[Herbert Schmidt]

Randall, I understand that these discussions can be very time consuming and frustrating.

I think we have reached a dead end. All this could be very easily solved with sword in hand - each of us showing what we mean and comparing it to the manuscripts.
For the moment I'd say that we just leave it at that. You are convinced you are right and I am not.
Personally I don't see how your interpretation does fit all the pieces mentioned in the manuscripts.

I'd like to thank you for bringing this up. Every discussion that challenges ones viewpoint is a valuable one.

I hope we meet in person soon. I'm sure this will be settled within half an hour.

all the best

Herbert

[Dustin R. Reagan]

[Roger Norling]

Interesting, and perhaps you are right. But the image also matches your interpretation if you consider the right fencer to do the correct thing, don't you agree? I agree that the left fencer looks as he has stepped off-line, but his cut is outside of the pommel and he is cutting quite a bit down the blade. The other fencer looks as if he has stepped in with the krump and is continuing with a cut to the arms and hands that are quite exposed.

I haven't had the colour images before though, so perhaps you are right. I will have to check to see if red us used similarly elsewhere to indicate hits.

EDIT: I just checked and indeed, cuts are indicated with blood, so I have to revise my interpretation here. Basically the same move though; Krump and a schiel, as described in several treatises.

[Dustin R. Reagan]

[Roger Norling]

Well I have to confess that I am a bit intrigued by this image as it is a bit peculiar. The basic response for a krump to an oberhau is to either krump straight to the hands or to krump the blade away and then wind in a thrust or a cut to the head. The simplest way to do that is to wind your short edge against the opponent's blade and cut with a schielhauw or if you are in that range; do the same and thrust in. This is told in several treatises.

But this image is peculiar. It looks a bit out of place for the description. On the other hand Meyer says that the Schielhauw is also a krumphauw, but cutting a schielhauw like this without any preceding action puts your hands in a quite vulnerable spot.

I am right in the middle of making pancakes for the kids, so I will get back to this a bit later.

[Dustin R. Reagan]

[Dustin R. Reagan]

[Roger Norling]

Yes, I think you are missing my meaning. Both fencers basically stand in the same stance, only one with the hands higher than the other and the left likely having done a triangle step. In my black and white copies the red blood wasn't visible.

So.

if you disregard the blood: Imagine the right fencer displacing the left's blade with some form of Versetzen, like a Kron, Krump or straight in with a schielhau. In this case, as you show; first with a Krump while stepping forwards so you get behind his point and continue with a Schielhauw, thrust or Schnitt to the head, neck or hands/arm. The image would then depict a situation where the right fencer is just about to hit the left.

The left fencer's elbow look exposed, but perspective is a tricky thing... Check for example the lower pair in this picture: http://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/dms...=PHYS_0017

See how I came to my conclusion now? I agree that you are right, but if the blood wasn't there, both could be considered winners in that image.

Btw, didn't you somewhere mention that you think the illustrations' sometimes ambiguous relationship to the text in the Goliath?

Seems to be the case here, I think.

[Roger Norling]

Btw, it is also interesting to note that the Krumphauw to the hands, as done in e.g. Kal and the Solothurner, more or less cuts into the stance Ochs and works with the Sturtzhauw too. And of course if you continue you end up in Hengen or Schrankhut, depending on which master you focus on.

This ties it well into the Leger being corners in the cuts, varied by the use of edges and flats. A pretty clear concept.

[Craig Shackleton]

[Roger Norling]

[Dustin R. Reagan]

[Mark T]

I've posted this elsewhere, but for those who haven't seen it ... this is not directed at anyone, but hopefully of some humour value to all ...

[Craig Shackleton]

[Roger Norling]

Basically agree and I tend to grip the sword with the thumb against the flat with all three cuts; Krump, Zorn and Schielhauw. And they start pretty much the same, although they travel somewhat differently and certainly work differently from a mechanical point of view.

And you should certainly be able to do all strikes from both sides. The Zwerch goes to all four openings, both diagonally and horizontally, your body is covered strongly at your side by the Schiel and will halt his weak part of the blade instantly, just like the Zwerch.

The Krump however is different and taught in numerous ways as described earlier. It goes for the hands which means you can work at longer range. It is described as "nimble", a quick and simple cut, which the ARMA cut doesn't represent. In fact their version is more like a Rosen and Meyer (and a few others) actually has some very similar moves called such.

Cutting from your right towards your left you cross your arms in the cut, in the older sources with the pommel under your elbow and in some younger sources possibly over it. On the other side you still aim to move your hands away from the opponent's blade aiming to get a good angle for the cut, so your arms are of course not crossed. This is straight from the books and a no-brainer.

The Krump can actually cut through the Zorn lines, just like the Zwerch can through the Unterhau line and possibly the Zorn too. Even a Schielhauw can be thrown through the Zorn or Scheitel-line. The lines are not reserved for specific strokes. And the cuts are not defined by the lines. They are defined by how they are applied and how they function. And through the cuts we see the Leger, the stances. All stances are part of the paths of the cuts, with Meyer being one of the best examples since he defines more stances that give us the paths for the strikes. This is where we see the Einhort, the Ochs, the Schrankhut, the Hengetort, the Nebenhut, the Schlüssel etc. They all tie in to short edge cuts like the Krump, the Schiel or the Sturtzhauw.

At least this is how I see things right now.

Damn, we're geeks here, talking endlessly about things that noone else cares about...

[Benjamin Floyd II]

Well, I would agree the lines aren't reserved for cuts, but some cuts are only on some lines. For Meyer, there's already cuts that correspond to the lines. They are the chief or principle cuts: Oberhau, Zornhau, Mittelhau, and Unterhau. If ARMA wants to make the segno work, I'd suggest giving the primary cuts their place over the meisterhau, which should be blindingly obvious. Although, as has been mentioned, the segno works just fine with the meisterhau given that you perform them as described, which the exception of the E to A line.

[Roger Norling]

I completely agree. I just meant that the Zorn-line is not reserved for the Zornhau, the Mittel line not for the Mittelhauw etc. Several lines are used by multiple Meisterhäuwe, which is quite clear reading e.g. Meyer.

[Benjamin Floyd II]

Yes. Multiple cuts use the same lines because they have to do so. The meisterhau are modified applications of the primary cuts just as the derivative cuts are modified meisterhau themselves. It seems like everyone gets so caught up in the meisterhau or secondary cuts sometimes that they forget the primary cuts completely. Why isn't it enough to use the primary cuts as the segno when everything else comes from them?