Hi everyone,

I had a discussion with one of my instructors, concerning attacks made to the legs. He was under the impressions that, in longsword fencing, according to the german and italian traditions of the 14th-15th centuries, no attacks were supposed to be made to the legs, for it could be to easily defeated by a scheitelhau. He is, however, as I am (since he's my instructor, I think it's not surprising that I share his point of view), convinced that attacks made to the legs shall not be dismissed once distance has been closed, as a riposte or as a second or third attack..

I did some research on this forum but could not find an answer to my question, which is : is it right to attack to the legs, according to the masters (did we miss something) ? If not, is it right (meaning, efficient), according to you, from the point of view of your own practical experience, while fighting in earnest (like the Arma guys says) ? Okay, that's two questions. ;)

I'm trying to keep an open mind there. I have a bias concerning this issue, of course, but what I really want is to learn. And hopefully become a little less stupid. :lol:

My take: once at the bind or otherwise in Krieg ("in your face" range), why attack the legs? Why not the head or upper body? If you don't want to kill him, disarm or throw him.

Hugo

Regardless of the Scheitelhau, the legs can and should be attacked when sparring with longsword. Leg attacks have always been a major component of sparring in ARMA. In the near future video of recent ARMA Senior Free Scholar prizeplay matches should be avaible and I am sure you will see lots of leg attacks.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW

I agree that historically, attacks to legs do not appear to have been strongly encouraged by masters as a primary tactic.

However, examinations of mass battle grave remains and historical accounts of duels indicates that legs were in fact attacked at least some of the time in battle and in judicial duels. There is a fair quality ARMA article on the subject and historical basis for believing legs were targeted at least in some cases. http://www.thearma.org/essays/LegWounds.htm

If targeting of legs is mixed in infrequently as a surprise tactic in sparring when both opponents are expecting primarily upper body targets, I have found that I generally succeed in hitting much more skilled teachers legs while escaping unscathed. I think it is one of those things that you might do infrequently, if "good conditions" for it just happened to be right. A wounded leg, cut tenons in the knee joint or calve are serious wounds to my way of thinking. For me, success seems to require reserving it as an occasional surprise tactic. Similar in nature, but even easier than a Krumphau, a downward diagonal strike made when an attacker can see they have beaten the timing of their opponent can be subtly changed while stepping off line such that the back side of an opponent's thigh, knee joint, or calve is easily struck. It is not that difficult to quickly raise the sword in a "hangen" guard like position or even duck under a Krone -like guard while stepping out of it. One might even achieve contact with some tentative binding before the strike lands somewhere on the back side of leg targets.

Thanks guys, I really appreciate your input.

Hugh : I'll take a look at Doebringer. Honestly I haven't paid much attention to him until now, I still have to get a better grip on Liechtenauer... I have began with Talhoffer and Vadi, instead of Liechtenauer and de Liberi, which isn't necessarily the best idea, but well... Anyway, from what I understand, what Doebringer says is that strikes to the leg can be useful, but in a very limited way ? Maybe we (my group) found that strikes to the legs are effective because we don't have enough grasp on the mastercuts. I'll try to take that into consideration.

Randall : I'm eager to see this new video. I found Arma's videos to be very instructive and fun. :)

Michael : well, I think the more different actions I can do in a certain situation, the better. Plus, I think that attacking the legs is probably as lethal as striking the arms or hands... Maybe not immediately, but it surely can end the fight.

Jared : yes, the surprise factor in real-life combat is often determining, I have to agree with that. I have found myself beaten a good number of times, I think, because I relied to much on leg attacks and other attacks that maybe should be reserved for "special occasions".

In Talhoffer 1467 there is a plate showing a attack against the oponents ledaing leg with a onehanded whipping attack. I have used this with great effect several times. I start with the high guard, threating my oponent until he raises his sword, then I snap out with the sword in my left hand, aiming for his leading leg. If your oponent is unfamiliar with that attack it usually work.
To counter this I ussually raise my leding foot over my oponents attacking blade and, strike him in the head.

There are clearly leg attacks in the German longsword tradition, but they represent probably around %5 or less of technique, with a strong bias towards head and breast attacks and the hands secondary. The legs are low on the list of target preference. Specifically because of how well the uberlauffen principle works, and also because head, breast and hand attacks are more likely to end a fight quickly. Sure, cutting my hamstrings is bad, but I may still land a hit to your head before I fall down.

Ringeck describes the technique that Hugh mentions and specifies a low target, as Hugh noted. However, Ringeck's low target is below the belt so he is referring to upper leg targets, bladder, groin etc.

Randall-
I am curious how the ARMA Senior Free Scholar prizeplay matches are done. Previous video I've seen have shown players bouting without headgear. I suspect that the absence of headgear will create a bias against using the uberlauffen principle fully. And ultimately how sure can you be of your interpretation if you include many more leg attacks than are described in period sources?

To my knowledge, the research showing a significant number of leg wounds stems mostly from graves in an era when large shields were still common. The large shield leaves only the legs and head as easy targets which is commensurate with the wounds found. The uberlauffen principle does not work as well against a large shield.

Respectfully,
Steven

Craig,

Voiding with the leg is trivially easy to do. This is why the attacks to the leg are advised only once you have closed from the Zufechten. From the Krieg, you can switch from high to low targets without the geometric advantage of distant high attacks becoming debilitating.

All the best,

Christian

I spent far too long on an SFI thread debating the scheitelhau against alber, and have lost years of my life off of it, so I'm not going to dwell too much here. Anyone who wants to bleed out their eyes on the world's most boring thread, search for that discussion over there. :) But my main thoughts on the matter:

The scheitelhau is a threat to the scalp and breast. Meaning that moving away from the attack can still end up with a thrust through the chest due the way the strike is done. So cutting up with the false edge while stepping back is not impossible, but it is not a very safe thing to do against a sharpened blade, even if you hit the person first.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the WMA community (myself included) tend to telegraph too much when attacking. It's really evident in basically every video I've seen online of longsword free fencing (again, myself included). I think this is key in performing a successful scheitel against alber. In fact, it's key for breaking any of the guards in first intention with any of the strikes, which I rarely see done in online videos, either.