| Author |
Message |
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
 Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 1:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: | | No, I cannot show a source that says to use the push-pull motion to cut. |
Then your theories on this cut are guesswork based on frog DNA. |
To be honest the push-pull cut is not even really frog DNA, at least to me it isn't because it does not come from any other bladed art. I've seen guard transitions that look like it, but true attacks with the edge seem to always involve an arc of the CoG around the hands at least. The push-pull cut from vom-tag or equivalent with a nearly linear motion of the CoG, as seems to be the current trend in German longsword, is seen only in these circles. It seems to me that it's a lot more guesswork than frog DNA... I'd be happy to be proven wrong though.
Cutting to or through longpoint is not a debate of the same kind, as there is evidence for both in many different arts. I do not doubt both were encountered even if one was seen as a mistake in some context. The simple fact that we are shown how to counter during the recovery phase of a full cut seems to indicate that it was used not just by raw beginners.
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
   |
 |
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Quote: | | But Hugh, it's a cutting video. So clearly, unless I want to show the public a bunch of failed cuts, I'm demonstrating one specific type of cutting in my arsenal. |
And I'm showing you that this type of cutting has no place in your arsenal, and that test cutting in general will lead to very bad habits, such as overcutting in order to make you cuts look nicer and to impress hoi polloi.. |
Well you're trying to, but not succeeding. 
First, you're probably one of a very few people in WMA that believes full cuts do not exist in the system--certainly you're the first one I've come accross so far that takes such an extreme view.
Second, I hold the opposite view, that people who are vehemently against test cutting are just covering up for lack of cutting ability, or trying to defend interpreations that don't measure up in test cutting. At the end of the day, if I cut well, I can do what they can do, but they can't do what I can do, and there's just no getting around that.
I've made it a personal crusade to make test cutting more popular in HEMA, because I think an understanding of how swords work creates better informed interpretations. Note the word "test" in test cutting. It is, first and foremost, a matter of learning, seeing how different historical swords work against different targets, such as clothing simulators, flesh simulators, bone simulators, etc. Do enough cutting, and a "big picture" starts to form of what these sharp pointy things actually do, and that can, and in my opinion should, be used to inform one's understanding of the texts. How swords work would have been second nature to our medeival ancestors, but too many of us spend years trying to interpret fechtbucher without this understanding, or too limited an understanding.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello all,
I think everyone in this thread has some part of the truth. Here are some quick thoughts (I'm pressed for time right now):
1. There's evidence of full cuts early in the Liechtenauer tradition's history. The mention in the anonymous gloss that appears in the 'Von Danzig' Fechtbuch of cutting to over the left foot is indicative of this, as are the numerous references to staying in motion "whether you hit or miss" in Hs. 3227a.
2. There's also the note of using the 'half-stroke' in the Von Danzig gloss for the 'Verkehrer' technique. Why refer to half-blows if there's no such thing as a full one?
3. Meyer describes full blows, and every technique he teaches is traceable to something similar in the earlier material.
4. Some strokes can only be done as half-blows, notably any short edge stroke performed from high to low.
5. Let's never call Hs. 3227a 'Döbringer' again. Really, that's the last thing to call it. That name is mentioned, in passing, with regard to non-Liechtenauer material, in a large book that isn't even a Fechtbuch to begin with. It's a Hausbuch - fencing occupies less than half the contents. Further, let's not subscribe to this work as the utmost authority on the tradition; there are many eccentricities in it to find it suspect, in fact. Primacy of date does not equate to primacy of authority.
6. Dave Teague makes a good point about remembering that Hauen does not mean 'cutting', per se. It's a very strong word - blow, hack, stroke, are much better words. Also note that this word is used for other swung blows that don't produce cuts in the sword edge sense: the use of often hammer-equipped pollaxes, and even swung dueling shields, is described with this word.
That's it for now...
Take care all,
CHT
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
 |
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | 1. There's evidence of full cuts early in the Liechtenauer tradition's history. The mention in the anonymous gloss that appears in the 'Von Danzig' Fechtbuch of cutting to over the left foot is indicative of this, as are the numerous references to staying in motion "whether you hit or miss" in Hs. 3227a.
2. There's also the note of using the 'half-stroke' in the Von Danzig gloss for the 'Verkehrer' technique. Why refer to half-blows if there's no such thing as a full one?
3. Meyer describes full blows, and every technique he teaches is traceable to something similar in the earlier material.
|
Hi Christian,
There's also the reference to a "free stroke" in Von Danzig, and the mention of a "proper arc" in Ringeck. Could be nothing, but could also be further indications of full cuts.
The Meyer bit is pretty telling. I'm not a huge fan of Meyer because his is a sporting variant, but he does use the longsword to teach the weapons he uses in earnest, and full cuts have little value in free play (meaning he doesn't actually need to cut anything with the longsword), making one wonder why he would teach them if not to teach combat principles of which they are a vital part.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Beyond that, Talhoffer shows what is undoubtedly a full blow in the Thott manuscript where he shows a longswordsman decapitating a halberdier. You can't do that with a half blow.
|
That's one of my favorite plates of all time! As you know I use that one in the opening of my cutting videos.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hello all,
I think everyone in this thread has some part of the truth. Here are some quick thoughts (I'm pressed for time right now):
1. There's evidence of full cuts early in the Liechtenauer tradition's history. The mention in the anonymous gloss that appears in the 'Von Danzig' Fechtbuch of cutting to over the left foot is indicative of this, as are the numerous references to staying in motion "whether you hit or miss" in Hs. 3227a.
2. There's also the note of using the 'half-stroke' in the Von Danzig gloss for the 'Verkehrer' technique. Why refer to half-blows if there's no such thing as a full one?
3. Meyer describes full blows, and every technique he teaches is traceable to something similar in the earlier material.
4. Some strokes can only be done as half-blows, notably any short edge stroke performed from high to low.
5. Let's never call Hs. 3227a 'Döbringer' again. Really, that's the last thing to call it. That name is mentioned, in passing, with regard to non-Liechtenauer material, in a large book that isn't even a Fechtbuch to begin with. It's a Hausbuch - fencing occupies less than half the contents. Further, let's not subscribe to this work as the utmost authority on the tradition; there are many eccentricities in it to find it suspect, in fact. Primacy of date does not equate to primacy of authority.
6. Dave Teague makes a good point about remembering that Hauen does not mean 'cutting', per se. It's a very strong word - blow, hack, stroke, are much better words. Also note that this word is used for other swung blows that don't produce cuts in the sword edge sense: the use of often hammer-equipped pollaxes, and even swung dueling shields, is described with this word. |
As I wrote above, I think VDs instruction to cut above the foot just refers to the slight sideways motion of a cut (well, not sideways--the angle, I mean). He doesn't say to cut down to the foot, just that you cut to the line of it--"over it". That's when you cut *just* through the target. He's telling us how much to cut through the head. And we have no idea what VD meant by a "half cut"; you can't compare that to Meyer because this depends too much on medieval words being used by them as precisely-defined technical terms. They didn't write that way. Based on the technique, I suspect this means an uncommitted cut to force your opponent to bind when you plan to go on to something else (the Winden).
And think about it, if we were supposed to do these big, hacking cuts that Hs 3227a tells us belong only to Schulfechten, why is the only reference to it such an obscure, unclear comment in von Danzig?
And you can't depend on Meyer: He *himself* comes right out and says the fighting of his day is very different. He says it plainly and clearly, and even if he hadn't said it that way, he comes right out and says there's no thrusting in his system unlike the "ancients" as he calls them. This naturally creates differences in how you fight.
Ringeck didn't write all of Ringeck, either, but it's a pain to constantly use the accession number in day-to-day writing. Ditto with von Danzig. I said that Dobringer didn't write Hs 3227a, but the name's easy to use. So it's fine to keep using that name, let's just be careful to keep teaching people he didn't write it. And whether it's the be all and end all or not, it's the only source that addresses a lot of very important tactical issues, and therefore *should* be used extensively to understand such things, especially the issues other sources don't touch upon at all.
And a push-pull cut, done correctly, is extremely powerful, certainly deserving of the term "hacking."
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
On some level, this is all subjective. You can read the vD comment in the way you are doing so - it's not that precise, after all.
I'm not saying that full blows are the norm here, just that they are part of the system - Talhoffer clearly shows one. You can't decapitate a man with a half blow. In fact, it's non-trivial to do with a full one.
And we're not told anywhere to cut into longpoint - that too is a subjective reading. Neither are we told what consistutes a wide swinging blow. He doesn't say they cut too low - he says they cut too wide; those are potentially differing beasts. A full blow, to my mind, need not be wide: I can cut very tight, but still end in Nebenhut or Wechsel. It's the follow-through that distinguishes the full from half blow. I see people deliver 'wide blows' and they're not what Mike is showing in his video.
As for naming 3227a, very few people are calling it 'Döbringer' today. This is not an analoguous situation with Ringeck, who is credited by that manuscript's scribe/compiler with creating the gloss. As that gloss occupies a huge portion of that manuscript, it's an apt enough placeholder name.
Hanko Döbringer, on the other hand, is mentioned in passing among two other masters in a sub-section of secondary importance in the fencing section of a mostly non-fencing work. Naming this thing after him is like me getting authorship credit for writing the preface to someone else's book.
I get that all these names are placeholders; in fact, I have an essay on this very subject in my forthcoming book. But some placeholders make more sense than others.
I agree with you to a point on Meyer - he tends towards larger frame motions, simply because having the point online isn't advantageous to him. But the connection between high and low guards as start and terminus for blows isn't his invention, surely.
Cheers,
CHT
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 1:02 pm Post subject: Re: German Longsword Q&A |
|
|
Hi Mark,
I apologize for the late response. I haven't been following this thread closely until now.
| Mark Millman wrote: | | I'm very interested in this question, but I'm afraid that, like Mr. Tsafa, I'm having some trouble finding the reference in Meyer. |
At the moment my books are in storage (I'm doing some work on my house to convert a room into a library/office), so I'm doing this from memory. I want to preface this by saying that I don't study Meyer as a primary source, nor have I seriously worked with Meyer for quite a whle. But if I recall correctly, in the section of the Oberhut/Vom Tag there are at least two plays where you are instructed to make an attack to your opponent's left side (i.e. your right), and when he parries you are instructed to strike to the opposite side at your opponent's right ear (i.e. your left). You are instructed to do this by crossing your arms and striking with the short edge. I don't recall if this action was specifically called a zwerch or not, but the action is very similar save for which edge being used. At first I found this baffling, but having practiced this a number of times, I have found that I can do it pretty naturally nowadays. Further, Meyer also shows other plays that start the same but use a long edge zwerch, so my theory is that he was trying to include alternate ways to do an action so that you have more tools in your toolbox.
| Quote: | | There are a couple of instructions to cut with crossed arms, using the false edge, at the adversary's right ear (e.g., in 1.31v.1 and 1.32r.2), but it's not clear that these are Thwart Cuts, as it appears to be possible to make diagonally descending false-edge cuts from both sides in Meyer's system. |
That could very well be what I'm thinking of. As I said, its been a while since I've really worked with Meyer, and I've never used him as my main source. But even if you make such a strike but use the long edge, it'd be a zwerchhau (which can come from multiple angles, not just completely horizontal, according to Meyer, who even calls it an attack from below in his main description). If you use the short edge, its possible that it isn't named a zwerchhau (I'd have to dig out my books to be certain), but its a very similar action.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Carew
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hello all,
I think everyone in this thread has some part of the truth. Here are some quick thoughts (I'm pressed for time right now): |
Hi Christian,
Good points all! I’m in full agreement. It's good to be on the same thread again.
| Quote: | | 3. Meyer describes full blows, and every technique he teaches is traceable to something similar in the earlier material. |
I’m especially pleased to see open recognition of this. The Wechselhau is, of course, featured in the earlier ernstfechten sources as well as Meyer.
Following are some of the points I posted on WMAC to Hugh, in rebuttal to the idea that a full cut is somehow only a thing of play fighting.
| Quote: | Meyer features and uses the Wechselhauw as well and that’s no coincidence. The first half of the Wechselhauw in Meyer is similar to the full cut* I demonstrated in my video...
... A full cut from high to low or low to high can be executed with tight, efficient mechanics, whereas even a half cut to Langort can be executed with poor, telegraphed, wide and slow mechanics.
Early ernstfechten sources such as Ringeck and Talhoffer feature full cuts as provokers. Meyer is thus demonstrably following in the footsteps of the early ernstfechten authors when also employing a full cut as a provoker, and so we can safely discard any suspicion the full cut from high to low and low to high is only a thing of the fechtschule or without use in earnest.
Provoking a response, often from just out of measure, is one of the key uses Meyer makes of full cuts. In many of Meyer’s devices, he often has us employ full cuts (including the Fehler) from wide distance (i.e. the distance at which the opponent still requires a step to reach us), with a stolen or broken step (which need not bring us into measure, but deceives the opponent into thinking we are advancing into measure) and sometimes with no footwork, all in order to test our opponent’s reactions and possibly provoke a predictable response which can be exploited by a known and prepared counter.
When we actually enter measure in Zufechten with a Vorschlag, Meyer typically has us employ half cuts finishing in Langort, which would almost certainly please the author of Hs.3227a. The full cuts in Meyer most assuredly should *not* be employed in situations that would leave one vulnerable to a thrust (absetzen) even in schulfechten bouts, for the simple reason that to be vulnerable to one of the three wounders (the thrust) is also to be vulnerable to the other two: ernstfechten and schulfechten alike make use of properly timed Nachreisen strikes and slices (and additionally in ernstfechten, the thrust) to out-time and punish an opponent who leaves themselves vulnerable when striking and closing measure...
I personally believe Meyer has us use full cuts for purposes other than the actual Vorschlag entry into close measure during Zufechten. Granted, not all Meyer researchers will agree and that’s fine... Furthermore, the uses Meyer has for full cuts can, in fact, be entirely appropriate and logical in an ernstfechten context in addition to a schulfechten one. For e.g.
- The Provoker. Typically used from just out of distance... When employing a full cut as a provoker (Fehler), it is important to make appropriate use of distance (and thus, time) to ensure our safety. One should not employ a full cut in measure against an opponent who is in position to employ Nachreisen to instantly counterstrike.
- The Taker. A full cut can be used in defence from the Nach to strike away the opponent’s Vorschlag with sufficient force that the opponent remains wide spaced long enough for us to follow up. The Krumphau used to displace an Oberhau (either by striking the blade down, or the hands/arms) employs the same principle in practice... A taker can also be executed as a hitter (see below) within the one action, such as most of the Meisterhau, which are capable of taking (defending against) the opponent’s strikes whilst simultaneously hitting him.
- The Hitter. Full cuts are most useful for those times when we can safely strike the opponent unopposed, and thus want full cutting potential brought upon the opponent. Examples include Nachreisen, such as when an opponent has wide spaced themselves by striking their own full cut (it happens, maybe not by well trained fencers, but by many common fencers) and missing, allowing us to take advantage of the fact they cannot recover in time...
Other examples of full cuts as hitters include: finishing off a momentarily incapacitated or stunned opponent from a position of safety (i.e. Silver’s true place, being the place we can strike them in a shorter time than they can defend or offend us). If we have managed to wound, disarm, stun or gain the back or flank of the opponent, and thus they’ve no opportunity to defend themselves, a good, full cut delivered with the strength of the body can end the fight decisively. Such use of a full cut as a fight ender perhaps makes less sense in rule bound schulfechten than it does in the mortal realm of ernstfechten, which casts doubt on any suspicion full cuts were only a thing of the fechtschule. |
Sorry for the long post above, but hopefully it helps clarify at least one perspective from someone studying Meyer.
| Quote: | | 6. Dave Teague makes a good point about remembering that Hauen does not mean 'cutting', per se. It's a very strong word - blow, hack, stroke, are much better words. Also note that this word is used for other swung blows that don't produce cuts in the sword edge sense: the use of often hammer-equipped pollaxes, and even swung dueling shields, is described with this word. |
Good point, and even better, we can use a good English word, Hew (Hewing, Hewn, Hewings), which is etymologically related to Hau (Hauw, Hauwen).
Hew and hau even sound similar in addition to meaning the same thing. To hew is to chop, cleave and split along a straight line, just as one does with an axe against a block of wood. IMHO hew is thus the perfect English cognate for the German ‘hau’ in the fight books and I've been debating with myself for some time about dropping all references to cut, blow or strike altogether (except perhaps, using ‘strike’ for ‘streich’) and simply using hew whenever the sources say hau. 
| Quote: | | And we're not told anywhere to cut into longpoint - that too is a subjective reading. Neither are we told what consistutes a wide swinging blow. He doesn't say they cut too low - he says they cut too wide; those are potentially differing beasts. A full blow, to my mind, need not be wide: I can cut very tight, but still end in Nebenhut or Wechsel. It's the follow-through that distinguishes the full from half blow. I see people deliver 'wide blows' and they're not what Mike is showing in his video. |
Well said. When Hugh and I debated this on WMAC this is the point I tried to make. To describe a cut as 'long, wide or slow' does not automatically infer that this is related to the beginning or ending point of the cut: clearly full cuts can be executed with efficient, tight mechanics whilst even a half cut to the centre can be executed with wide, slow and inefficient mechanics. Hugh has linked the 'wide and slow' strikes derided in Hs.3227a to any 'full cuts' from high to low or low to high, but that is his personal inference, not the sources.
| Quote: | | I agree with you to a point on Meyer - he tends towards larger frame motions, simply because having the point online isn't advantageous to him. |
Actually, having the point online is advantageous in Meyer. Whilst Meyer makes the reader wait until the rapier chapter for full descriptions of how to use the thrusts to deadly effect, he does use the thrust as a fehler (feint) in the longsword book. In the longsword chapter Meyer strikes to the centre much of the time: this is because he has us hew to the centre and fail and cut around, or bind, wind, reverse, run off and strike around from there... just like the earlier sources. Also, we often forget there are 3 wounders in ernstfechten (2 in schulfechten), and the slice works very well from the centre as a follow up from a hewing attack. Meyer goes to some trouble to praise the proper use of the slice, especially to ‘cut off the hard ones’ meaning he uses it to counter clumsy fencers who hew too wide... just like the earlier sources... which casts serious doubt on the suggestion that wide, slow, easily sliced off hauwen are of any more benefit in school fencing than they are in earnest fencing. As noted in my ramble above, to be vulnerable to one of the 3 wounders is to be vulnerable to the other two, and the slice in particular is as fast as the thrust in most circumstances.
| Quote: | | But the connection between high and low guards as start and terminus for blows isn't his invention, surely. |
Well, no, considering the fact Fiore and Vadi were executing full strikes from high to low and low to high in the 15th century. What’s more, Fiore even strikes from a guard, Posta di Donna, that is a very close match for Zornhut along the back. So would anyone care to call Fiore and Vadi schulfechten and sport fencing? Ah, but they're not Liechtenauer! True, but they are earnest fencing sources from the same overall region, cultural and military milieu. To justify the claim that full cuts are *only* a thing of play fighting *because* they somehow leave one vulnerable in earnest, one should be able to explain how and why full cuts existed in related systems from the same epoch.
Cheers,
Bill
Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Onto the main gist of this thread, I think Mike and Christian have really explained the main points I would have raised regarding why I believe full cuts definitely exist in the Liechtenauer tradition.
My biggest issue is that things like this keep being said:
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | And think about it, if we were supposed to do these big, hacking cuts that Hs 3227a tells us belong only to Schulfechten, |
I'm going to use this quote, Hugh, but understand that I'm not only talking about you when I say this: Why do people keep assuming that a full cut is automatically a big, hacking cut? Its been said here a few times that these cuts are for poor fencers, as well as in the other thread. If the argument is just that these cuts are not used in the Liechtenauer tradition, I'd say that's highly debatable, but I can understand where you're coming from due to the interpretational nature of some of these things. But to say that such cuts are just big hacking cuts, and to say they are inneffective and easily countered is to say that all other two handed systems are wrong (because I can't think of a single two handed sword system that never uses full cuts).
I think another issue where we're talking past each other is something that Michael keeps bringing up (but somehow this seems to be missed): Just because a system can use full cuts doesn't mean it *always* uses full cuts. Heck, it doesn't even mean it *usually* uses full cuts. It just means that they exist.
Personally, I find the von Danzig quote pretty clear... why would the master write to cut over your left *leg* if he just meant to cut to the left? Further, what's the difference between a zornhau and a regular old oberhau with the long edge if you never cut past langen ort? And why have any low guards if you never cut to them? And what about schrankhut, which is a low guard where we're told to cut to with a krumphau (i.e. we're not being told to stop in langen ort)?
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William Carew wrote: | [Well, no, considering the fact Fiore and Vadi were executing full strikes from high to low and low to high in the 15th century. What’s more, Fiore even strikes from a guard, Posta di Donna, that is a very close match for Zornhut along the back. So would anyone care to call Fiore and Vadi schulfechten and sport fencing? Ah, but they're not Liechtenauer! True, but they are earnest fencing sources from the same overall region, cultural and military milieu. To justify the claim that full cuts are *only* a thing of play fighting *because* they somehow leave one vulnerable in earnest, one should be able to explain how and why full cuts existed in related systems from the same epoch.
|
Bill posted this while I was typing, but that last paragraph is exactly what I was trying to get across.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
I think another issue where we're talking past each other is something that Michael keeps bringing up (but somehow this seems to be missed): Just because a system can use full cuts doesn't mean it *always* uses full cuts. Heck, it doesn't even mean it *usually* uses full cuts. It just means that they exist. |
Bingo.
I typically would not use a full cut to enter from wide measure. My usage for them is very close to what Bill (Carew) describes in his quoted post from the other forum. However, to use these full cuts, we must know how to cut with a sword, which is why I do test cutting. I post videos to get people interested, so that more people begin practicing this often neglected aspect of the system.
Furthermore, finishing cuts from within close measure (e.g. abnemen) are not meant to enter a bind, they are meant to kill, and are often aimed at the body, which is clothed. Therefore, if we want to practice the art with the intention of being effective in earnest combat (which I feel is academically important to preserve the art), we must be able to effectively cut at this measure with sufficient skill and power to penetrate medieval clothing, and this too involves test cutting.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Maxwell
Location: New Zealand Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Bill Grandy wrote: |
I think another issue where we're talking past each other is something that Michael keeps bringing up (but somehow this seems to be missed): Just because a system can use full cuts doesn't mean it *always* uses full cuts. Heck, it doesn't even mean it *usually* uses full cuts. It just means that they exist. |
Bingo.
I typically would not use a full cut to enter from wide measure. My usage for them is very close to what Bill (Carew) describes in his quoted post from the other forum. However, to use these full cuts, we must know how to cut with a sword, which is why I do test cutting. I post videos to get people interested, so that more people begin practicing this often neglected aspect of the system.
Furthermore, finishing cuts from within close measure (e.g. abnemen) are not meant to enter a bind, they are meant to kill, and are often aimed at the body, which is clothed. Therefore, if we want to practice the art with the intention of being effective in earnest combat (which I feel is academically important to preserve the art), we must be able to effectively cut at this measure with sufficient skill and power to penetrate medieval clothing, and this too involves test cutting. |
This is quite similar to how I feel about the arc vs push/pull argument as well. I use and practice both, though at the moment I am using the push/pull cut as my "entering" cut, simply because it is fast and covers well. I haven't really had a practice partner krump at it yet, which you seem to think is a weakness for this Michael? I will have to get someone to try that. The other weakness I find for the push/pull is when cutting from the offside, it feels very underpowered like that. If I use a left-handed grip I can cut fine from the left, though that then screws my cutting from the right, of course 
On a different note, I'm not sure that Hugh is correct about Meyer not cutting at the body. I don't know much about Meyer at all, but I do use his X4 cutting drill (I don't know what the proper name for it is) and that includes cuts to the lower openings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Maxwell wrote: | | On a different note, I'm not sure that Hugh is correct about Meyer not cutting at the body. I don't know much about Meyer at all, but I do use his X4 cutting drill (I don't know what the proper name for it is) and that includes cuts to the lower openings. |
Hello Andrew,
I've sort of pulled back from that as well--I said at the time it was a new thought that needed more work. I'm not ready to completely abandon it yet, because there's some interesting tidbits there, such as Meyer's comment about how the lower targets aren't as useful when you can't thrust and only belonged to the combat of the ancients, but there's too much to be said against it right now.
However, are you sure Meyer's cutting drill necessarily includes cuts to the lower openings? I ask in ignorance since I don't use that drill and haven't really studied it closely. But as I understand it, it merely indicates cutting directions, not targets. Is that correct? I ask because I use a simpler cutting drill (only 4 cuts in 4 directions), and all the cuts are aimed at the head. You *can* do all the angles in Meyer's diagram to the head, after all. If he does say to cut to the body in the drill then there's an end to it. But if not, if he merely specifies angles, then that's a different matter.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Millman
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Nov, 2009 10:43 pm Post subject: Re: German Longsword Q&A |
|
|
Dear Bill,
| On Tuesday 24 November 2009, you wrote: | Hi Mark,
I apologize for the late response. I haven't been following this thread closely until now. |
Not to worry; I figured you'd see it sooner or later, and would respond at that time--as you've done.
| Quote: | | Mark Millman wrote: | | I'm very interested in this question, but I'm afraid that, like Mr. Tsafa, I'm having some trouble finding the reference in Meyer. |
At the moment my books are in storage (I'm doing some work on my house to convert a room into a library/office), |
I hope that your project goes both quickly and smoothly.
| Quote: | so I'm doing this from memory. I want to preface this by saying that I don't study Meyer as a primary source, nor have I seriously worked with Meyer for quite a whle. But if I recall correctly, in the section of the Oberhut/Vom Tag there are at least two plays where you are instructed to make an attack to your opponent's left side (i.e. your right), and when he parries you are instructed to strike to the opposite side at your opponent's right ear (i.e. your left). You are instructed to do this by crossing your arms and striking with the short edge. I don't recall if this action was specifically called a zwerch or not, but the action is very similar save for which edge being used. At first I found this baffling, but having practiced this a number of times, I have found that I can do it pretty naturally nowadays. Further, Meyer also shows other plays that start the same but use a long edge zwerch, so my theory is that he was trying to include alternate ways to do an action so that you have more tools in your toolbox.
| Quote: | | There are a couple of instructions to cut with crossed arms, using the false edge, at the adversary's right ear (e.g., in 1.31v.1 and 1.32r.2), but it's not clear that these are Thwart Cuts, as it appears to be possible to make diagonally descending false-edge cuts from both sides in Meyer's system. |
That could very well be what I'm thinking of. As I said, its been a while since I've really worked with Meyer, and I've never used him as my main source. But even if you make such a strike but use the long edge, it'd be a zwerchhau (which can come from multiple angles, not just completely horizontal, according to Meyer, who even calls it an attack from below in his main description). If you use the short edge, its possible that it isn't named a zwerchhau (I'd have to dig out my books to be certain), but its a very similar action. |
This sounds like a difference in our interpretations, rather than something I've missed. My understanding of these crossed-arm false-edge cuts is that although they bear a superficial resemblance to the Zwerchhauw, their mechanic is distinct, and they may lack two of the elements that I find essential in a Zwerch: they don't necessarily deny the adversary the center line, and they often can't strike behind the adversary's blade--in this latter, they can behave more like true-edge cuts than false-edge ones. Specific examples are the Kurtzhauw and the Gluetzhauw (both on Forgeng p. 58), which seem--to me, anyway--to be done sort of part-way between the Schielhauw and the Zwerch. To a degree, I think that cuts of this kind are artifacts of Meyer's deprecation of the thrust.
Best,
Mark Millman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesse Eaton
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Nov, 2009 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well a lot has been said since my first post. I just wanted to add that I used to do the push/pull strike but changed it a bit do to an article in a book on Japanese sword fighting (yes it is in other arts not just German longsword). The article describes an old kendo master that studied Musashi. Musashi's basic strike is described as performed in a single beat. The basic overhead strike in kendo can't be done in a single beat. It's always up/down. The push/pull mechanic makes the strike, but as was pointed out earlier, it loses mechanical efficiency because of the pull. What the kendo master discovered, from trying to make his strike in a single beat, is that he could make a stronger faster strike by moving the whole body with the strike and not pulling but using a direct push. Though to make a cut, he still needed about a beat and a half. From vom tag, you can make the strike in a single beat and yes it is basically a thrust with a cut thrown in. don't pull with your lower hand. Just extend your arms and let the distance between your hands and gravity make the cut for you. So, instead of push/pull you just push. If your arms are relaxed while doing it this way, you end up in either plow or fool with minimal effort.
Has anyone else tried this method?
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Nov, 2009 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesse Eaton wrote: | | Well a lot has been said since my first post. I just wanted to add that I used to do the push/pull strike but changed it a bit do to an article in a book on Japanese sword fighting (yes it is in other arts not just German longsword). |
I think the "push-pull strike" is a bit of a misnomer, in fact (and correct me if I'm wrong) the current "trend" is more specific than that.
Because with two handed weapons there is always a push from the lead hand and a pull from the rear hand, as soon as there is some torque imparted on the weapon. You can't get around that, i.e. even if you're just shooting both arms straight the right hand is pushing on the hilt and the left is pulling. If you're not convinced try to throw the strike with the fingers of both hands relaxed and even open, it can't be done, with almost any mechanic.
The current trend is not just push-pull, it's rotating around CoG. The CoG goes in a straight line towards it's final position. This is something I've never seen described and never seen in action in other arts (except as a guard transition). Even in kendo strikes (which are about the fastest most direct cuts practiced today in a living art) the CoG does not go straight, the lead hand does, which is not the same thing.
So the description of the actions is not really relevant, it's the motion of the sword resulting from the action that constitutes a good description. Of course this is rarely written down, which is why we're having this discussion...
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Travis Canaday
Location: Overland Park, Kansas Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Nov, 2009 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | I have some SCAdians in my classes (not a criticism, so was I), and they tend to hit with their hilts leading since that's the best way to generate force the force they need. So we do a drill where they cut at me their way, and I hit them on the arm before their cut can land, then they cut my way, and this time I can't hit their arms so I'm forced to displace before I can strike (using a single-time blow would be cheating for this exercise). To me, this is part and parcel of the idea of following the blow: Do everything you can to threaten your opponent so he is forced to defend himself before he can hit you. When your hilt leads your hands are very vulnerable to a hit on the way. |
And I find it much easier to void and krump someone using a push pull cut than one using an arc cut.
Unless you are describing a krumphau in the passage above, the big difference here, to me, is that what I'm doing is described in the texts (the krump), whereas cutting into the arms with anything else is not described in the texts. I have a good theory on why that is, but it's not really important. What's important is that this attack (unless you are indeed describing the krump) does not exist in the system for a reason. |
What about Hende Trucken? It sounds like Hugh is describing something to that effect. What is your theory about why not to cut to the arms other than with a krumphau?
As for the Danzig quotation, I don't read anything into it about cutting past the target, just merely stating the importance of stepping when one cuts.
I don't agree with Hugh's hard line stance on not test cutting, but I agree with the idea that in general if you don't hit your target with hau, you should maintain the threat with the ort, and keeping working from there. I also agree with Michael in the value of being able to use all manner of cuts.
I might not be grasping the entirety of the discussion, but I had to throw my thoughts in.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic