Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search


myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors)

Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Test – off-hand longsword cuts vs. pork arms Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Fri 09 Feb, 2007 7:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
You're right...the more period texts I read the more I encounter a very strong desire to make the reader understand that only the head and body should be attacked.


I disagree with this. I think that the head and torso are largely the important targets, but there are numerous examples of the limbs being important targets as well, including the examples in my post above of the slices to the hands or the Talhoffer messer cut to the arm. That said, most attacks to the limbs seem to be more along the lines of counterattacks rather than initial attacks (i.e. you need to stop the person's weapon arm). Though the krump against ochs certainly is an example of initially attacking the hands.

An interesting note, though, is that the later Italian sword arts seem to have almost purely no cuts to body, only to the extremities (limbs and head). Every attack to the body is a thrust. This is true across the board from rapiers to the full sized two-handers.

Quote:
In fact I have to wonder why there are so few references to thrusts in the period texts. I have been of the opinion lately that a simple offensive thrust is a very bad idea, as it does little to protect you from your opponent's sword.


I very much disagree with this. Thrusts are incredibly prevalent in the manuscripts. At least a third of the techniques described in the Liechtenauer tradition describe a thrust, or they describe a different type of attack but make mention of the thrust as an option. And you certainly can close the line off with a thrust: All the stuff about the 8 windings is essentially that, except it's described as what to do after the person has already entered the bind with you. That does not mean in the least that you can't control the person's weapon and close off lines before the bind.

Quote:
In other words, if I thust against a cutting guard, I might imape you, but you will not die instantly, and you will not be slowed or stopped. You will simply strike me in the head and kill me, then die. When you're dealing with a thrusting guard, the chances of that are lower. This is why, in my opinion, thrusts are mostly described as attacks you use from the bind, where you have control of your opponent's sword and can protect yourself at the same time.


What of the schielhau against the buffel? Here the opponent strikes down, and you "take the throat" with a thrust that counters that very powerful, but slow, strike. This is little more than the concept of winding into ochs, but it is done before the blades make contact.

What of a zwerchau to break Vom Tag when you're already in Ochs? It makes no sense to bring your sword all the way around if you're already protected from the opponent's potential oberhau, so thrust in this case. The line is already closed.

What about if your opponent is in pflug, and you wind your sword into pflug as you thrust to prevent the attack (i.e. the 5th winding)? What of the sprechfenster, when you're in langen ort?

I'm not at all trying to come down on you, of course, and I agree with much of what you've said. There's just much more of the art than what is on the surface. Liechtenauer, and the masters that followed his tradition, were clear that all three of the wounders were to be utilized: The strike, the slice and the thrust. The vast majority of the techniques work with all three wounders, depending on the situation.

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Fri 09 Feb, 2007 8:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bill Grandy wrote:
Michael Edelson wrote:
You're right...the more period texts I read the more I encounter a very strong desire to make the reader understand that only the head and body should be attacked.


I disagree with this. I think that the head and torso are largely the important targets, but there are numerous examples of the limbs being important targets as well, including the examples in my post above of the slices to the hands or the Talhoffer messer cut to the arm. That said, most attacks to the limbs seem to be more along the lines of counterattacks rather than initial attacks (i.e. you need to stop the person's weapon arm). Though the krump against ochs certainly is an example of initially attacking the hands.


Hi Bill!

I want to clarify one thing before I respond. I am limiting my studies to Liechtenauer, 15th century or earlier, exclusively. I don't know anything about other arts or Itallian longsword styles (except some of the basics that Nicholas Zeman was kind enough to explain to me). I ordered a rapier book from Amazon, but it hasn't come yet.

Besides Krump, are there any initial attacks in Liechtenauer that target the hands or legs (I would seriously doubt legs, considering all that overreaching stuff)?


Quote:

An interesting note, though, is that the later Italian sword arts seem to have almost purely no cuts to body, only to the extremities (limbs and head). Every attack to the body is a thrust. This is true across the board from rapiers to the full sized two-handers.


That is interesting. When you say later, how much later do you mean? 16th Century?

Quote:

Quote:
In fact I have to wonder why there are so few references to thrusts in the period texts. I have been of the opinion lately that a simple offensive thrust is a very bad idea, as it does little to protect you from your opponent's sword.


I very much disagree with this. Thrusts are incredibly prevalent in the manuscripts. At least a third of the techniques described in the Liechtenauer tradition describe a thrust, or they describe a different type of attack but make mention of the thrust as an option. And you certainly can close the line off with a thrust: All the stuff about the 8 windings is essentially that, except it's described as what to do after the person has already entered the bind with you. That does not mean in the least that you can't control the person's weapon and close off lines before the bind.


This I really need help with. Where are these thrusts mentioned?

As you know, I follow Christian Tobler's interpretations. Christian has often demonstrated and taught thrusts, but only in isolation or as a follow up attack to a cut (in my experience, which is not that substantial). So far, I've only read Ringeck and Dobringer aside from the original verses, but I've also taken a brief look at some others, and I don't remember any mention of thrusts except "when he cuts you cut, when he thrusts you thrust" , the references to attacks after the cut and the windings (and I may be forgeting something else)...so they're there, but not nearly as prevalent as cuts.

Quote:

Quote:
In other words, if I thust against a cutting guard, I might imape you, but you will not die instantly, and you will not be slowed or stopped. You will simply strike me in the head and kill me, then die. When you're dealing with a thrusting guard, the chances of that are lower. This is why, in my opinion, thrusts are mostly described as attacks you use from the bind, where you have control of your opponent's sword and can protect yourself at the same time.


What of the schielhau against the buffel? Here the opponent strikes down, and you "take the throat" with a thrust that counters that very powerful, but slow, strike. This is little more than the concept of winding into ochs, but it is done before the blades make contact.


Christian never taught that one as a thrust (at least not to me)...from what I understood, it is a cut to the shoulder. I've also heard it described as "just put the tip on his shoulder lightly', but never as a thrust.

Quote:
What of a zwerchau to break Vom Tag when you're already in Ochs? It makes no sense to bring your sword all the way around if you're already protected from the opponent's potential oberhau, so thrust in this case. The line is already closed.


I've never seen that described either....I thought zwerchau was always a cut. Where is all this stuff and why am I missing it? Happy

Quote:
What about if your opponent is in pflug, and you wind your sword into pflug as you thrust to prevent the attack (i.e. the 5th winding)? What of the sprechfenster, when you're in langen ort?


Okay, those I know about. Finally. Happy

But they are still minor compared to the meisterhau. Dobringer, for example, says over and over that you should only use five strikes. A thrust is not one of the five. That would imply a very heavy emphasis on cuts in the intial attack.

I'm not trying to say there's no thrusting in Liechtenauer...that would be dumb. Happy But isn't it fair to say that there is a very heavy emphasis on cutting as the initial attack?

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Travis Canaday




Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri 09 Feb, 2007 9:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael…

I don’t know where to begin. There are many references to thrusting. Any strike can turn into a thrust or slice. If a cut falls short or misses you can thrust. If your cut didn’t have much force for some reason, schnitt the target.

The schielhau can certainly thrust. You can hit him on the shoulder, drag down the point and thrust to his throat… doing all three wounders in one move. What position are you in after striking a zwerch? Ochs of course… You can thrust from ochs. Doing this would one form of an absetzen…setting his attack aside and thrusting.

What’s the first thing Liechtenauer says about the Zornhau… “Whoever strikes at you from above, Strike of Wrath and the thrust threatens him.” Notice how didn’t say it cuts the guy down. That’s what makes the zorn different than any old oberhau; it ends in a hanger with the point on line.

Dobringer 23V (Lindholm translation):
“That is why Liechtenhaur means that when someone strikes an upper strike at you [Oberhau] against you, then you shall strike a rage strike [Czornhau] at him; that is you move quickly in towards him with your point leading.”

The German system is very fluid thing. All the guards transition into each other. If one thing fails, another should be already set up. Think about these things as concepts more than techniques, as all this stuff just flows together.

I can find plenty more references. Thrusts are all over place.

Travis
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Fri 09 Feb, 2007 11:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Travis Canaday wrote:
Michael…

I don’t know where to begin. There are many references to thrusting. Any strike can turn into a thrust or slice. If a cut falls short or misses you can thrust. If your cut didn’t have much force for some reason, schnitt the target.


Hi Travis,

Oh, I know about those...as follow-up attacks thrusts are quite prevalent. I practice them every day. Happy

I was asking specifically about thrusts mentioned as initial attacks...first strikes. There seems, to me, to be a very heavy emphasis on cuts as first strikes....and that why I expressed a belief that this is because a thrust, even a successful one, does not usually offer you protection against a sword held in a cutting guard like Vom Tag. So the idea is that the German masters only advocated first strikes that served as both offense and defense, which the cheap shots like the one I tested against the pork certainly aren't.

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David Welch




Location: Knoxville TN
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Reading list: 14 books

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2007 4:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Outstanding! It looks like you are doing some great work!

We live close to a slaughter house and have been using pig arms and shoulders for cutting.

We have also been in contact with The University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Center ( this is actually the birthplace of modern scientific forensics ) and have put together quite a bit of information about "test cutting".

While cutting on a stand makes it easier, we try to be careful to avoid the "anvil effect" when doing so. On of the things we do when cutting for data, is to hang the piece. If you don't want it swinging around you can hang it with a rope on top and use a piece of bungee cord on the bottom ties to a weight or block. You can also wire it to a long pole and have someone hold it for uberhaw.

More pictures... please!

David Welch

"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Travis Canaday




Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2007 12:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:

But they are still minor compared to the meisterhau. Dobringer, for example, says over and over that you should only use five strikes. A thrust is not one of the five. That would imply a very heavy emphasis on cuts in the intial attack.


Michael Edelson wrote:

I was asking specifically about thrusts mentioned as initial attacks...first strikes. There seems, to me, to be a very heavy emphasis on cuts as first strikes....and that why I expressed a belief that this is because a thrust, even a successful one, does not usually offer you protection against a sword held in a cutting guard like Vom Tag. So the idea is that the German masters only advocated first strikes that served as both offense and defense, which the cheap shots like the one I tested against the pork certainly aren't.



Ringeck on the Zornhau (From Secrets):

“When your adversary strikes at you from his right side with an Oberhau, counter with a strike of wrath from your right shoulder against it. Strike with your long edge and in your strong (Note that you are striking his sword not him. ME). When he is soft at the sword then, thrust into his face along his blade.”

I realize that Döbringer emphasized not to attack the sword, but the person. The above example of the Zornhau would clearly not fit into this category as the hitting of the guy’s sword followed by a thrust is done with one constant movement in one fencing time and the point always threatening.

So right there we have a master *strike* that is explicitly described as ending in a thrust. When you say that a thrust is not one of the five Meisterhau, I think you are really missing the point (no pun intended… really). As with the Zornhau, the Schielhau when used to break a Pflug or Langenort, is explicitly described as ending in a thrust. What makes the Meisterhau so special is that they defend as they attack. It does not matter which of the Drei Wunder you use… that will just depend on the situation. Out of the five master strikes, only the Krumphau would take an additional movement to end with a thrust.

Travis
View user's profile Send private message
F. Carl Holz




Location: someplace out on the water (and probably not able to access my PM)
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2007 1:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

this is one of the more fascinating discussions I've read and has proved most enlightening. I am curious to see the results of any similar tests.

I was very impressed with the method and documentation done. Bravo!
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2007 3:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Travis Canaday wrote:
Michael Edelson wrote:

But they are still minor compared to the meisterhau. Dobringer, for example, says over and over that you should only use five strikes. A thrust is not one of the five. That would imply a very heavy emphasis on cuts in the intial attack.


Michael Edelson wrote:

I was asking specifically about thrusts mentioned as initial attacks...first strikes. There seems, to me, to be a very heavy emphasis on cuts as first strikes....and that why I expressed a belief that this is because a thrust, even a successful one, does not usually offer you protection against a sword held in a cutting guard like Vom Tag. So the idea is that the German masters only advocated first strikes that served as both offense and defense, which the cheap shots like the one I tested against the pork certainly aren't.



Ringeck on the Zornhau (From Secrets):

“When your adversary strikes at you from his right side with an Oberhau, counter with a strike of wrath from your right shoulder against it. Strike with your long edge and in your strong (Note that you are striking his sword not him. ME). When he is soft at the sword then, thrust into his face along his blade.”

I realize that Döbringer emphasized not to attack the sword, but the person. The above example of the Zornhau would clearly not fit into this category as the hitting of the guy’s sword followed by a thrust is done with one constant movement in one fencing time and the point always threatening.

So right there we have a master *strike* that is explicitly described as ending in a thrust. When you say that a thrust is not one of the five Meisterhau, I think you are really missing the point (no pun intended… really). As with the Zornhau, the Schielhau when used to break a Pflug or Langenort, is explicitly described as ending in a thrust. What makes the Meisterhau so special is that they defend as they attack. It does not matter which of the Drei Wunder you use… that will just depend on the situation. Out of the five master strikes, only the Krumphau would take an additional movement to end with a thrust.


Hi Travis,

That is a counter, not an attack...I only point this out because I am well aware of thrusts as counter attacks in the system...practically every strike can end in a thrust.

I was looking for an example of a thrust as an initial attack in the Vor.

The Scheilhau is a better example, though, as it is in the Vor. Still, it is a cut that ends in a thrust, rather than a pure thrust. I did, however, find a reference to an attack to the hands (in CHT's Secrets):

"When he strikes an Oberhau look at his head, as if you inted to strike him there. But then strike against his blow with the short edge and srike at the hands with your point, along his blade."

Also a thrust, but also a thrust after a cut.

Thrusts after the cut are everywhere in Ringeck, Dobringer, etc.

I really would like to know more about thrusting, as in just thrusting (not cutting first), as an initial attack.

New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/


Last edited by Michael Edelson on Sat 10 Feb, 2007 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Michael Edelson




Location: New York
Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,032

PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2007 3:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

While I'm here I just wanted to say thank to everyone for the kind words and encouraging comments. I feel priveledged to be able to share such information and have even a small bit of good come out of it.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com

Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stephen Hand




Location: Hobart, Australia
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2007 4:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This same discussion is going on in another forum and over there I raised the English technique the thrust single. If you use a sword in two hands your reach is reduced because at maximum extension your sword extends from the apex of a triangle (formed by your arms and your chest). The same sword used single handed will have longer reach because the single arm can form a straight line to the opponent. Attacking with the sword in the rear hand alone increases the reach further.

Various English quarterstaff and longsword sources mention the thrust single, where your opponent believes himself to be out of close distance (i.e. you can't reach him without moving your feet) and is in fact out of close distance if the sword (or staff) is used two handed but is still in range of the sword used single handed. You release the front hand, thrust forward and immediately spring backwards giving you time to recover your sword. This technique specifically uses thrusts, not cuts, but on occasion a thrust will miss and you will cut the arm. The fact that you are told to run away immediately after delivering this attack indicates that the results are not certain, even with a thrust.

Cheers
Stephen

Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield

Stoccata School of Defence
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2007 5:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Hand wrote:
This same discussion is going on in another forum and over there I raised the English technique the thrust single. If you use a sword in two hands your reach is reduced because at maximum extension your sword extends from the apex of a triangle (formed by your arms and your chest). The same sword used single handed will have longer reach because the single arm can form a straight line to the opponent. Attacking with the sword in the rear hand alone increases the reach further.

Various English quarterstaff and longsword sources mention the thrust single, where your opponent believes himself to be out of close distance (i.e. you can't reach him without moving your feet) and is in fact out of close distance if the sword (or staff) is used two handed but is still in range of the sword used single handed. You release the front hand, thrust forward and immediately spring backwards giving you time to recover your sword. This technique specifically uses thrusts, not cuts, but on occasion a thrust will miss and you will cut the arm. The fact that you are told to run away immediately after delivering this attack indicates that the results are not certain, even with a thrust.

Cheers
Stephen


I've been re-reading the Spada II Partisan article and I think I'm starting to understand the Punta Scanciata (flung trust ) and the Punta Cambiata ( thrust with hand-exchange ) instructions: Funny how reading these things the whole sequence seems difficult to understand as a series of sequential actions i.e. open the lead hand push with the rear hand, hands change leads pull back on the other side etc ... ( condensing that a lot and maybe telling it wrong )

Now with my 8' long Langue de Boeuf in a small room trying to practice these moves is almost impossible except in very controlled slow motion, but this kind of move doesn't seem do-able slowly because a heavy polearm won't stay horizontal for long when held by one hand near the butt end.

So just reading the instructions and mentally trying it out it seemed hard to understand exactly what the sequence of movements are or feel like. Confused Yesterday I was playing with my much shorter and lighter A & A javelin and it worked well when I stopped thinking about what my hands were doing and positioned and what motions each was supposed to do. What did work was thinking about the objective itself of throwing the point forward and then withdrawing it as fast as possible either to the same side or switching sides and lead hands: The hands ended up doing what is described in the text after the fact. ( I think this may apply to training in general: First one must have a clear idea of the whole sequence of motions as one action or goal before it can be done right or smoothly ? )

With swords the same thing works by just holding on to the pommel ( pommel type makes this easy or hard ).

Oh, this is feedback by someone who hasn't done any more than read ( superficially so far ) a few training books and viewed the Ochs DVD so ( disclaimer ) I'm in no way qualified to get into a detailed discussion or critique of arms techniques except at a beginners level or at best hopefully " clever " guesswork.

Note: i just started reading your book on English Swordsmanship. Wink

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,121

PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb, 2007 11:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen,

Not that I am pro or anything in swordfighting but that never heard nor thought of this until now. It makes a great deal of sense. I will have to look into its uses perhaps. Of course after you use it a few times your sparing partner will then know the move and probably add a little more care in his defence.

Michael,
Very interesting read. Do you know the thickness of the padding before it was sewn shut or the weight of the cotton batting they use? Compressed padding I have worked on seems to make a big difference, though by the looks of the gash probably not a big enough difference. I have been getting quite a few inches crammed in but have reached a ceiling as the sewing machine is only so high and I am not going to hand sew it. Just a thought as your looking for feed back. I never used pigs feet before but pre BBQ we got some beef ribs and took some cuts. Next time I will look into video and pictures for sure. When I lived in South america we butchered alot of our own meat and I wish I had thought to do some tests on fresh meat.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Sun 11 Feb, 2007 4:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Edelson wrote:
Besides Krump, are there any initial attacks in Liechtenauer that target the hands or legs (I would seriously doubt legs, considering all that overreaching stuff)?


Here's the thing: It is rare that attacks in the manuscripts describe an initial attack at all. The majority of the Liechtenauer manuscripts say things such as, "From the bind, do this...", or, "If he has done this, do this..." The initial attack is rarely described because, quite frankly, you can do just about anything you want on the initial attack, provided that you keep yourself safe.

Quote:

Quote:

An interesting note, though, is that the later Italian sword arts seem to have almost purely no cuts to body, only to the extremities (limbs and head). Every attack to the body is a thrust. This is true across the board from rapiers to the full sized two-handers.


That is interesting. When you say later, how much later do you mean? 16th Century?


Very late 15th century and throughout the Renaissance. I don't know much about the medieval Italian sources, so I'll leave that to others.

Quote:
This I really need help with. Where are these thrusts mentioned?


As I mentioned above, a better question is, "Where are the initial attacks mentioned?" Because so many of the techniques that are actually detailed are counterattacks, or attacks from the bind, you could have performed any of the three wounders as the initial movement and found yourself in the positions described in the manuscripts.

Quote:
Christian never taught that one as a thrust (at least not to me)...from what I understood, it is a cut to the shoulder. I've also heard it described as "just put the tip on his shoulder lightly', but never as a thrust.


Actually, I have to apologize, I typed faster than I was thinking. I meant the schielhau against the langen ort, where you "squint to the point and take the throat". This is a thrust, and it is an initial attack. Though in regards to using it against a "buffalo", one can infer based on the system that it can be done as a thrust if the distance calls for it to be.

Quote:
I've never seen that described either....I thought zwerchau was always a cut. Where is all this stuff and why am I missing it? Happy


Despite the namesake, the master strikes are not always strikes. They can be any of the three wounders. Here is where we have to look at the system as a whole, though, and not just at the specific technique description. If we look at when Liechtenauer describes a zwerchau being used against Vom Tag, he says it breaks the guard, and that's about it. He doesn't say it has to be a strike, though quite often it clearly has to be. But what if you're already in Ochs, closing off the line of attack from an oberhau? Do you helicoptor your blade all the way around and give your opponent a huge tempo, something that would violate the principles of the system? We can accomplish exactly what Liechtenauer wants us to do by thrusting in this case, which puts us in the exact same position. Perhaps some wouldn't define it as a zwerchau anymore, but considering how loose the masters were with terminology, I feel it's safe to say Liechtenauer would have considered it as such based on a broad overview of the system. Even if we don't call it a zwerchau, it still fits exactly what Liechtenauer wants us to do: Take the initiative, keep oneself alive by closing off the line, and break the guard.

Quote:
But isn't it fair to say that there is a very heavy emphasis on cutting as the initial attack?


To a degree, yes. I do think that the fact that the five strikes are in fact called strikes is definately telling. I do think the masters placed a lot of emphasis on the strike (at least in unarmoured longsword, anway... sword and buckler is a different animal). But I don't think we should assume that the strike was always used to initiate an attack (or even incredibly predominant) simply because there are too many examples of times where the system leaves room for any of the wounders, dependent on the system.

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Travis Canaday




Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun 11 Feb, 2007 10:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well put Bill,

Bill Grandy wrote:

Despite the namesake, the master strikes are not always strikes. They can be any of the three wounders. Here is where we have to look at the system as a whole, though, and not just at the specific technique description. If we look at when Liechtenauer describes a zwerchau being used against Vom Tag, he says it breaks the guard, and that's about it. He doesn't say it has to be a strike, though quite often it clearly has to be. But what if you're already in Ochs, closing off the line of attack from an oberhau? Do you helicoptor your blade all the way around and give your opponent a huge tempo, something that would violate the principles of the system? We can accomplish exactly what Liechtenauer wants us to do by thrusting in this case, which puts us in the exact same position. Perhaps some wouldn't define it as a zwerchau anymore, but considering how loose the masters were with terminology, I feel it's safe to say Liechtenauer would have considered it as such based on a broad overview of the system. Even if we don't call it a zwerchau, it still fits exactly what Liechtenauer wants us to do: Take the initiative, keep oneself alive by closing off the line, and break the guard.


This was the point I was trying to make.

You can use the master cuts to break the guards, and that might finish it right there. But basically the guy is not going to let you just hit in the head (usually), so you're going to end up in a bind. That's when you use Fühlen to know what to do next, and then do it quickly. That’s Indes doing what your heart desires.

Travis
View user's profile Send private message
Jeff Gentry




Location: Columbus ohio
Joined: 05 Sep 2004

Posts: 29

PostPosted: Mon 12 Feb, 2007 2:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hey Michael

Quote:
But they are still minor compared to the meisterhau. Dobringer, for example, says over and over that you should only use five strikes. A thrust is not one of the five. That would imply a very heavy emphasis on cuts in the intial attack.



That is only partialy true what he actualy say's is "Therefore Lichtenauer say's that only five strike's and other technique's should you use in real fencing."

The other technique's are these and they are listed in Doeringer on pg 23 r

The 5 strike's

versetzen
nochreisen
Uberlaufen
Durchwechsel
zuck
Durchlaufen
Abschneiden
Hendetrucken
hengen
winding
Blossen

So I think in all reality this is the whole system, this list is also in Ringeck, I think the book's are telling us how and why these work and the principal's behind them all the "technique's" are just example's of some way's to do the above..


Jeff

“Princes and Lords learn to survive with this art, in earnest and in play. But if you are fearful, then you should not learn to fence. Because a despondent heart will always be defeated, regardless of all skill.”
- Fechtmeister Sigmund Ringeck, 1440
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Mon 12 Feb, 2007 12:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Travis Canaday wrote:

Ringeck on the Zornhau (From Secrets):

“When your adversary strikes at you from his right side with an Oberhau, counter with a strike of wrath from your right shoulder against it. Strike with your long edge and in your strong (Note that you are striking his sword not him. ME). When he is soft at the sword then, thrust into his face along his blade.”

I realize that Döbringer emphasized not to attack the sword, but the person. The above example of the Zornhau would clearly not fit into this category as the hitting of the guy’s sword followed by a thrust is done with one constant movement in one fencing time and the point always threatening.

So right there we have a master *strike* that is explicitly described as ending in a thrust. When you say that a thrust is not one of the five Meisterhau, I think you are really missing the point (no pun intended… really). As with the Zornhau, the Schielhau when used to break a Pflug or Langenort, is explicitly described as ending in a thrust. What makes the Meisterhau so special is that they defend as they attack. It does not matter which of the Drei Wunder you use… that will just depend on the situation. Out of the five master strikes, only the Krumphau would take an additional movement to end with a thrust.

Travis

I disagree with your interpretation of Ringeck. In the Zorn-to-Zorn counter, or any other technique, why would you past up a chance to cut your adversary? Is this art not about violent personal combat? Is it not about brutally cutting the adversary and ending his life before he can do the same to you? I think Ringeck would wanted his students to cut their adversaries whenever they were given the chance. How many chances does a man get when fighting for his life?

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
View user's profile Send private message
Travis Canaday




Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 147

PostPosted: Mon 12 Feb, 2007 2:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Pleasant wrote:

I disagree with your interpretation of Ringeck. In the Zorn-to-Zorn counter, or any other technique, why would you past up a chance to cut your adversary? Is this art not about violent personal combat? Is it not about brutally cutting the adversary and ending his life before he can do the same to you? I think Ringeck would wanted his students to cut their adversaries whenever they were given the chance. How many chances does a man get when fighting for his life?

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW


Randall,

That is not my interpretation, that is what Ringeck says. Catch his sword on your strong and thrust along his blade. This the first thing Ringeck says about the zornhau.

If you can cut the guy down right off the bat, than sure, do it. However everything you do should protect yourself as well (your sword is your shield, not just a weapon). I would think Ringeck would want his students to stay alive, not just kill their adversaries. Is a thrust to the face or chest not brutal enough for you? How about a deep slice to the throat or wrists?

As I said above, the meisterhaue can be used to break the guards, which might finish the job right there. And even if it doesn’t, you still protected yourself as you attacked, and you have your opponent on the defense. Then you work from there. As Bill said, initial attacks aren’t really mentioned in the fight books. I believe this is because most people aren’t going to just stand there and let you cut or stab them down, so you will end up in some kind of bind. Nobody needs a manual or much practice to learn how to kill a person with a sword. It’s the part about keeping yourself alive that requires skill and knowledge of the art. Rushing in, sword swinging wildly will get you killed quickly if you are fighting someone who knows what they are doing.

Travis
View user's profile Send private message
Christian Henry Tobler




Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Mon 12 Feb, 2007 7:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Travis!

This is not only what Ringeck says, it's also in von Danzig, and explicitly illustrated in Paulus Kal, who captions it with the first line of Liechtenauer's verse for the Zornhau. Here's Master Kal:



But then, you already knew that...Wink

To answer Randall's question, while all three wounders *can* be brought to bear in this technique, it's likely described with the thrust because this ensures the greatest safety: if your opponent strikes while you hang back, defend with your blade's strong, and thrust to his face (in one single, imperfect time), you've the advantage of measure and leverage. This is an amazingly safe and effective technique, and once practiced, armed with this alone, you'll take out 98% of the completely to moderately untrained - I fought one tournament performing mostly this technique and the results were astounding.

All the best,

Christian

PS. I just received my advance copy of Kal, so you should see it at the end of the month! I think you'll be happy with the results.

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Travis Canaday




Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 147

PostPosted: Mon 12 Feb, 2007 7:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
PS. I just received my advance copy of Kal, so you should see it at the end of the month! I think you'll be happy with the results.


Awesome! I can't wait.

Travis
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Tue 13 Feb, 2007 12:20 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Travis Canaday wrote:
That is not my interpretation, that is what Ringeck says. Catch his sword on your strong and thrust along his blade. This the first thing Ringeck says about the zornhau.

If you can cut the guy down right off the bat, than sure, do it. However everything you do should protect yourself as well (your sword is your shield, not just a weapon). I would think Ringeck would want his students to stay alive, not just kill their adversaries. Is a thrust to the face or chest not brutal enough for you? How about a deep slice to the throat or wrists?

As I said above, the meisterhaue can be used to break the guards, which might finish the job right there. And even if it doesn’t, you still protected yourself as you attacked, and you have your opponent on the defense. Then you work from there. As Bill said, initial attacks aren’t really mentioned in the fight books. I believe this is because most people aren’t going to just stand there and let you cut or stab them down, so you will end up in some kind of bind. Nobody needs a manual or much practice to learn how to kill a person with a sword. It’s the part about keeping yourself alive that requires skill and knowledge of the art. Rushing in, sword swinging wildly will get you killed quickly if you are fighting someone who knows what they are doing.

Travis

At the end of the following video John Clements performs a Zorn-to-Zorn counter cut just as you describe (please correct me if you perfrom it differently) and finished in a postion very similar to what is shown in the Paulus Kal image provided by Christian. However, John also states that he pulled his cut so as to not hit his training partner but that in a real fight he would have extended his arms so as to cut his adversary. In both cases his cut protected him by displacing the adversary's blade.

http://www.thearma.org/photos/Gathering03/G03Vids/JCdemclips.mov

For safety reasons, ARMA members perform this technique in the same manner during drills, etc. In sparring and free play, when we are wearing head protection, we go for the cut. And of course, if we fail to cut we then follow up with a thrust as described by Ringeck. So now the question to ask yourself is, In a fight for your life would you perform the Zorn-to-Zorn techique in the same manner as we do in training for safety sake? When you attempts to cut the adversary in this technique does the point of your sword not threaten the adversary twice as much?

Respectfully,

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Test – off-hand longsword cuts vs. pork arms
Page 2 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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