rules he clearly states 'horizontal' and here he doesn't.

Somewhere I wrote about driving forward and turning 180° as not being 'really' situational. This also comes from my habitual way of looking: going forward, going forward and backwards, turning to your left or right and turning 180° are considered basic in some traditions, it's always in the beginning and then you get the 'real' situational plays. The 12th rule is also 'to fight people in front and behind', but as far as my understanding of this rule goes, it is more sideways than front and back. So, maybe I should forget about this distinction.

I've copied part of rule 4c and 9c

rule 4c
readying a thrust over the
right arm which you will give to the rear, removing
again the right foot. Then the left foot will go with
a revez, turning the body towards where you gave
the thrust. Next you will give a talho forward with

rule 9c
coming to ready a
thrust over the right arm, which you will give
removing the right foot backward towards where
you started the rule, and next you will ready a thrust
such that the pommel is on the right shoulder, which
you will give moving the right foot forward. And
with the face turned you will start the rule again in
the other direction if necessary, with the same
postures, blows, steps, and thrusts that have been
shown.

I hope I don't come across as pedantic, but I've highlighted some parts of it. It's why I think in 4c you stab backwards and turning a 180° you cut and why you keep facing the same direction in 9c.

What do you think, gentlemen?

And one more thing, I should shut up, really. Undoing the rules is something I like very much as a way of becoming very agile.

Patrick

[William Carew]

[Eric Myers]

Hi Patrick,

I'm curious where you get your habit of horizontal cuts from? I only know them from single hand swords, and mostly sabre at that. When it comes to the montante, we seem to have Monte in the early days describing the levata as the primary cuts (cuts 3 and 4), but Figueiredo was also a Destreza master, and as such would have had a preference for descending cuts. I don't know if this carried over to the montante, but I suspect it did with the diagonal ones (cuts 1 and 2). I have found horizontal cuts more awkward to control in many cases, they either end up very tight and just use the leverage inherent in the spacing of the hands, or else they use the whole body and take a long time (relatively speaking) to get up to speed and then get under control again. The diagonal cuts seem to allow a much greater degree of finesse.

4c and 9c:
We played around with these two rules again at today's practice. I think you are clearly meant to thrust backwards in 4c. We tend to turn with the thrust, sort of like uncoiling, rather than turning with the subsequent revez. I like it because I'm better at fencing in front of me than behind me, so I'd rather be facing my opponent by the time the thrust might be hitting him. (I wouldn't argue this point too strongly though, since if you profile with any sword you are arguably fencing sideways....)

As for 9c, well, my big issue is that his calling the opposite foot here makes no sense; the right foot is the natural foot for a talho going forward. Beyond this however, I think both thrusts go in the same direction, but that is not necessarily the same direction as the cuts. If we ignore the whole opposite foot question, and just move the feet and cuts as written, we can either make three cuts then two thrusts and then turn around, or we can make three cuts then turn around and deliver two thrusts then turn around and deliver three cuts, etc. I have a slight preference for the latter, mostly because the urgency of movement feels right. Also, the thrust while stepping backwards feels a bit off to me -- I still like the full circling cut to bring the point back in line like I mentioned earlier, but it wouldn't be my choice of movement in the confined space of a narrow street, especially while surrounded.

[Eric Myers]

Hi Bill,

I think your list is good, though I'm not fully convinced by "easier to control." As I said to Patrick in my previous post, I tend to use predominantly diagonal cuts, and these are almost equally controllable to me. Descending cuts do hit the ground on occasion, but so far that is almost always when we are distracted by trying to work out some new interpretation, and is very rare at speed, or even when do free flow drills. Of course I'm over 6 ft, and this may not be as true for the shorter members of the group. Also, now that I think of it, I would say the heavier the sword, the more favorable the rising cuts over other cuts.

[Steve Hick]

[Patrick De Block]

Eric Meyers wrote:

"I think you are clearly meant to thrust backwards in 4c. We tend to turn with the thrust, sort of like uncoiling, rather than turning with the subsequent revez."

I agree, no argument here.

On 9 complex.

In fact I did the thrust stepping backwards and turning but revising my interpretation with the help of the list of thrusts William Carew posted I started wondering about:

And with the face turned you will start the rule again in
the other direction if necessary, with the same
postures, blows, steps, and thrusts that have been
shown.

I read this as an injunction on doing the rule symetrical, doing the same to the north as to the south as you do in 9 simple. You could argue that the 9 c is about not doing the same both sides. If you consider the three cuts as a and the two thrusts as b you can make different variations like:
a north and b south and repeat
a north and b - a south and north b followed by a (which would it again make symetrical)
a north and b - a south and north b followed by a south (which would be assymetrical)

I agree that giving a thrust stepping backwards without turning feels odd and it might not be a good idea with different opponents but it also depends on how narrow the street is and as Steve Hick wrote: "we were noting the tempo changes among the different golpes in the plays, and realized that the tempo is different and more upsetting with the simple withdrawl." This refers to 3 c but likewise it could be used as an argument for the thrusts to be given in the same direction as the cuts, it could be unsettling to give a thrust from the arm stepping backwards and another one from the shoulder stepping forward and turn around from there to give the first rising talho to the other side.

Well, I don't know anymore.

Eric,

Concerning my habit of giving a horizontal cut. You're right twice. Although it is not a single handed sword, it is a short sword and a sabre. I want to keep you guessing...

It's called Somakuri in Muso Shinden and Muso Jikiden Ryu and one I particularly like because it's difficult. Essentially it is overwhelming your opponent with three succesive cuts (above left eye, right neck and left shoulder) to which he defends with something like a Shielhau and then you cut a horizontal followed by a straight downward.

Doing the Montante rules with a long stick doesn't prevent me doing horizontals but I'm waiting for my twohander and then I will know how awkward it feels.

[Eric Myers]

While reviewing for a class today I found myself doing yet another variation for 9c:

North: talho, revez, talho
South: thrust over right arm
North: thrust from right shoulder
South: talho, revez, talho
etc

So that makes it into a 3 part pattern, and curiously, 2 of those parts are a single thrust with a passing step, which matches Godinho's rule for fighting in a Very Narrow Street.

[Steve Hick]

[Matthew Kelty]

We had a very similar discussion years ago on this site, but it sounds like the translation, techniques and training have really matured in that time. I look forward to seeing how my (in retrospect) simple interpretations stand up to what you folks have brought to the table...

Daniel's post really hit it on the head as far as proportions of Zwiehander on the field, and I have another citation to add.

'Certain Discourses Concerning Formes And Effects Of Weapons' , Sir John Smythe, 1590.
(In reference to how the Imperial forces are drawn up)

"When the great Princes of Germanie...are disposed to make warre...being bound (as they are) by their tenure Militarie to the Empire, some to find horsemen, and others to finde footmen at their own charges...form their regiments of footmen into great bands of 500 to an Ensigne... ...their milicia consisting of Harquebuziers, Piquers, and some Halbarders, with a few slath swords for the gard of their Ensignes..."

'Slath' sword is an Anglicized euphemism for a two handed sword. In the Zeughaus Catalog "Das Wiener Bϋrgerliche Zeughaus: Gotik Und Renaissance" published in 1960, they have a Zweihander, Catalogue #98, labeled as "Schlachtschwerter der Bϋrgerwehr". Their Catalogue also has four ceremonial Zweihanders manufactured between 1580 and 1590, and all are described in the Catalog as: 'Zweihander, sogenannte "Schlachtschwerter"' or: Zweihander, so-called "battle swords".


I also may have found where some of the "Heroic Zwiehander" and "pike cutting" imagery stems from. I was re-reading Hans Delbrück's "History of the Art of Warfare", and in Volume IV, 'The Dawn of Modern Warfare', it goes into the Swiss and German Pike Square tactics of the early 16th century.

One of the references Delbrück uses over and over is a book published in 1522 that was an old Soldier's account of the Italian wars, and an overview of the tactics used. Delbrück believes that it was Frundsberg himself writing anonymously. The title is 'Trewer Rath und Bedencken eines Alten wol versutchen und Erfahrenen Kriegsmans' (Trans. : "True Advice and Reflections of an Old Well-tested and Experienced Warrior")

In this book, the Author describes Frundsberg in one engagement standing at the front of his Pikes, along with a few other two handed swordsmen "...in the battle of La Motta (1513) he (Fründsberg) stood in the first rank, swung his sword and fought like a woodsman who was felling an Oak in the forest..."

'Felling an Oak in the forest' gives a great visual of mowing down the ranks, and with this kind of powerful imagery, it's easy to see how one could run with it, and depict *ALL* of the Landsknecht or Doppelsoldner as these brave two-handed swordsmen mowing down Pike heads and Squares against all odds...

...but I think people started interpreting that literally, and thinking he was describing the chopping off of pike heads. There are also the occasional reinforcing images in things like the Pavia tapestry and Marozzo's Opera Nova with broken polearm bits scattered here and there.

However, to cut a head off a 16 foot pike with a sword is well nigh impossible. For one, the langets or cheeks protect the shaft and reinforce the head, and for another, a chop to a 16 foot long flexible pole made of ash is useless. The energy displaces the pike head long before it ever starts cutting into it (or breaking it). We've actually done this excercise with one man holding a pike, and the other chopping into it. It's pretty funny once you experience it. There is this slow motion "sproing" as the pike man's arms give in to the pressure, and then a slow motion recovery.

Now, using the two handed sword like a crowbar, knock the tips out of the way, and make a hole to slide down their ranks? Absolutely! Rake that blade along the shaft, remove some fingers and hands, and start punching into the soft chewy center, and you've got yourself a rout! You just have to brave that first 4-8 feet of hedgehog fury of the first 4 ranks of pike.

The old thread, in case you want to peruse it: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=4221

Post 4221, my what a long time ago that was...

[William P]

i would imagine thatr the first rank of zweihander wielders, would have been
1 pretty well armoured
2 I would prefer having some sort of shild attatched to my arm/ shoulder,
3 my understanding was that these guys were paid double for their work

when dealing with pikes in general, the spanish responded by using armoured men with sword and target in the first rank.
how much benefit would the flamberging of a blade give someone?

[Emil Andersson]

Kindly excuse me for asking, but could someone give me a clearer picture of what is meant when a two-handed sword is said to "be used like a polearm"? I only have some rudimentary experience of the poleaxe as my only pole weapon, but I can't quite grasp how a sword would be used in the same way.

[Sam Gordon Campbell]

[Steve Hick]

[Kel Rekuta]

Lord help me. I've found a new obsession.

We have the Anonimo Bolognese and Marozzo's work but where can I find this other Iberian text - Godinho? First time I've heard of it.

Thanks!

[Steve Hick]

[Steve Hick]

On the spadone front, Ken has his Lo Spadone ( Alfieri 1653) book coming out, it includes Colombani, which up until recently was the latest work to have anything on Spadone (1711), But now there's

Alessandro, Giuseppe, and Ettore d' Alessandro. Opera... Divisa in cinque libri, ne'quali si tratta delle regole di cavaliare, della professione di spada, ed altri esercizi d'armi. Napoli: s.n, 1723

which covers spadone among other things, maybe only a few pages, but.......

[Kel Rekuta]

[Steve Hick]

[Sam Gordon Campbell]

I hope Mr. Hick's doesn't mind but,
I did a quick Google search of Figueiredo and Godinho (adding keywords like, y'know, sword) and these are the two links that popped up.
All credit where credit is due. Though now I'm going to find a big stick and try to follow the instructions too!
I hope that there are more excellent and well edited sources like these soon