|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Martin Siber’s Fight-Lore of 1491 AD A sword and buckler thesis on the Fechtlehre
from Handschrift M I 29 (Codex Speyer) at the University of by Jeffrey Hull Foreword
The Fechtlehre (fight-lore) of Martin Siber is
part of the Handschrift M I 29 now
residing at Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg.
This Fechtbuch (fight-book)
was originally put to paper by Hans von Speyer, its compiler and editor, in
the southwestern area of A fine
transcript of the whole Codex Speyer by Beatrix Koll of Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg is posted at:
http://www.ubs.sbg.ac.at/sosa/webseite/fechtbuch.htm. I thank her for her inspiring work
and gracious help, and encourage others to view it. At one time Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg had posted its
own high-quality colour facsimile of Codex Speyer on the Web. Uni-Salz no longer does but hopefully
someday they may post it again. Also,
I thank Monika Maziarz for sharing her personal transcript of Siber for
helpful comparison. Ultimately,
I chose to do my own original transcript of Siber’s fight-lore based upon the
manuscript-facsimile of Codex Speyer, so that I could trust the unity
and validity of my own work. Thus I made transcription of the Middle High-German manuscript
and translations into New High-German and into New English. Also, I interpreted Siber’s
fight-lore, by trying to let it lead me where it would. I have striven to render the text with
regard for the literary, the historic and the martial. Although its wording is lively, this
fight-lore unfortunately has no original pictures to go along with it – and
thus I provide interpretive photographs as well. I also made a prose rendering as
training-regimen. I have done my best to
understand
the fight-lore and to present such to the reader by this thesis. Siber’s
fight-lore consists of his teachings on the martial art of sword and shield (Schwert und Schild), which in his time
was part of the greater German Kunst
des Fechtens (art of fighting). I
hope to show Siber’s fight-lore in context of the greater KdF by my
multi-disciplinary interpretation. Any mistakes are mine. Siber’s
fight-lore has wry poetry, ironic verse and prose – the wording starkly
free-flowing, earnest yet playful. It
stands astride the blurred border betwixt the Medieval and the Renaissance,
as a cryptic yet distilled nexus of the variety of European fencing
technique, bidding one to make further study of the larger fight-books, even
as it stands on its own as esoteric regimen.
I hope that my translation is faithful to the original meaning of
Siber, and shall prove worthy to the scholar, the fighter, and the poet. Jeffrey
Hull August
2004 ***** Martin Siber: Fechtlehre (1r-3r of Codex
***** Translation
(Deutsch): Martin
Siber: Fechtlehre (1r-3r
aus Codex Speyer von 1491 AD) Also Meister Martin Siber hat die hernache geschriebene
neue Zedel gemacht und gesetzt. Es ist
ein Zug aus mancherleien Meisters Gefechten.
Es ist geteilt und gesetzt in sechs Gänge. Und in der Zedel sind der Ochs und der
Pflug und der Schädelhau, aber nicht also als in der ersten Zedel des Buches,
sondern einander Auslegung. Nun heb
sich an die Vorrede und Lehre der Zedel, und danach, die sechs Gänge. Werauchimmer will Ehre vor Fürsten und vor Herren in
dem Fechten mit dem Schwert erweben, der ist gut und gerecht, wer folgt
meiner Lehre, der ist gesegnet immermehr.
Die sechs Gänge halten Hut, die sind gar preislich gut, in den ist
wohles Begreifen der List viel manches guttes Meisters: aus Ungern, Böhmen, Italia, aus Frankreich,
England und Alemannia, aus Rußland, Preußen, Griekia, Holland, Provanz und
Schwaben. In den Gänge sollst du link treten, dabei gedenk der
Verführung. Im Stechen dring stark, so
mag es dir wohl gelingen. Wenn du
Fenster sichst, steh offen, sieh hinein, geh davon, schlag und stich schnell,
so magst du dich hartgefällt. In der
Arbeit umtritt – so daß ein Gefährte macht-mit. Willst du dich mehr anheben und einstärken,
also mußt du Recht haben, aber Vernunft ist auch gut. Behüt dich von großem Zorn, bring
Versetzung zu solcher, dadurch mag es dir wohl gelingen wenn in allem deinem
Fechten du behende bist. Dieser
Vorlehre hat ein Ende. Der erste Gang Schnell die Schwäche zur Rechte Durch-wind im Fechten Den Schneller tu mit Macht Zu beiden Seiten zweifach Seinen Schild stark verwind Den Bogen stoßschlag geschwind In aller Arbeit umtritt Den rechten Bogen stoß mit Der andere Gang Krümm in deiner Stärke Durch-wind mit Merken Wind und überlauf Verwappnen Ort und Knauf Stich ihm zu dem Gesicht Mit dem Kreuz arbeit und ficht Des verführenden Knaufs sollst du gedenken Auf seinem Haupt machst du ihn kränken In aller Arbeit umtritt So daß ein Gefährte macht-mit Der dritte Gang Schiel was von Dach kommt Durch Zwerch geht nicht Krump Darin schau seine Sache Den Schielhau tu mit Macht Ab-nimm gar behende In der Stärke der Klingen Droh den Hau wider ihn Den Schild ihm stark verdring Mit Überlaufen ihn bezwing In aller Arbeit umtritt So daß ein Gefährte macht-mit Der vierte Gang Den Ochsen durchstoß Mit zwei Schritten groß Wind und widerwind Den Schädelhau mach geschwind Den Treffer bald schlag In den Bauch und auf den Nack In aller Arbeit umtritt So daß ein Gefährte macht-mit Der fünfte Gang Durchstich den Langort Zück wieder-stich denn Mort Den Blindhau laß prallen So magst du wohl gehen und wallen Häng wider also bald Hintertritt und widerschnell Auf den Kopf und in den Bauch So machst du aus ihm einen rechten Gauch In aller Arbeit umtritt So daß ein Gefärhte macht-mit Der sechste Gang Vom Dach lang und durch-fahr Mit Verwinden dich bewahr Zwerch durch ihm gar bald Denn Blindhau wieder-schnell Den Ort hau in seiner Brust Nach allem ist er deinen Verlust In aller Arbeit umtritt So daß ein Gefährte macht-mit Ende usw. Oberhau ist für Stiche Unterhau Schläge bricht Mittelhau in die Weite Nun lug was das bedeutet Im Wechselhau sucht die Geuche Nach der Versetzung späh Sturzhau darin zu winden Willst du ihm das Antlitz bloß finden So aus dem Schädler Schlag die kurze Schneide dar Unter ihm Sturzhau verkehr Dar ihn stich und lehr Im Eisenpforte nimm wahr Mit dem Ort auf-fahr Bring auch mal ins Einhorn dar Dien Rosen im Rädelin Zück die Tressen gegen guten Sinn Triff mit Schildhau Flügel geht oben Wecker will stehen Treiben und Streichen wollen gehen Ehekommen und Nachreisen sind die Sitte Schnellen Überlauf und die Schnitte Das ist eine gemeine Lehre Daran du dich kehr Die tut Wissen Die Kunst und Kunde preisen ***** Translation (English):
Martin Siber: Fight-Lore (1r-3r from Codex Thusly Master
Martin Siber has made and set the new summary written hereafter. It is a teaming of manifold masterly
skirmishes. It is dealt and set into
six goings. And in the summary are the
ox, the plough, and the skull-hew – not thus as in the first summary of the
book, rather together in explanation.
Now heave yourself at the foreword and the lore of the summary, and
thereafter, the six goings. Whosoever will
earn honour before princes and before lords in fighting with the sword, he is
good and rightful, who follows my lore, he is blessed evermore. The six goings hold wards which are quite
preciously good, wherein is wealful comprehension of the cunning of quite
many goodly masters: from In the goings,
should you tread left, while then, bethink the misleading. In stabbing press strongly, so may you
achieve it well.
When you sight through the window, stand open, see through it, go to it,
strike or stab swiftly, so may you be hard-felled. In the work tread roundabout – thus the
daring fellow wins out. Would you
raise and strengthen yourself: then
you must have the right; yet reason is also good. Ward yourself from great wrath, bring forsetting
to such, thereby may you achieve it well when in all your
fighting you are nimble. This forelore
ends. The first going Speed the weak
to the right Wind through
amid the fight Do the speeder
with might To both sides
twice Overwind his
shield strongly Thrust-strike
from bow swiftly In all work
tread roundabout Thrust with the
right-side bow The second
going Crumple within
your strong Wind through
with marking Wind and
overlope Forweaponed
point and knop Stab him in the
face With the cross
work and fight Should you
bethink the misleading knop Then you make
him ill upon his top In all work
tread roundabout Thus the daring
fellow wins out The third going Squint at what
comes from roof Through
thwarter goes not crumpler Look into his
business Do the
squint-hew with might Offtake rather
nimbly Within the
strong of the blades Threaten the
hew against him Strongly
advance the shield at him Overcome him
with overloping In all work
tread roundabout Thus the daring
fellow wins out The fourth going Thrust the ox
through With two big
steps Wind and
counter-wind Swiftly make
the skull-hew Strike that
hitter straight away In the belly
and upon the neck In all work
tread roundabout Thus the daring
fellow wins out The fifth going Stab the long-point
through Withdraw stab
again then morte Let the
blind-hew bounce So may you go
well and flow Hang against
thus soon Hintertread and
speed against At the head and
to the bread-box Thus you make
of him a real gawk In all work
tread roundabout Thus the daring
fellow wins out The sixth going From roof reach
and fare through With
overwinding ward yourself Thwart through
him really soon Then blind-hew
speed anew Beat the point
into his breast Finally he has
lost In all work
tread roundabout Thus the daring
fellow wins out Finis, etc. Overhew is for
stabs Underhew breaks
strikes Middlehew in
the width Now look out
for what that means In changing-hew
seek his folly For the
forsetting spy Pounce-hew
therein by winding His bare face
you want for finding So from out the
skuller Strike with
short-edge there Invert
pounce-hew beneath There him stab
and teach In iron-gate
make wary Fare up with
the point Offer at times
in unicorn Serve roses
inside the roundling Tug the tresses
against good sense Hit with shield-hew Wing goes above Waker will
stand Driving and
striking will go Erstcoming and
nextraiding beknown Speeding
overlope and slashes as well That is basic
lore To which you
turn It makes wisdom Which art and
knowledge praise ***** Photos: As there were no original illustrations
accompanying Siber’s fight-lore, I went ahead and had some made of myself doing the wards as I understood them. These pictures are meant to serve as guides
to how the main wards and so forth were likely to have been done. The fighter’s own body, experience and
idiosyncrasies may call for some variation.
In the course of moving – which stills cannot show – through the wards
in offence and defence, one shall go more deeply into stance, or may even go
more upright, not to mention the movement of the weaponry. The pictures should be taken as working
guides, and are meant as a workable portrayal.
***** Interpretation: By
“interpretation” I mean this: to explain
the meaning of something as best I know or think. The fight-lore of Siber should be
realised by live training
at speed and strength. As the text of
the fight-lore has no illustrations, we cannot see with some
visualised certainty what
is meant by the words. Indeed, we
cannot train now with Siber, nor with anyone living
or dead who unbrokenly followed his martial tradition. However, by comparison to other sword and
shield sources, namely Walpurgis (WP) (about 1300 AD), Johannes Liechtenauer
and Sigmund Ringeck (JLSR) (1389 & 1440 AD), Hans Talhoffer (HT) (1459
& 1467 AD), Paul Kal (PK) (1462-82 AD), Jörg Sorg (JS) (1523 AD), and
George Silver (GS) (1598 AD); by contextual reading and philological
comparison; and by safe, authentic, earnest physical practice of likely
techniques and tactics; then hopefully a valid, accurate, and worthy
rendering may be had of what Siber meant.
Thus my rendering serves as a guide rather than the final word. Indeed, as hopefully my understanding of
the art of fighting grows, I may need to change my thinking as time passes to
better fit the truth of Siber’s teaching.
Lastly, as this fight-lore was indeed for fight-training, then be
warned that any and all training at things described herein is strictly and
rightfully one’s own responsibility.
Whether with wasters, blunts, or sharps, training is at the fighter’s
own risk. Safety, trust, and awareness
betwixt training partners are paramount.
This lore was for teaching men armed with sword and shield how to
kill. Anyone who misunderstands this
warning should not take up such weaponry. Martin Siber: Fight-Lore (1r-3r from Codex It seems that
Siber’s Fight-Lore was finally
written down, at least in part, in 1491 AD.
It consists of foreword, goings, and poem (which itself bears same
title), and could be thought of as a small yet dense fencing work-book. It is 3 leaves of an unnamed 158 leaf
manuscript which may be called the Codex
Speyer, as it is a compendium of works by various masters up to 1491 AD, as
scribed by Hans von Speyer (`ha:nz fa:n `shpai-er – also spelt Hans von
Spier), his name indicating that he hails from the city on the Rhein. The fight-lore is written in the more
literary manner of its day, in rather cryptic verse – which may prove problematic
for the modern reader. However, this
was probably to give the egevertt (“daring
fellow” – dealt with later) the barest minimum needed of what Siber had
taught him, in an appealing form which he could memorise. Siber does not indicate manner of
clothing. It helps to do this stuff
wearing some sort of workout-suit.
Indeed, it may interest one to wear the equivalent of Siber’s day,
what we may call fechtkleidung (fight-clothing) – which were basically
full-body wambeson-outfits, padded & gussetted yet tailored, either worn
under the Gothic plate-armour (harnisch or rüstung) of that era
or simply for sparring, as seen in HT, Dürer (1520 AD), and Codex
Wallerstein (1470 AD). It is
reasonable to imagine Siber and his egevertt
dressed as such for their praxis.
In any case, the text implies that the fencers are not armoured, and
that they are most definitely afoot. The following
luminaries lived within three generations or so, either side of 1491 AD in
Europe: Bosch; Botticelli; Charles V
of Spain; Copernicus; Dürer; Elizabeth I of England; Erasmus; Giorgio;
Grünewald; Gutenberg; Henry VII & Henry VIII of England; Ivan III of
Russia; Jeanne d’Arc; Leo X; Leonardo; Louis XI of France; Loyola; Luther;
Machiavelli; Malory; Matthias of Hungary; Maximillian I of Austria; Medicis
Cosimo & Lorenzo; Michelangelo; More; Pius II (Sylvius); Rabelais;
Raphael; Titian; and Vlad IV of Wallachia.
Events such as the Capture of Byzantium by the Turks happened 38 years
before, the Battle of Bosworth ended the English Wars of Roses just 6 years
before, the Granada Conquest of the Spaniards finished the next year, German
& Austrian civil-wars were ongoing, the German-French Wars for Burgundy
& Italy were ongoing, and the Teutonic Order waned to extinction within
34 years after centuries of warfare. Siber
introduces his method, gives encouragement, and some techniques & tactics
in the foreword; he provides technical scenarios or matches in the goings,
with reference to tactics; and he gives tactical advice in the poem, with
reference to technique. Siber’s
fight-lore has to do with Medieval & Renaissance European sword and
shield wielded in deadly pair. Siber
uses the term Swertt (sword or shortsword) once; and the term schilt
or schiltt (shield or buckler) thrice; and the term redlin
(roundling or buckler) once. I think
that my essay shall show how – in context, by cross-reference, and in active
interpretation – these amount to weaponry for sword
and buckler fencing. Now, the
fight-books generally assume sword in right-hand and shield in left-hand, and
all techniques seem described accordingly, though one can certainly do so
either way. Naturally, the shield is
mainly for “forsetting” (dwl), the sword is mainly for “striking”, though the
shield may strike, and the sword may forset. According to
Siber there are three basic ways of schlagen or streichen (striking): Hew (hauw):
cleaving by a sundering edge-strike of the blade. Slash (schnidtt): cutting by a drawing, pushing or raking
edge-strike of the blade. Stab (stich) or Thrust (stos): piercing by a
penetrating point-strike of the blade. These strikes
are the drei wunder or “three-wonders” of KdF. It is worth considering the serious nature
of the ubiquitous schlag in Siber, as I think the linguistics
reveal: schlag is akin to UT slahan and OE slean = slaying;
OE slecg = hammer; ON slatr = slaughter and NHD schlachten =
slaughtering. Though usually it
indicates a strike done by swinging a weapon, Siber utilises schlag contextually
to mean any of the various drei wunder. Sometimes Siber tells the fighter to smite
the foe with a single decisive strike, sometimes with multiple attritional
strikes. WP calls thrusts or stabs fixura or stich, and strikes plaga or
slach. It should go
without saying that striking is the utmost thing to do in swordsmanship – for
it is how the fighter fells the foe. In KdF there
are three basic “timings” of vor, indes, nach (before, during, after) which are all found in some fashion
in Siber’s lessons. Simply put, the
timings tell you when to attack relative to when the foe may or does attack. WP calls them prior, in actu, sequi.
JLSR maintain that all strikes should be “during-time”, and indeed, that: Indes tut in der
kunst waß dein hertz begert during-time does in the art what desires
your heart Siber’s tactics
tend to agree. Thusly Master
Martin Siber has made and set the new summary written hereafter. It seems that Master
Martin Siber (`ma:r-ti:n `zi:-ber) was a master
(meinster) of fighting or
fencing. Hardly anything is known of
Martin Siber beyond his fight-lore. If
his surname means “sifter”, thus some sort of flour-miller, then perhaps he
came from a humble working family. It
is unknown whether he was the free-fighter over his own fight-school, or the
master-of-arms for the army of some atheling.
Or maybe Siber was simply some nameless backcountry fighter. However, a comparison of Siber’s work to
the aforesaid works of other masters finds them in much agreement about
principles of fighting. Also, note
that the title of Master or Meister
in Now the new summary (dÿ...nüwe zettel) implies concise or condensed “lessons or teaching” presented
in revised fashion – in other words, Siber’s fight-lore. The zettel
or zedel of JLSR and other KdF
share with Siber this sense of summary
– for a given master can write down only so much of his lore, hence at best a
briefing of his greater knowledge no matter how big the work. Also, Siber has made and set this new summary, implying
personally putting it forth the way he wanted. It is a teaming
of manifold masterly skirmishes. It seems the
summary is a teaming (zuck) of masterly skirmishes (meinster
gefechtenn) fought by
many unnamed masters. Maybe this lore
is based upon specific fights that Siber himself had fought and/or
witnessed. Note here that zuck (like NHD Zug) implies meaning of “draught-animals”, indicating the
harnessing together of powerful ideas that work. Siber’s summary seems a distillation of
advanced or esoteric sword & shield fighting. It is dealt and
set into six goings. The summary is
based closely upon the skirmishes which are dealt and set into and thus described by six goings. Each of the goings (geng) is a set
of moves or play of conflict, in active attack-versus-counter between fighter
and foe, which are meant for practice of useful techniques and tactics in
order to teach the fighter how to control sparring and thus win a fight. A going
implies a struggle in motion, not in stasis, also understood as “play;
bout; set; match; scenario”. It is
basically the same as stück (play)
of other KdF sources. The six goings
are set in verse which must have helped the fighter achieve memorising, as
was commonly done at that time with a great deal of various
lore. During this time such
often was not just poetry but song.
The couplets in each going are always of related techniques or
concepts. Even if all couplets in each
going are not necessarily contiguous, they seem at least somewhat
related. The couplets of the goings
and later poem more or less rhyme auf
Deutsch, if not in English, which generally gives some reference to which
lines belong together. Siber’s goings
for sword & shield try to help one resolve specific conflicts but also to
dispel general misconceptions – being not indecisive fencing tic-tac-to, but
rather decisive fighting know-how. Realise
that any given going means to describe but one likely or desired course from
amongst manifold undescribed possibilities.
These goings are like JLSR’s six stücke
and HT’s eleven bilder (pictures), as opposed to a
presentation of a whole system like WP, although WP does call sections
thereof frustus in the sense of
“going”. And in the summary
are the ox, the plough, and the skull-hew – not thus as in the first summary
of the book, rather together in explanation.
Now heave yourself at the foreword and the lore of the summary, and
thereafter, the six goings. So in the summary are both ox and plough – which are each wards (dwl) or stances of
swordsmanship. The ox (ochß) is a ward whereby you stand
left-leg forward and hold the sword with the hilt high and back, such that
the point is aimed at the foe’s face like a bovine horn, with the long-edge
(dwl) horizontally upward, the shield held forth about chest-height facing the
foe. WP shows ox as sexta; it is seen in JS; and something
like it upon the left-side is described by JLSR as one takes up zwayen schilten (twin-shields). The plough (pflug) is a ward whereby you stand with
right-leg forward, hilt at waist-height, sword angled forward and point aimed
upwards at the foe’s face, shield slanted forth at the side of the hilt – the
fighter and his sword looking like the tillman at the plowshare. WP shows plough as halbschilt (half-shield); it is seen in HT & JS and is
described by GS. The skull-hew (scheyttell hauw) or skuller is a basic yet deadly strike. It is the apex-vertical overhew (dwl),
whereby the fighter brings the sword aloft above his own skull, and hews down
with the long-edge into the top of the foe’s skull. This term is akin to NHD Schädel (skull). Hence, the origin and the aim of the deed
lead to this translation – physiology and philology united. Perhaps Siber groups these three techniques
together as the bare minimum needed to fight by swordsmanship. The phrase not
thus as in the first summary (ersten
zettell) seems to tell
of an earlier summary which was part of the
book, some unknown and unnamed work, not the Codex Speyer itself
in which this new summary (nüwe zettel)
appears. However, together in explanation is clear enough – Siber wants to present
the aforesaid three techniques (ox, plough, skull-hew) here in unity, and not
isolated as apparently they were in that earlier book, to help the fighter
learn them as united techniques of changing tactics in the fight. Hence it seems that Siber considers this new
summary in the Codex Speyer better
than the first summary. Was the book an earlier version of Codex Speyer, one that also dealt with
Siber’s teachings? It is presently
impossible to say. Siber speaks
directly to the fighter, by imperative second-person familiar voice (now lost
to modern English – thou & ye), as to student or friend,
telling you to heave yourself (hebt
sich) at the foreword and the
lore...and thereafter, the six goings, perhaps as pun: heave your mind into the summary, as you
would your weapon into the fight. He
may also be suggesting that technique follows tactics, that is, learn the
foreword & poem first (the “lore” per se) and then the goings
afterwards. Whosoever will
earn honour before princes and before lords in fighting with the sword, he is
good and rightful, who follows my lore, he is blessed evermore. Whosoever
will earn honour is simple yet
deep. It seems rather inclusive,
especially for its time, speaking to whatever man (wer) is willing to
undertake swordsmanship, be he high or low.
The word will (will), whether as
modal verb or as noun, with its related meanings of “want to; intend to;
desire to; would”, is the cogency of erstwhile philosophy. Though now ignored or belittled by the
modernist, to Medieval man it was meaningful.
It explains, for example, why That honour (ere) had great meaning during Siber’s time is beyond doubt, arguably
more so than in modern popular culture, and needs no ruminating in this
present essay, other than that a fight-master dealt with it daily more so
than most of his contemporaries. Siber
tells the fighter that he may earn (erwerbenn)
his honour, without some need to be born with it, even before princes and
before lords in fighting with the sword (vor furstenn und vor
hereim Im vechtenn mit dem Swertt)
by learning his fencing lore (lere), as perhaps most men had hitherto been forbidden
to do. This is the idea of a man of
lower class earning honour, which actually would have been part of renewed
thinking of the early Renaissance, whereby a lower-born man need not stay
locked in fealty or thralldom, yet could now better his lot in life with the
implicit right to defend himself. Even the lowest born man, bereft though he
be of aristocratic lineage, could advance himself if by bravery, talent, need
or chance he had proven himself a real fighter, whether in homeland’s militia
or as a freebooting mercenary. Indeed,
by the 15th CentAD, noble knights and peasant levies were giving
way to mercenary soldiery as the preferred sort of army fielded by European
princes & lords. Perhaps a
picture of Irish fighters by Dürer, from 1521 AD, treats of this idea of the
armed common man, as its caption tells: ...Dy Krigermen in
Irlandia hinde England [sehen so aus]...also gend dy Armen in Irlandia... ...The warriors in And so regarding sword & buckler vis-à-vis the common
man, perhaps Shakespeare gives us an idea of their mutuality by his time, if
not far sooner (recall Yeoman), when in Henry IV, Pt 1 (about 1598
AD), Hotspur arrogantly mocks Hal as: ...that same sword-and-buckler Prince of
Wales, ...I would have him poisoned with a pot
of ale. Which was as much as saying: ...may that low-born fighter die, ...by a poisoned low-class drink. What Siber
meant by sword (Swertt) was
likely any of the shorter permutations of Oakeshott-Type XIV, XV, XVI, or
XVIII. Such shorter single-handed
well-tapering double-edged swords were generally of 20-30 inches (50-75 cm)
blade-length, of 2.0-3.5 pounds (0.9-1.6 kg) weight, and were fine for hew,
slash, or thrust, whether fullered, diamond, or mixed-section. In the Bavarian work Liber Chronicarum (1493
AD) we can see woodcut-prints of coeval German arms & armour, notably
here, swords or shortswords of OT-XV or XVIII – for example, that whereby
Lucretia thirls herself. A famous
historical example of the sort of weapon meant would be the sword of Henry V
of To go along
with this sword, one needs a shield – which I deal with now though the thing
actually appears later in the text.
What Siber meant by shield (schilt
or redlin) was
likely a “buckler”. Contextually this
makes sense for the era and the techniques – for honestly, the larger
board-shield of Viking, the kite-shield of Bucklers were
variously shapen – plain & smooth, truncated, pointed, studded, or even
rippled and ridged. Some looked like
crinkly sea-shells as in HT, or like leering demon-masks as in PK or Liber
Chronicarum. Bucklers were about
8-15 inches (20-38 cm) diameter, and 3-5 pounds (1.4-2.3 kg) weight. Most were circles, though some were
squares, diamonds or trapezoids, and some even wing-shaped. Thus the
“shortsword” and “buckler” are what we may rightly take Siber to mean
whenever he says “sword” and “shield”, and would be congruent with what are
clearly shown in WP, HT & JS. This
was a common enough pairing for the fighter of this and previous times,
whether he was knight or freeman on the battlefield, or whether he was
townsman or countryman on street or highway.
Note that measures and remarks
for the actual weaponry that I utilised are in Appendix II. It can be
argued that the legacy of European sword and buckler goes back at least to
the English of 600-800 AD, as bosses with grips spanning no farther than
their girth have been found in England dating to that time in contrast to
other coeval bosses with grips and board-spanning spars united, thus the
former indicative of either being for little shield, or being itself a
buckler. I would argue
that the buckler must have existed amongst the contemporary Irish, since Tain Bo Cuailnge (8th-12th
CentAD) tells often of warriors armed with sword & shield, and
specifically shortsword & buckler.
The weaponry are described vividly, as witness: [Cruscraid] sciath bemmendach go faebor
chondula fair, claideb co n-eltaib det... [Eogan] cromsciath comfaebur chodualach
fair...[is] colg det iarna innud. [Cruscraid] bore a scallop-edged
smiting-shield, and an ivory-gripped sword... [Eogan] bore a curved shield with sharp
plaited rim...[and] tusk-handled dirk. We know that
the shortsword & buckler became ubiquitous throughout ...By his
side a swerd and a bokeler And on that
other side a gay daggere... ...By his
side a sword and a buckler And on that
other side a bright dagger... If the Yeoman
is assumed to be a lightly armoured fighter, being something of a
ranger-sergeant, he is no less warlike for his arming with sword &
buckler, as he is the trusted henchman of the crusading Knight. Indeed, the title character of Udall’s Ralph
Roister Doister (1534-41 AD) speaks inclusively of warring armourial
variety when he remarks: Sirs, see
that my harness, my target, and my shield, Be made as
bright now, as when I was last in field, ...I would
have my sword and harness to shine so bright, That I might therewith
dim mine enemies’ sight... Amid the many
wars between the time of these two literary works –
for example, during the Wars of Roses (1399-1486 AD) – there must have been
many a man armed with sword & buckler.
The serious wielding thereof existed and continued in Germany and
England until about 1650 AD – far longer than in Latinic Europe, obsessed as
it became with rapier and all that
– and even later in Scotland as sword and targe, until about 1750 AD. It was most
likely that any KdF fighter who
fought with sword & shield also knew dagger, and maybe falchion and
longsword (degen, messer, langschwert),
for the manifold fightbooks (fechtbücher)
make quite clear that KdF was a whole myriad of martial arts. These diverse
weaponry shared many of the same techniques & tactics. I hasten to emphasise that the Teutonic swordsman
was also a wrestler – he would have been one from childhood. This was doubtlessly the norm of Siber’s
time, as clearly witnessed by manifold cunning techniques of KdF wrestling (ringen) similar and equal to the best
Japanese Jujitsu, as shown in multiple KdF sources such as JLSR, HT,
Ott’s ringkampf (battle-wrestling) in Codex Speyer, Wallerstein
& Dürer. Frightening description
of deadly Germanic wrestling goes back many centuries before, notably in
hero-sagas like Beowulf. More
about “wrestling” later. In wielding the
sword, I suggest a firm yet supple grip, like a flexible hammer-grip –
certainly not a useless foiling-grip.
In wielding the buckler, I suggest a strong but unhindering grip and
arm. You can vary your sword-grip with
a “thumb-press” as shown in HT, whereby you slip your thumb over the cross
and press at the ridge or fuller of the blade, or by slipping the ring-finger over the cross, either
of which may give better control to a strike. Now some issues which Siber does not
address. There are two basic yet
distinct ways of handling the weaponry in relation to each other: “apart” or “twained”. When apart, the sword strikes
at one place while the shield forsets at another or withdraws to
armour the body. When twained, the
weaponry move together against the same area, the forsetting shield covering
the hilt and hand of striking sword.
Apart seems typical of HT. Twained
seems typical of WP & JS, and JLSR calls it zwayen schilten (twin-shields), though it is arguable whether
JLSR preferred it or not. Furthermore, there are two sorts of
twained-handling: either with wrists
“inline” (hands slightly separate & both thumbs upward) – or with wrists
“crossed” (shield-hand thumb-downward, crossed over or under sword-hand
thumb-upward). Although inline and
crossed differ, the sword-hand & hilting are warded, just at differing
flanks; both sorts are seen in WP & JS; each seems bestly done with a
smaller buckler. Apart-handling lets you withdraw the
shield for sake of momentum aiding sword’s striking-power or merely to keep
stance-balance – though realise that the clever foe could exploit such
opening of the hands & arms, as shown in HT. Yet as per HT, apart lets you overwind
& strike independently.
Incidentally, it is arguable whether your shield faces your flank or
the foe in any given ward. Twained-handling is protective of both
your hands, and aids in keeping your sword & buckler between you and
foe’s sword – essentially the idea behind the constant shifting thereof by WP
called muatio. However, some may find it awkward, and at
times negate the advantage of independent action of the individual weapons by
its unity, and can let the foe trap both your arms, as shown in WP & JS. Indeed, WP often warns one of dividendo, whereby the foe violently
divides one’s twained weaponry by hewing above or below. WP also acknowledges the need for weaponry
to be separacio, which is de facto apart. Curiously, neither HT nor WP give us a terms for their respective preferred
handlings. Since Siber addresses
neither apart nor twained, it seems likely that one’s best
judgement should be the
guide, and I am left with advocating a balance of the two for his method –
indeed a given ward or strike may dictate one or the other. Naturally, some wards are apart (ox,
roof, tresses, iron-gate, boar), while some are twained (plough,
long-point, hanging, unicorn), and others yet are sort of a mix (bow,
nearby) – though such may or may not change as you flow (dwl) amid the
fight, forsetting & striking. Just so it goes
not unsaid: when the sword moves then
also moves the shield – as sword offends the shield defends. And the point
of all this is that Siber thus tells the fighter he shall be good and rightful (gutt und gerecht) by following his
fight-lore (lere), that he shall be
blessed evermore (gesiget ymermere). Such claims were made commonly enough
during the Medieval & Renaissance for all sorts of undertakings, and seem
to reflect Siber’s presumed earnest desire to relate such a major undertaking
to Christian holyness. The six goings
hold wards which are quite preciously good, wherein is wealful comprehension
of the cunning of quite many goodly masters:
from The six
goings have wards which are quite preciously good (gar prißlich gutt), being
wieldy & useful. Now the wards (huott) are each “fighting-stances” made in balance with sword in
right-hand and shield in left-hand.
The word is akin to AHD hutta (hut or shelter) and to OE hod
(hood). By and by,
Siber deals with four main wards, which he calls ochß (ox), pflug
(plough), langenn ortt
(long-point), and tag (roof). These are basically the same as the vier
leger (four stances) of JLSR & other KdF – excepting that what Siber
calls langenn ortt they tend to
call alber (fool). Wards are
dynamic and not static – when standing these are
filled with potential energy, ready to release kinetic energy when driving
(dwl) your strikes. Siber’s wards are
not merely defence yet offence. These
wards were customarily taught – as per genetic majority, for sake of
simplicity, and by need of uniformity of training – right-hand dominant,
though they could be done from either side, more or less identically. It makes sense to take stance neither too
upright nor too deep, yet in balanced middle (as HT), with resolve to
maintain integrity of your center and your flanks. The idea of “balance”, though not stated by
Siber, is common enough to KdF, as waage
or vaage. The colourful names of the wards in KdF are
indeed poetic in that they are metaphoric.
Wards are called custodia or
obsessio by WP and either hutte and leger in other KdF sources. WP warns not to stay back in stance for too
long. Also, Siber is
not so much talking up the worth of his own “style” of fighting or fencing,
but the worthiness of the six goings as he says again that these are based
upon the wealful comprehension (woll begriffen) of the cunning (list) of many goodly masters from throughout
Europe, as witnessed by the dozen named countries which spanned that warlike
continent. Though all the
named countries are significant, of special note in the list are the lands of
Alemania and Lastly, a
query: By casually delineating three
country-groupings (each beginning with auß = from), does Siber suggest
three main traditions, styles or schools of European fencing, similar yet
distinct, which existed around 1491 AD?
I think this is of interest for further study, and can only conjecture
here. In the goings,
should you tread left, while then, bethink the misleading. In stabbing press strongly, so may you
achieve it well. In the goings you tread or step mostly
to the right, where you can stay readily behind your shield as well as
putting the most might into most of your strikes. But should you tread left then try misleading the foe – to “feign or fake” valid attack, at one
place where the foe is vulnerable only to strike another. Misleading (verfurüng) involves not just “ploys and tricks” of weaponry, but
also of bearing and movement – quickly creating “illusion”. You should do this as such exposes you more
readily to the foe’s sword and because you cannot hide your own sword behind
your shield, as opposed to treading right, which exposes you closer to foe’s
shield and you can better hide your sword from view behind your own
shield. It is a tactic pervading JLSR
& KdF. Generally, your sword can
mislead by moving falsely, by “changing” (dwl) in mid-swing; and your shield
can mislead by blocking some of foe’s sight or as moving distraction – but of
course, the foe’s weaponry can do the same.
Thus the fighter finds one of the foe’s “openings” (blößen in JLSR, HT and KdF generally), or sets up “work”
(dealt with just below) that leads to such. These openings are basically four (hence
the vier blößen of KdF),
corresponding to the body quartered by a cross “+”. One can make it more complex and think of
eight openings by adding another cross as “x”, the segno. Really any gap big or small that is open or
bare to a strike can be a opening. It should be realised that anything in
swordsmanship – ward, strike, forset – leaves some
opening, even as it covers or seeks them. When stabbing
(stichenn) at such openings,
the fighter should press strongly (starg dring) into the foe with his
body behind the strike, to really pierce him through. This goes for a great deal of striking in
general, such that you should put as much of your body with needed torque –
arms, legs, waist, hips, shoulders – into it as you wisely can. When you sight
through the window, stand open, see through it, go to it, strike or stab
swiftly, so may you be hard-felled. In
the work tread roundabout – thus the daring fellow wins out. When you sight through the window
with sword &
shield, the “space” around or between your weaponry, then it is best to stand open (offen stan), to see through properly, such that the pair are not held tightly to
your own body, and tangle or stifle, and you must go to it (gee dar von) without
tarry so you may strike (with the
edge) or stab (with the point) swiftly the foe at best chance, and
thus you shall be hard-felled (hart gevell) by felling the foe. Try
not to lose sight of everything in that window, by narrowly focusing as you
may fall prey to misleading yourself – rather see the big picture as you
sight the foe’s openings and any counters he tries. The idea is not to miss chances to strike
when you see them – for to tarry is draining.
This hardly differs from the doubly-meant observation written about
1595 AD by a certain English raider named John Donne, in his poem To His
Mistress Going to Bed: The foe oft-times, having the foe in
sight, Is tired with standing though he never fight. The idea of “open-standing” in Siber is
to take stance just out of
“range” (dwl) where the fighter has one or both his arms above,
hence shield and/or sword aloft, making the body open, to aid a variety of
moves and allow sighting of foe’s openings.
Siber’s open-stance exposes yet deceives: the fighter can mark the foe therefrom, with vantage of much retaliatory potential
should the foe beset him before he besets.
Perhaps Siber’s offen stan (stand
open) could be regarded as counterpart to his durch var (fare through) in his sixth going. Siber’s offen stan seems the same as that of stand freylich (stand
freely) in JLSR longsword and HT sword & buckler; and use of fry, fryes,
freyen (free) for stances, strikes, and forsetting (dwl) is found in
JLSR & shown and described by HT – whether for longsword, falchion, sword
& buckler, or cavalry sword – and seems the same as offen (open) in Siber’s sense.
The equivalency of offen and frei is demonstrated by the
German idioms: es steht ihm offen
zu gehen and es steht ihm frei zu gehen – either phrase meaning in
English: as it stands he may go.
The illustrious GS calls the wards of “roof” and “tresses” (both dwl)
for sword & buckler the open fight. When the fighter and the foe are in
the work (in der arbeÿt) they are basically at “infighting”, struggling at
close range. In work they find
themselves at some sort of mutual opposition.
When at crossed swords, locked at an impasse near crossguards, it is
“binding”. Although Siber’s method
makes no direct reference to binding, it does in fact happen in his third
going during “offtaking” (dwl) , and it does happen
in sparring often enough. WP shows
binding as ligacio or religacio; it is something which PK
shows & calls anbinden (onbinding). Often in Siber’s method he tells one to do
“winding” – for both sword and shield (dwl).
Winding for sword means you wind, twist or turn your blocked sword
quickly at the fulcrum of the elbow or wrist to bring it around to strike
from another angle, often pivoting your sword either at or around foe’s
shield or sword. Winding for shield
means you wind, twist or turn your shield to get the foe’s blocked sword out
of the way. WP shows such winding for
shield as vertere. In doing Siber’s method, there in fact arises
“wrestling”, which is to grapple, wrap, throw or break the foe, and more
broadly can involve trapping or taking the foe’s shield or sword, and
punching & kicking him. It can be
utilised alone or in unison with armed moves.
WP shows wrestling as luctacio;
and it is shown by HT, PK, JS; and is described by
JLSR & GS. This triad of binding,
winding, and wrestling (binden, winden,
ringen) are common to JLSR, HT and all KdF; and along with striking and
forsetting, you get what constitutes Siber’s work (arbeitt), which later he more or less
equates with “fight” (vichtt)
itself in his second going. Please note one crucial
distinction: winding in Siber’s
fight-lore can mean both that of the sword and that of the shield – and for
shield it is more or less another way to say “forsetting” (dealt with soon
below). This meaning may be unique to
Siber’s sword & shield summary, and requires, like a lot of his phrasing,
contextual reading of what seems the best kinetic flow (dwl) for the
fighter. It makes sense given the
duality of sword & shield.
However, Siber & JLSR do seem to use winding in a similar sense
for the sword if not the buckler – see fourth going below. While at work, the fighter should tread roundabout (umb tritt), should be a daring
fellow (egevertt) who initiates
not just responds, whereby he treads lively, to the foe’s flanks or past and
behind him, and so forth, rather than just moving linearly or standing in
place, in order to win out – not to
show nice form, nor to entertain, nor to be genteel – but to slay the
foe. By treading (tretten or tritt) Siber
generally means to step by taversing one foot forward or backward past the
other, from balance to balance.
Treading helps keep you from being hit and helps you to hit
mightily. It should also be realised
that “footwork” – whether standing or stepping – can vary situationally, and
that no absolute should be maintained, whether in my descriptions of the
goings or in one’s sparring experience.
Just be ready to tread roundabout as you deem best – whether this
means treading, hop-stepping, side-stepping, or switching (all dwl). The idea is that real historical fencing
tends to be as circular as linear, if not more so, really “fighting in the
round”, which includes awareness of front and back attacks (as in HT), above
or below, and from sides or flanks. Now egevertt or “daring fellow”
(like NHD Gefährte) has a mixed
sense of “comrade, risker, danger-mate”, akin to JLSR’s use of gefer (danger); and with sense of mach
mitt as “going through (hardship)” or “taking part in (group)”, we arrive
at my rendering that indicates Siber speaking to some fellowship of those who
understand true fighting – whether his students or fighters generally. Again, Siber is concerned that the fighter win the struggle. Would you raise
and strengthen yourself: then you must
have the right; yet reason is also good. Siber then offers some ethical yet
utilitarian advice, perhaps with regard to both natural and secular law, to
accompany the ruthless combat technique.
He states that if you would
raise (hebenn an) and strengthen (ein starcken) yourself –
better your lot in life and make your body stronger by physical rigors of
fight-training – then you should fight when it is warranted, when you are right (Recht) to slay a man, only for heavy reason (vernüfft). The reality of Siber’s Austro-Germanic
world was chaotic indeed with manifold internal & external threats to a
person’s life often making for self-defensive need. Yet I think that here also a certain
morality is addressed at least briefly, as it was by JLSR’s vorrede regarding
the morality needed for chivalry, by Ritter-Dichter like Eschenbach,
and likewise through the changing ages of German warriorhood into modern
times. With that in mind, if we accept
that a man’s ethics and craft are one (as that soldier Wittgenstein
maintained); and that martial virtues are worthy only when furthering good in
the world (as eventually Rommel concluded); we may be aware then of the
ethical difference between military science and martial art. Similar ethos, whatever its stark utility,
is actually behind Silver’s advocacy of sword over rapier, when he
says to train for slaying foes on the battlefield rather than murdering one’s
fellows in the streets, and likewise when JLSR say that longsword art is
meant for war. It is simply this
question: What is the worthwhile
fight? Ward yourself
from great wrath, bring forsetting to such, thereby may you achieve it well
when in all your fighting you are nimble. When Siber tells you to ward (behutt) yourself from great
wrath (großem zornn), it could
be twofold. Here Siber certainly tells
you to ward yourself from a strike we may term “wrath-hew” (zornnhauw), a diagonal long-edge
overhew driven from behind the shoulder with all the body fully, while
treading either forward or backward, swinging from high right to low left,
ideally through foe’s torso. Wrather
is typically driven from the ward of “tresses” (dwl in poem), or simply from
roof (dwl). Wrath-hew is shown clearly
by HT for sword & buckler, and described by JLSR and Meyer (1570 AD) for
longsword, perhaps also called vaterstreich
(father-strike) in KdF. Despite
the danger of wrather, it is something you can counter if you bring forsetting (versatzung) to such – which means to put foe’s strike out
of the way from hitting you by your shield or sword. Also, he seems to tell you to ward yourself
from being filled with great wrath
(großem zornn),
so that your mind is not unbalanced but clear as you fight – like Now, Siber’s versatzung or forsetting can be understood as “displacing,
parrying, deflecting”, or even “intercepting, moving, setting aside”, or
seldomly “blocking”. Now versetzen are fundamental to KdF. Forsetting is readily understood to
mean: setting the foe’s ward or strike
out of the way by shield or by sword, which is best done dynamically not
statically, and while treading. You
put foe’s weapon away with your weapon before his ever reaches you. Now forsetting can be understood in three
ways, relative to the timings of KdF: Before-time (vor) – you set aside foe’s warding sword with your striking sword
or winding shield. During-time (indes) – you set aside foe’s striking sword with your striking
sword or winding shield. After-time (nach) – you set aside foe’s striking sword with your warding
sword or warding shield. The fighter forsets with his shield by
winding (turning or diverting) the foe’s sword aside, which is done bestly
while the fighter strikes with his sword at the same time – though this may
not always be possible, so one must strike forthwith. If the fighter forsets the foe’s sword with
his sword, then he does so best if he strikes the foe as well in the same
movement, if possible. Incidentally, JLSR
longsword seems to maintain that before-time is the ideal way of forsetting,
as per his vier versetzen (four
forsetting) which attack the foe’s wards before he attacks, although JLSR
give ample examples of doing so in during-time & after-time as reality
demand. I think that forsetting with the sword
works best when the blade-to-blade contact involves the “flat” (flech
of KdF – one of its broad unsharpened planes or faces) of at least one of
the blades, and not by opposing one blade’s “edge” (schnid – the
sharpened bevel – dwl) against the other.
The flat of your blade allows you the advantage of the steel’s
flexibility and lets you get rid of the foe’s blade by gliding away quickly
to strike him. Your sword’s edge
remains sharper, its blade lasts longer and healthier, and has far less
chance of shattering. Such technique
of utilising the flat to forset is shown clearly by HT for falchion, sword
& buckler, and cavalry sword, who calls it gewenter hand (wended-hand) or epicher hand (ebbing-hand),
whereby the fighter forsets by “ebbing” or curling his sword-hand at the
wrist to meet the edge of the foe’s blade with the flat of his own blade –
and each time associated with versetzt (forset)
by HT. This is also arguably shown in
WP. Thus flat-to-flat, edge-to-flat,
or flat-to-edge – but not edge-to-edge – is the best way to go in
forsetting. For those who need further
convincing, see the third going below. Lastly, you are reminded that you may achieve well (wol geling) forsetting of “wrath” and so forth when in all your
fighting (vechten) you are nimble (behende). What Siber
relates here is that not just strength and might but also dexterity and
precision are needed to fight well – indeed, nimbleness of both body and mind
– when dealing with wrath of sword or wrath of mind. Some thoughts about Siber’s vechten: I render it as fighting because that
was what it was. Although “fencing” is
not wrong, it is not as right as “fighting”, which is truer to Siber’s
meaning of vechten, than the sadly corrupted and blanded meaning of
“fencing” today. Fighting says
it best – striving to win by savage ruthless combat. In this case, it is by whatever means that
sword & buckler let one do so. This forelore
ends. Thus Siber’s statement of purpose, as it
were, now ends. The first going This may begin
as fighter wards in plough and foe wards in plough. Speed the weak to
the right Wind through amid the fight
Do the speeder with might To both sides twice If however the foe treads back and
“avoids” (dwl), then tread forth and do
the speeder, which is to overhew diagonally in successive bisecting
circles through the foe’s body. The
speeder (schneller) is meant to overwhelm with strikes or at least
repel him, and can be done rather quickly with sword by itself and shield
withheld, or with sword & shield in twain, but maybe then not so
quickly. Such a flurry can launch
attack in before-time, and can break binding, but must be done with might (mach) by treading forth
(as here) or back, lest it be useless.
It should not be done to establish a pattern but to hit the foe in
flurry, and hence to both sides twice is
quite enough. The speeder could be
thought of swinging the blade in a “round”, thus comparable to rownd
for great-sword of Man Who Wol (1450 AD), and probably Rundstreich
of other KdF: indeed, the speeder to both sides twice,
equaling four strikes in the round, is perhaps the same as “two
double-rounds” (ij.
doubylrowndys). Some may like to shift slightly the
little-finger over the pommel to allow a more rotative grasp, as sometimes illustrated
in Viking Age manuscripts. The
speeder can be done from many angles & either side, with or without
treading, and most amount to either crumpler (dwl) or wrather. Such striking combinations are valuable to
do since single attacks are often unreliable decisively. A flurry of four strikes is JLSR’s fourth stück. Overwind his shield strongly Thrust-strike from bow swiftly Yet if the foe avoids these and retreats
to ward again in plough, then you flow into bow (bogenn), which
is a ward whereby you stand left-leg forward & hold the shield high and
somewhat to your right yet facing the foe, the sword held with hilt high and
blade sloping downward and crossed over shield-arm just behind the shield,
with the long-edge toward the foe – looking sort of like archery bow &
arrow. The “bow-ward” is akin to the
“hanging-ward” (dwl). This sort of
left-side bow is shown unnamed in HT (dwl).
WP seems to have a related ward called vidilpoge (fiddlebow) which differs from Siber’s bogenn in that WP’s blade points
upwards and the shield is lower.
However, one can shift easily enough from WP’s vidilpoge into Siber’s bogenn
and back again. From bow you tread forth right and overwind
(verwindt) or “get over” the foe’s advanced shield strongly with
your sword by thrust-strike (stos
schlag) downward over his shield into his body – as a “diving-thrust” or
“pounce-hew” (dwl) – as your shield either knocks away Foe’s shield or runs
cover below. Hence, “overwinding” is
simply either “through-faring” (dwl) – closing & entering
– and getting over the foe’s shield with your sword (whereupon you
strike); or through-faring and getting over the foe’s sword with your shield
(whereupon you grapple & strike) (dwl in sixth going). WP shows overwinding as circumdatis. WP shows “thrust-striking” as stichslach (stab-strike). In all work tread roundabout Thrust with the right-side bow Again, as dealt with previously, be
active in your work, stand not still but tread
roundabout (vmb tritt); and in
context of this particular going, proper footwork is key to making deadly thrust (stos) with your right-side bow. It is of note that this differs from the
left-side bow (dwl in sixth going), where the fighter overwinds the foe’s
sword-arm, and may have his weaponry over more to his left-side instead. Maybe the right-side bow could be
considered a riskier and rarer gambit, if perhaps more surprising. This part also reminds us that wards may be
taken upon either right or left. The second going This may begin as fighter wards in roof
and foe wards in roof. Crumple within your strong Wind through with marking The foe
overhews, so you tread or
leap forth right and crumple (krümb) within your strong, which is to “crumple-hew” inside the strong (sterk) – the half
between cross and middle – of your blade at the weak of his blade, at the
flat of either blade or both, in order to forset his blade with your flat
and/or “short-edge” (dwl) and strike his right-side with your long-edge in one
move in during-time, covering high as needed with your shield. If your strike fails because foe binds with
sword or forsets with shield, then you wind through (Durch wind) your sword to get around such by
turning the point against him, with marking (merk) – notice, awareness – of next opening for you to thrust,
your shield covering against any counter-strike. In the text “your strong” is literally dy
sterck or “the strong” – hence judgement-call at interpreting, which is
reasonable here. Purely speaking the
“crumple-hew” (krümpthauw) or
crumpler is a diagonal overhew to the foe’s right side with either edge,
whereby you crumple your sword-arm across your centerline to strike and/or
forset. The idea is that you drive
your sword to reach an oblique attack.
Now, to crumple into the foe’s blade may seem at odds, if not
anathema, to the nature of sword & shield – more like something to be
done only with longsword. However, I
think Siber tells us of it here for that reason – it is the uncouth thing to
do, unforeseen by the foe. Such an odd
thing as this shows that unlike weaponry may sometimes use like means to
achieve the same goal. Thus sword
& shield have both orthodox and unorthodox means of wielding. This amounts to countering foe’s tactic of
“erstcoming” by tactic of “nextraiding” (both dwl in poem). This compares closely to JLSR’s longsword: so ainer zu
dir schlecht, so far im krump daruff: vnd so haust du daßeekomen so someone strikes at you, so fare him
crumpler thereupon: and so you hew that erstcoming Wind and overlope Forweaponed point and knop Stab him in the face So, if you fail at that and ward now in
plough and foe wards in long-point (dwl), and then he hop-steps to stab you
low, to the bollix or guts, then you must wind (wind) away his strike with your shield as you overlope
(vberläuff) his
attack with your forweaponed point and knop (verwoppen ortt und knouff) – your ready sword – to stab
(Stich) him in the
face as you either “hintertread” (step behind yourself – dwl in
fifth going) or stay put yet torque your body to drive it. Now, this is because foe mistakenly
thinks that he can low-thrust under your ward by driving only so far as he
needs to keep from running into your sword yet still undercut you. However, you must high-thrust – which can
indeed outreach him. Thus Siber’s
“overloping” is to lope your blade over the foe’s blade to attack his nearer
opening – you hew or thrust high as he does so low – to counter-strike him
during-time. One may think of
overloping as “overreaching, overpassing” or even “surpassing”. It is seen in HT (see third going), and is
described well for longsword by JLSR.
In practice, I have found that any given high hew or stab can drive
further than its counterpart low hew or stab by the length of one hand-width
– which one may confirm this himself by comparing a thrust at navel-level to
one at face-level. This sort of
counter-strike is as hazardous as it is hard-to-stop. When you can, you may lessen the hazard by
“avoiding” (dwl) as you overlope. Note
the translative choice of archaic knop
meaning “pommel” (OE cnop > ME knop = knob), said [`kno:p] or [`kna:p]. With the cross work and fight Should you bethink the misleading knop Then you make him ill upon his top Yet if foe back-treads and forsets this
with shield up from below, then go with it to catch his shield with the
cross (crutz) hooking lower
rim, to work and fight (arbeitt...vichtt), by pushing it away
as if to hew with blade from above – yet instead should you bethink to utilise your knop in
a misleading manner, then simply
hammer that down hard upon his top (haubt = head) , when
he instead foresees the attack from the blade, as you hop-step inside and
stifle foe’s sword with your shield, and thus make him ill. I determined the manuscript in error and
translated the possessive article from second-person (din) into
third-person (his) – for you would hardly be advised to strike your
own head. The idea here again of
misleading or “trickery”, is common throughout KdF – and in this case such
knapping by knop is more quickly done than overhewing by blade. This sequence revisits the idea of treating
the whole sword as forweaponed – ready and charged to smite as needed. The cross may help you at times to do work
in offtaking (just dealt with), or to fight by smiting therewith in “morte”
(dwl). In all work tread roundabout Thus the daring fellow wins out Again, do not stay
still, try always to tread as you work,
or for that matter, when you strike, to fight mightily and cunningly, and
thus does the daring fellow most
likely win out. These two lines repeat as refrain
throughout. The third going In the manuscript this “stanza” has a
scrunched text-body if not a downright mess of syntax. So as to make syntactical and tactical
sense, I had to move one line which I think was a scribal misplacement, and
change an incongruent predicate adjective, to make a couplet now meaningful. Otherwise, it would stand as disparate nonsequiter if not nonsensical. Thus
corrected, it stands as rhyme and sensible kinetic advice (a significant
goal). My amending in translation was
to put the last and orphaned line (In/Within...) and pair it with a previous line (Ab-nimm/Offtake...); and instead of a singular
possessive adjective (seiner/his)
to use a definite article (der/the),
which left a final triplet before refrain.
Such jumbles of phrasing and errors of possessives are known, for
instance, in Wallerstein, and other KdF sources. The amending should thus square the stanza
with the martial reality of two adversaries who each wield but sword and
shield. Thus said, this going may begin as
fighter wards in either roof or tresses and foe wards in roof. Squint at what comes from roof Through thwarter goes not crumpler You squint
(schil) at the foe to counter an
overhew he makes from roof (tag).
What happens is foe overhews by wrather or skuller so you do the
“squinter”, by making a short-edge overhew to his upper-right opening as you
either hop-step forth, side-step left, or stand your ground and withdraw
shield upwards to cover high, thus stopping foe’s attack and striking
him. The “squint-hew” (schilhauw) is a strike whereby you end
up squinting along the length of your lofted sword as you drive it by
striking with the short-edge over your shield upon your left-side, in a quick
snapping manner that turns the hew into a high stop-thrust/slash as well at
its nadir. The roof (tag) is a ward whereby you stand
left-leg forward with the sword held overhead or overshoulder, the blade
angled upward and back, the shield held advanced chest-height before you
facing the foe. Now the squinter is a contentious one –
definitions in KdF are divergent as to what it is exactly, and modern
interpretations can be quite disagreeable.
Sometimes a KdF master gives barely any description, or he gives a
confusing if not pointless description.
Sometimes an interpreter provides a controversial yet workable
interpretation. My definition is
probably no less troublesome, but I think mine does make sense for the
weaponry and has vantage of being distinct and simple. In this sequence, you stop foe’s overhew
by beating him to the punch at his sword-side, because you go left not right
from/in your stance. If you did tread
forth right in this sequence, you would no longer be driving squinter, but
rather a sort of crumpler which foe could much more easily forset by shield
withdrawn high. Also foe does some of
the work of his own demise by running into your point as he tries to drive
his overhew. Compare to JLSR’s
longsword: Schill in den ober haw behend, blyb
daruff wilt du end Squint into the overhew nimbly,
whereupon you would remain until end Regarding the roof, from it any overhew
may be driven. You can shift from roof
into tresses, bow, or iron-gate as needed.
Whether one does roof overshoulder or overhead is preferential if not
situational. The roof was a common
ward, as seen in 11th CentAD English illustrations. WP shows roof each side: secunda
(like Siber’s) and tertia (at
left-shoulder with right-leg-forward).
It is shown by HT & JS, and is described by JLSR & GS. However, if you ward in roof or tresses
and the foe wards in roof and strikes by crumpler
(krümpt) then you can stop it from
going through by the thwarter (zwirch). The “thwart-hew” (zwirchhauw) is done rightly as a high “underhew” or “middlehew
(both dwl) to foe’s upper openings.
Here it is done by striking with your long-edge into his unfinished
crumpler to his arm or body – so you may undercut him before he comes round
to overcut you – with shield shifted to cover high-right & behind where
sword had been – hence covering your head, neck, and shoulder – as you tread
back left, driven by your swinging arms and turning body. The thwarter tends to break any “overhew”
(dwl), as JLSR maintain. Regarding the idea of “covering”: however unnamed by Siber, he would be in
tactical agreement with WP, who advises often with shield to make schutzen (covering) of the opening to
your body where foe most likely aims or retaliates as you strike at him. Look into his business Do the squint-hew with might Hence, you must look into foe’s business
(sach) to deem what gambit foe’s betrays from roof and thus reckon
what best to do from your high-ward – either squinter breaking skuller or
wrather; or thwarter breaking crumpler. Note that Siber’s schauw sin sach hardly differs from JLSR’s besich sin sach;
and is again suggestive of open-standing, as the latter associate it with
free-standing as stand freylich.
You may think of “look into his business” as analogous to “taking his
measure”. If you choose to do the
squint-hew (schillerhauw) then do so with might (mach – like NHD Macht), a reminder that you
have not vantage of treading, so put as much of your body into it by stepping
as you may and torquing into the strike.
This sequence here has you doing squinter from either roof or tresses,
but under other circumstances you can also do squinter from “iron-gate” (dwl)
or “boar” (dwl). Offtake rather nimbly Within the strong of the blades If you ward in tresses and foe overhews
from tresses then forset his weapon by wrather while either treading forth right or “switching” (to stay in place
yet exchange precedence of feet without passing); and then from the
resultant hard-binding offtake (nyms
ab) him rather nimbly (gar behende) within the strong of the blades (klingenn), at the flat
of foe’s blade with your long-edge, to take off quickly from his weapon with
your weapon and shift or wind precisely to thrust and/or slash by sword to
his upper openings while you cover hilt-hand with shield (hence your weaponry
twained), as you either tread again, stay put, or “side-step” (stepping
laterally to a flank). This
sequence is similar to one in JLSR longsword, who relates his nyms ab (take off) to this advisement: Ver dir
ober hawet zorn haw ort im dröwet Whoever overhews – you wrath-hew and
turn point against him And this sequence also has a mix of
techniques similar to JLSR’s first & second stücke for sword & buckler, notably in the first as one takes
up a sort of left-side ox in zwayen
schilten (twin-shields) – thus as in Siber’s sequence here one is very
transitorily in twained weaponry. As
this wrather-versus-wrather is highly dangerous, you must use dexterity within
proper during-time to achieve it and with the needed footwork. Your then offtake your weapon quickly from
the bind with foe’s weapon to smite him.
This is an instance where something analogous to other KdF is assumed
to take place, however unnamed – binding. Siber’s
“offtaking” is to launch
your own strike from binding by shifting or winding, perhaps by pivoting at
the strong and/or cross. It can be
thought of also as “offnimming, negating, abating, outcasting”. Generally speaking, if you should offtake
with sword & buckler, then try to keep or put your shield between you and
the foe’s sword as you do so. Even if
you fail to hit, offtaking may allow in carry-through to fall back into an
open-stance to regain yourself, mark a new opening, or start a new
gambit. WP shows offtaking as exprimere deorsum; and it is found in
KdF longsword as abnehmen
(offtaking). However hard it is to
understand by describing, it is simpler to understand by doing, like much of
fencing. As far as doing this within the strong
of the blades, here blades
should be regarded as flat(s), and Siber’s phrase may be modified more
exactingly as “within the flat-strong of the foe’s blade”. No fighter should practice as if the edges
of his sword were meant to strike the edges of the foe’s sword – that is what
the flats are for, if not the shield.
Indeed, edges are meant to strike the foe. For example, JLSR tell the longswordsman
that from binding after thwarter: ...schlag in am schwert mit gekreutzten
armen hinder seines schwertß klingen... ...strike
in at the sword with crossed-arms and behind his sword-blade... And JLSR
state furthermore that to forset with crumpler: ...haw im krump zur flechen... ...hew
him crumpler to the flats... Thus arguably “blade” & “flat” seem
synonymous when speaking of forsetting and various other techniques in
KdF. Again, such interpreting is
physics and philology united. Also, to
forset in the first place within the strong makes it more likely that you can
strike the foe forthwith. Threaten the hew against him Strongly advance the shield at him Overcome him with overloping This is the remaining triplet. Instead, if you would threaten the hew (droe den
hauw) from tresses against the foe in plough, while you strongly advance (verdring) the shield at him, then by your open-stance you coax him to
thrust low with hop-step as he withdraws his shield to aid extension, and so
by overloping his attack by wrath-hew to his extended arm as you withdraw
shield to forset his point as you tread back or switch, and thus overcome (bezwing) him. This same sequence in shown quite clearly
by HT. This overloping can be done
also against the foe who would underhew the fighter. This sequence exemplifies the use of
weaponry apart, as well as misleading (like the second going). Just how one advances the shield is not
said, yet I urge the fighter refrain from use of PK’s overextended arm, as it
is infirm & intractable – rather try HT’s outreaching arm, as it is
flexible & winding-ready. In all work tread roundabout Thus the daring fellow wins out The same as dealt with already. The fourth going This may begin as fighter wards in ox
and foe wards in roof. Thrust the ox through With two big steps You thrust
(stos) your sword out of ox (ochßenn) through the
foe, driven not simply by your arm alone but with your whole body as your
legs take you forth two big steps (zwienn schrittenn groß) to charge over
him. You can do this by stabbing him
with sword in the first step, and slamming him with shield in the second step
– or by ramming him with sword & shield twained before you like a steely
wedge – perhaps while holding your dagger in your shield-hand as well (see
“roses”, dwl in poem). WP seems to
show similar thrusts from ox. Wind and counter-wind Swiftly make the skull-hew However, if the foe forsets with shield
and overhews with sword, then you must wind
that strike away with your
shield as you tread back, and
counter-wind (wider windt) your sword up above to roof as you tread
forth to make the skuller. The
principle of winding in after-time to renew your attack is hence
underscored. Perhaps here it is
helpful to consider OE windan meaning “flying, waving, circling (in the air)”.
Siber’s wider windt (counter-wind) with sword may have analogy
to JLSR’s wind gegen (wind against) in his first and sixth stücke. Here the counter-wind makes for an overhew; but at other times if your foe winds against
you then you counter-wind your point to thrust. Note in the transcript that the windt after geschwindt
seems needlessly redundant if not nonsequiter. Strike that hitter straight away In the belly and upon the neck Yet, if foe forsets again with shield
and would then strike you by hew or thrust, then after “avoiding” with tread
back, you should tread forth again and strike
(Schlag) that unfriendly hitter straight away with your sword in the belly by thrust, and as he folds over, upon the neck by slash,
hence after-time countering.
Such belly-thrusts are also seen in WP, HT and PK. Now “avoiding” is the great unspoken
presence of KdF fight-books. It is the
unnamed yet logical outrider of many other named moves in the fight-books,
and is worthy alone. Avoiding is
simply “dodging” – the fighter keeps from being stricken by not being
there. By turning, twisting or
treading he makes a “void” where he was, and hence where the foe’s strike
harmlessly now goes. However, avoiding
can and should set up other moves – letting you flow away from a strike to
drive a counter-strike. Avoiding is
found in JLSR longsword as what one may paraphrase as laß nider (netherletting) – the idea being
that the fighter lets the foe’s strike go down unhindered to its nullifying
nadir, by simply treading or shifting out of harm’s way. JLSR also associate this with “nextraiding”
(dwl – full quote there). Such de facto implication of avoiding is
found throughout KdF sources. Thus you
must not be afraid to sense when avoiding should be done, even when Siber
does not come right out and say it.
The aforegoing three strikes – hew, thrust, slash – are the drei
wunder (three-wonders) of KdF. In all work tread roundabout Thus the daring fellow wins out As dealt with before. The fifth going This may begin as fighter wards in
long-point and foe wards in tresses. Stab the long-point through Withdraw stab again then morte The foe wrath-hews, and withdraws his
shield as he treads forth, so you stab
the long-point (langenn ortt)
through simply by hop-step and
up-tilt of your sword to let him thirl himself as you shift shield to cover
high near body. Now long-point
(langenn ortt) is a ward whereby you stand right-leg forward and
hold forth your sword angled downward & point aimed between foe’s feet,
with short-edge upwards & hilt before the right-hip, with shield held
next to the hilt & facing outside the shield-arm. From long-point you can stop-thrust against
any overhew – though like anything, it should not be thought sure-fire. WP shows long-point as septima or longort
(long-point) – and also calls it once albersleiben
(fools-body); and similarly JLSR call it alber (fool) for longsword.
Siber’s long-point is apparently like the alber or yßen pfortt (fool
or iron-gate) of Andreas; and is similar to a ward shown in JS; yet it is
unlike Siber’s own “iron-gate” (dwl).
In the sense of fool, this ward indeed seeks to fool the foe into
attacking, to which the fighter counters.
Long-point may seem too limited in its offence, however as WP shows,
one can underhew therefrom, not just thrust. If the foe avoids or forsets your thrust,
then you withdraw (zück)
your sword to undergripped “half-swording” as you tread back; wherefrom you stab
again from below with tread forth to some opening; and as you withdraw you shift hilt-hand to
grasp blade’s sweet-spot and let go with shield-hand as you carry through to
swing it hilt-first from above to then morte (mortt) foe with pommel and/or crossguard as you tread back. Note that Siber’s zück can mean not just “withdrawing” but rather “pulling (back)”
or “tugging” (dwl); and is analogous to “drawing (from sheath)”. JLSR use the word in this sense sometimes. Now half-swording is to strike with both
hands holding the sword sort of like a cudgel or staff, whereby the
shield-hand grips or clamps shield and blade together, the rim of your shield
locked against the cross, thus to lend might and accuracy to stabbing or
slashing. I have interpreted this by
back-tracing from what is required to arrive sensibly at the later
morte. Half-swording is done seldomly
with sword & shield, though it is found in JLSR & PK as halbschwert; and is seen in JS, where
the blade is utilised to slash. With
longsword, half-swording is done mostly and often in armoured fighting, found
in Hundfeld of Codex Speyer as the kurzschwert (shortened-sword) (not to
be confused with “shortsword”), described by JLSR, and seen frequently in HT
as gewauppertort or brentschirn (armed-point or firepoker). The “morte-strike” is an inverted sort
of half-swording, done by gripping at the sweet-spot of the blade to smite
with the pommel like a mace and/or the cross like a mattock – and in this way
you can also rake & catch with the cross as you swing. Siber’s mortt is akin to the
longsword version of mortschlag or mortstreich
(murder-strike) in HT, to the tunrschlag or dünderschleg (thunder-stroke)
of HT and Lew of Codex Speyer respectively, described by
Lignitzer in Danzig Fechtbuch (1452 AD), and is seen in Gladiatoria,
Mair, & Liberi. Admittedly, Siber stands alone in
advocating this compared to the other aforesaid sword & buckler sources. Your shield should run cover for you during
these moves, a help-mate to its sword.
Despite modern historical-commonplace to the contrary, this sort of
thing can be done, and was done in the past.
The fighter may want to do half-swording & morte-striking,
or fencing in general, while wearing some sort of leather gloves for armed
sparring and so forth, as shown throughout WP & JS. Admittedly, this part of the going seems as
strange and haphazard as the infamous sixth stücke of JLSR, however
unsimilar otherwise. Let the blind-hew bounce So may you go well and flow As you ward in long-point and the foe
wards in tresses, you may choose instead to hop-step and strike by blind-hew (plintt hauw) to the right-side of foe’s head, and let it bounce
(prellen) down
into a strike of his advanced left-leg as you tread back. I take blind-hew to mean a diagonal
underhew, more of a slap or slash, to the foe’s head which “blind-sides” him,
and by letting it bounce, strike and tread, so may you go well and flow (wellen) in the fight. As here the blinder lets you attack the
foe in before-time and set up a more decisive strike, though at other chances
it lets you rebuff his attack in during-time or break out of binding. It can be done after a wrath-hew. Naturally, “bouncing” to a lower opening is
congruent with and aided by gravity and blade-flex, and thus is germane to
“flowing”. Note importantly, that here
a leg-strike is made, which was indeed a serious sort of cut to make, despite
what modern-anachronism conceits say otherwise – just ask Jarnac. WP’s Priest tells of using his devious
strike of nucken (nodding) in
similar manner to this blinder. Leg-strikes
are in WP, JLSR, PK, JS & GS – and are common
enough to KdF. The whole idea of flowing is that if you
miss with a given strike you should nonetheless be moving such that you may
flow into driving something else, whether strike or forset or otherwise. You are fencing not just out of but into
and through the wards, hopefully moving with harmony of body – revisiting the
idea of how one drives the aforesaid speeder. This going broaches the subject of
striking: as you may have noticed,
whether hauw or stich is used, they are not always strictly
used to mean a cleaving strike with the edge (as the former) or a thrusting
strike with the point (as the latter).
Such is the nature of much description in fightbooks of KdF, and any
“ideal” consistency should not be expected 100% of the time – such
inconsistency should be accepted for what it is, much as the nature of
fighting itself is always inconsistent. Hang against thus soon Hintertread and speed against At the head and to the bread-box Thus you make of him a real gawk If the foe rebuffs all this and
wrath-hews, then hang (Heng) against thus soon,
which is to make a quick recovery into “hanging”, a ward whereby you stand
left-leg forward and hold your sword-hilt to your right aloft and point
downward, blade advanced and angled diagonally across and before your torso,
your sword-hand palm out, knuckles up, thumb down, with your shield crossed
over and paired with your hilt and facing the foe and covering your
sword-hand, such that the dome & flat shed glidingly and flexibly the
foe’s overhew. The “hanging-ward” is
akin to the aforesaid bow-ward, but is more exclusively for forsetting than
the other. WP shows a sort of hanging
as krucke (crook), and likewise JS;
it is shown by HT; and is ubiquitous to KdF longsword under various names (hengen or hengenort). It is of note
that hanging is the ward which is naturally made when a fighter draws his
sword from either opposite or same side.
Anyone who has done so from a sheath suspended from a simple baldric
can attest to this – though it helps to toss such suspension aside for
unhindered fencing. From hanging you
can shift easily into the ox or boar (dwl).
Now you forset the strike of the passing foe as you hintertread (Hinder tritt) – whereby you tread your right-leg crossed behind
your left-leg – while you speed a
hew against the foe, at the
back of his head while you lower
your advanced shield to cover your body, and then forthwith return-step to
middlehew to his bread-box or
belly – to strike him high then low with the “old one-two”. This hintertread is perhaps early proof of
German swordsmanship already having what later would be called volte or incartata by rapier fencers
(albeit for foining). It is also of
note that “hintertreading” is utilised in wrestling – as a step behind
oneself or foe, to enter or throw or counter – as per hindertretten of
HT’s wrestling. In any case, if you
have done this well, then you make a real gawk (gauch) or “fool,
lout, dolt” of the foe, for his fencing is no better than that of a Gaukler (clown or juggler). Some wisdom regarding most any field is
summed up in this old phrase: The
gawk gainsays the unbeguiled as gauche. In all work tread roundabout Thus the daring fellow wins out As dealt with erstwhile. The sixth going This may begin as fighter wards in roof
and foe wards in tresses. From roof reach and fare through With overwinding ward yourself The foe wrath-hews so you shift your sword from
roof, over and down, as
you raise your shield to ward now in left-side bow, and as you forset foe’s
strike you reach (lang) inside it with your advanced shield and fare through (durch var)
by hop-step. Now “through-faring” is
really just closing and entering. It
lets you do overwinding (verwindenn) around the outside of the
foe’s sword-arm with your shield as his strike wanes, to grapple and trap his
arm between your shield-arm and body, in what is really a bit of wrestling,
while finally you strike him as you may from roof with your sword –
and thus you ward yourself (dich
bewar). Siber’s overwinding
from left-side bow seems akin to HT’s übergryffen (overgripping) from
a similar but unnamed ward. Such
“sword-taking”, which is to grapple and/or trap the sword-arm, is seen in WP,
HT & PK. Any of this amounts to wrestling . You can
overwind with help of a “shield-hew” (dwl).
Siber’s durch var seems the
same as durchtreten (through-treading)
of WP; and the same as einlaufen (inloping) of HT & JS sword & buckler and JLSR
longsword. Perhaps Siber’s offen stan (stand open) could be
regarded as counterpart to his durch
var (fare through). Thwart through him really soon Then blind-hew speed anew Beat the point into his breast Finally he has
lost Instead, as you ward in roof or
iron-gate (dwl) and the foe wards in roof or tresses, you thwart (zwürch) through the foe
before-time or within his wrath-hew during-time with tread forth right, thus really
soon (gar baldt),
to strike him by sword below your shield as it covers high-left. Again, compare to JLSR’s longsword: Zwerch benimpt, was vom tag dar kümpt Thwarter counters what comes from roof You then blind-hew by return
in-line (out of “nearby” – dwl), with tread forth or back, and carry it
through to speed anew (wider
schnall) by swinging sword behind & around to beat the point (ortt) from above into foe’s breast,
while you either stand your ground or gather-step, driving him backwards
& down to ground – thus finally the foe has lost (verlüst). Note that this thwarter differs from others
aforesaid, not a high underhew, but a truer middlehew (dwl), above or below
foe’s shield; and that the “down-beating” is something of a pouncer (dwl),
its finality similar to a half-sword thrust with longsword shown dramatically
in Wallerstein and by Dürer, which one may prefer here as
variant. You may have noticed that
Siber seems to advise strike-combinations, like unto virtually all KdF, and
universal to all sensible fencing worldwide, notably Musashi, among others. This sequence is about taking or keeping
the before-time – you hit foe with so much that he knows not what to do. In all work tread roundabout Thus the daring fellow wins out As dealt with afore. Finis, etc. The six goings are now finished, with
the poem following. Overhew is for stabs Underhew breaks strikes Middlehew in the width Now look out for what that means Rather straightforward stuff here: Siber offers general advice in his poem of
tactical techniques, of technical tactics. When the foe makes stabs (stich) at you
(to pierce), then you can counter it by overhew
(Ober haüw), which
is any down-driving hew from above – wrath, crumple, skull, and so
forth. You may use your overhew here by
treading back and long-edge forsetting foe at his weak-flat. When the foe makes strikes (schlecht) at
you (to cut or cleave), typically by overhew or middlehew, then a fitting
counter is the underhew (Unter hauw), which is any
up-driving hew from below. You may use
your underhew here to break (bricht)
foe’s strike by treading forth and long-edge striking his body. Any underhew is helped by pushing the sword
with your arms & torquing with your whole body. Note that my rendering of schlecht as
“strikes” is a judgement-call. Perhaps
there is also a pun here on schlecht as “simply” – for as Nietzsche
remarks in Genealogy of Morals, both schlecht and schlicht
meant “simple, basic, plain” in the centuries before the Thirty Years War
(1618-48 AD), bereft of any negative connotation (bad, ill, poor), as
admittedly some maintain. In context
of varying dialects and differing parts of speech, a brief survey of some KdF
reveals: JLSR seem to use schlecht
to mean either “strike” or “simple”, schlöcht for
“strike”, schlechen for “strikes”, and schlachen or schlagen
for “striking”; HT uses schlag or schlecht to mean “strike”;
Lew uses schlecht or schleg to mean “strike”; and Lignitzer
uses slecht, schleg and schlagk interchangeably for
“strike”. In HT’s wrestling schlecht
or schlag can mean “punch, slam, sweep”. I chose to render Siber’s schlecht
as “strikes” because it makes
for typical counterpart to “stabs”: as
this matter of words can be put through ordeal of deeds, one can find the
simple truth of the efficacy of through-faring & underhewing the foe to “break”
or counter his stikes as most settling of doubt. In any event, the countering of stabs and
strikes by Siber’s means are common enough in KdF. Now the middlehew (Mittel hauw) is simply to tread and hew horizontally through the middle
of the foe generally with long-edge, in the width (weÿtte) of the
fight and foe to end it readily. In
the broader sense of “wideness, range, expanse, breadth”, Siber tells us here
that you should be familiar with how the middlehew allows you to find your
weapon’s best striking-range, going across the breadth of your utmost
reach. Again, proper footwork is
needed to make any of these strikes mightily. All KdF have various hewing which are
over, under, and middle. And do look out for (lüg) what that means –
do this yet let not the foe do this to you!
A simple yet hard thing to learn – not only to wit but to understand
the meaning of the basic lessons, as these are best to know and are known
best by doing them through earnest praxis at arms with skilled partners. The translation of lüg as “looking
out for” is supported by similar use in southwestern German dialects as
“looking out” or “peering out”. In changing-hew seek his folly For the forsetting spy Pounce-hew therein by winding His bare face you want for finding The changing-hew
(wechsell haüw) or “changing” is
simply to drive a given strike at one opening, only to change or shift its
course midway to another (if not the opposite) opening altogether and thereby
you seek his folly (geüche – akin to gauch). Changing can be
done in any timing. This can apply to
your unhindered strike, or especially if you spy (spee)
that the foe makes forsetting (versatzüng) of your strike, then by winding get over or around his
sword or shield and then pounce-hew (Stürtz haüw) the
foe, which is simply to strike from above with your hilt raised high to let
you drive a diving-thrust of the point & edges either high or low. Pouncing says it all, for you fall upon the
foe like a wild hunting beast, your sword plunging into the prey as you beset
him. Here you want to find any
opening between or behind the foe’s shield and body, perhaps bestly to his bare (plöß) face. Note that here plöß is an adjective
meaning “bare”, yet is of course related to the idea of “opening”. A permutation of pounce-hew is in
WP, and is utilised in JLSR & PK.
Finding openings between shield & body seems obvious enough in
WP. The technique of changing-hew embodies
the tactic of misleading. The pouncer
can be done readily enough from ox, roof or bow. So from out the skuller Strike with short-edge there Invert pounce-hew beneath There him stab and teach Hence to change from out the skuller (scheittler), as if you were to make this typical
long-edge overhew, you instead wind your blade mid-air to strike the foe with
the uncouth short-edge (kurtz schnid) thwarter, there high
to the side of foe’s head instead of top.
You may do this with help of thumb-press, as the “short-edge” is the
one which faces your wrist, as opposed to the oft-used “long-edge”, which
faces your knuckles. You may instead invert pounce-hew (verkere stürtz haüw), by changing sword from downward-thrust
above & outside foe’s shield into an upward-thrust beneath his shield, by scooping the pommel down and point upwards, there
to stab (s[t]ich) his
body and teach (lere) foe a lesson he shall not
forget. Siber’s “inverting” (verkere)
is a form of winding, and thrusts thereby are driven like “spiraling”. WP shows inverting, but does not seem to
name it, though his vertere
(actually his winding with shield) is linguistically tempting. This pouncer turned low-thrust is the same
as what happens in the fifth stück of JLSR: Item,
vß dem stürtzhaw: thu, alß so du im zu der lincken sytten über sinen schilt
wollest stechen; vnd far mitt dem ort vnden durch, vnd stich im inwendig
sines schilts zu dem lybe. Vnnd - "indes" - wind vff din lincke
sytten. Thus, out of the pounce-hew: do it as if thou willst stab him to the
left side above his shield; rather fare through below with the point, and
stab him to the body inside his shield.
And – “during-time” – wind at thy left-side. And like that play you may follow with a
long-edge leg-strike, allowing you to flow into the iron-gate (addressed forthwith). JLSR term other similar longsword moves as verker. The inverting here may be driven from ox
through plough; or if reversed, from boar through unicorn (both dwl). I determined that sich was a scribal
error, a misspelling of stich. In iron-gate make wary Fare up with the point Offer at times in unicorn Other gambits are to make wary (nÿm war) in ward of iron-gate (ÿssen [pf]ort), to
bait the foe to overhew at upper openings. Just what Siber meant by the ward of iron-gate
is uncertain, perhaps idiosyncratic.
The “iron-gate” that I advocate is a ward whereby you stand left-leg
forward, shield advanced facing the foe, sword-hilt held at right-hip with
curled wrist, blade pointing back & downward, and above & parallel to
the thigh (not the shin) – your blade ready to swing like a ferrous portal to
halt the foe. WP shows iron-gate as quinta; something like it is seen in HT
(which differs as point-forward open-stance); it is seen in JS; and seems described
by GS as bearing right-side ward. One may make the obvious devastating
underhew from iron-gate, but as WP shows, one may also thrust. You may find yourself in iron-gate after
an overhew or speeder. Though hard to fence from iron-gate, the
utility of its deception and the might of the underhews,
leg-strikes and thrusts which the fighter may make therefrom are often
underappreciated if not misunderstood.
By iron-gate you can bait the foe to overhew upper openings which you
can counter; or from it you can easily shift into hanging. Note that I assume this passage has a
scribal error – thus I render ÿssen ort as if it were misspelling of ÿssen
pfort. I think that the scribe got
ahead of himself and mistakenly wrote the same word twice – wrongly the first
anticipating correctly the second.
This seems reasonable to me, as the two ort are aligned upon
virtually the same vertical axis in the manuscript; and because eisen pforte is prevalent in KdF
sources. Another gambit, which you may do out of
iron-gate, is to tread forth or back and fare up (uff far) with the point (mit dem ort) of the
sword angled high above in twain with shield to move into or to forset and/or
strike into the ward of unicorn (einhorn) – which I think
is a ward whereby you bring the sword & shield together to highest
angled apex with point forward, the arms extended straight, right-leg
forward, and the body perhaps leaning forth a bit to allow its looming tilt –
like the horn of the mythic horse. Thereby you offer (Bringst...dar)
your lower openings instead, as at
times (auch moll) you reckon
needful. By unicorn you can offtake to
hewing or slashing, wind into pouncer, or simply drop your blade or shield to
break a thrust; it is really the inverting
of long-point. Lowering the unicorn
presents the threat of the point at foe’s face, like an extended plough. WP shows unicorn as superior langort (high long-point), and so does JS. With either iron-gate or unicorn you can
set up foe for some sort of counter, and naturally you can use these either
separately or together by changing, to achieve counter-strike. Moving from iron-gate into unicorn can
break a skuller only then to drive a skuller (as driving through kron
or “crown” in JLSR longsword) – while moving from unicorn into iron-gate can
break a leg-strike only to drive the same at foe (as described by GS). Though each can lure the striking foe to
harm, both iron-gate and unicorn are tricky and take
some cunning, and perhaps be not held too long. These tend to set traps for the foe to be
stricken during-time or after-time. Lastly, the counterpart of iron-gate for
the left-side should be noted here, although it is neither named nor
described in Siber’s lore, though I found it happened in my practice, which
here we call “nearby” (neben of
KdF) – a ward whereby you stand right-leg forward, sword-arm across body with
curled wrist, hilt at left-hip, blade pointing back & down, and above
& almost parallel to the thigh, your shield-arm crossed over your body to
cover it with shield. You may end up
in it after driving wrather or speeder; from it you may blind-hew or
underhew; and you can drive back & forth between it and iron-gate by
leg-strikes. This ward is similar to
the start of sword-drawing from the sheath of your baldric. The “nearby-ward” should be treated as
tricky yet fleeting, like iron-gate – and middlehews can be driven betwixt
both wards. One may crumple-hew or
wrath-hew from both iron-gate and nearby.
WP shows nearby as prima; it
is seen in JS and HT (1459 AD-colour); and features in the falchion of HT and
Dürer. Serve roses inside the roundling I guess at roses (rosen): it may mean “dagger & buckler held in
twain”, especially if, perhaps, there were bucklers that were faceted to look
like roses, combined with the “thorn” of the dagger. Now you serve (din) the foe this metaphorically ironic bouquet by forsetting
& striking inside his roundling (redlin), which seems simply to mean “buckler” – thus
you attack some opening behind his own shield, a tactic familiar to KdF, or
perhaps you dig with the “thorn” or your dagger just inside his buckler to
its hand. Naturally, if roses is such, then along with his sword the fighter makes
a triple threat of weaponry against his foe.
Such unnamed gripping of both dagger & buckler is seen in HT,
where it forsets. If redlin hence
Rädelin are the same as Rodeln, which Egenolph (1529 AD)
equates with Bucklier in his six stücke for sword & buckler
(which virtually copy those of JLSR), any of these words implying
“little-wheel”, then we have something of a match. Obviously, the dagger was the most common
side-arm of Tug the tresses against good sense Here Siber finally states by word
something which has featured prominently in this essay – “tresses”. I think that Siber’s tresses (tressen) is a
ward whereby you stand left-leg forward & hold your sword behind the
right-shoulder hilt-high & point down – thus like the long hair of a
woman which flows down her back – with shield held advanced chest-height
before you facing the foe. Thus from
it overhews like wrather may be driven, and in fact, I think that what Siber
calls “tresses” would be the same as what other KdF sources tend to call zornhut (wrath-ward). Tresses lets you
“rev-up” for a really powerful strike. However, Siber offers a tactical
warning: that to tug (zück) the tresses, thus your sword – either
in effort to mislead or to pull back to strike again – is done against good sense (gen guten sin). If you ward there already, then it is
faulty to try to mislead so far from the action; and if you withdraw there,
then you may be too far back to quickly strike again. Either case is folly against a fast wily
foe who may smite you during-time. Perhaps
he suggests that tresses, however threatening, is
better as a starting attack than for recovery and renewed attack. WP shows tresses as quarta; HT shows it unnamed but quite clearly, and it seems
described by JLSR & GS. Perhaps
the name of “tresses” displays parallel thinking to that of Fiore’s name for
a similar stance called posta di donna (lady’s-ward). Although tresses may seem somewhat limited,
one can strike wrather or crumpler and then flow into pouncer – much as one
can do so from roof. Hit with shield-hew Wing goes above Waker will stand If you hit with (mit trifft) shield-hew (Schilt hauw), then you simply strike the foe, his sword and/or
shield with your shield (smiting with dome or punching/hacking with rim), to
attack him in a somewhat unexpected way.
Shield-hew can let you strike him directly, knock away his shield,
make an opening to strike, or set up overwinding. This is seen in WP as schiltslach (shield-strike),
HT as an elbow-shove; is clearly seen in PK & JS; and it is advocated by
GS. You may next quickly drive from
the ward of “boar” (eber of
KdF), as gleaned by back-tracing, to make the wing (Flÿgell). The wing is either bent arm and shield
together flipped upwards, or is shield-arm wound into crossed-twained –
whichever, it goes above (o[b]en
gist) to forset any strike therefrom or to flank, and lets a thrust
follow through at foe as you tread forth.
Note that I determined oren to
be in error, thinking oben (above)
was intended. The “boar-ward” is not
named by Siber, but is something I found suited to this specific part and
elsewhere in Siber’s lessons – so I include it here as salutary to the
fighter. The “boar” is a ward whereby
you stand left-leg
forward and hold sword low, waist-height at hip, pointing at the foe – ready
to strike like swinish tusk. It is the
inverting of ox, but can be thought of as a cocked-back plough, though
differing legs are forward. Indeed,
Andreas states that plough for sword is the same as boar for falchion – and
as such, Dürer shows it once for falchion & shield. The boar is a vicious ward from which to
fight, and again is a natural to fall into after sword-drawing,
and one can sort of hide the sword behind it.
This ward is like one in WP, and can be back-traced in HT & PK. So anyway, from this boar you can drive
your sword straight into foe as let by the lofting of your wing. Realise that if you move not your shield in
proper timing, you could stab your shield-arm with your own sword. Such use of wing not only lets through your
waiting thrust, yet covers against a skull-hew, and lets you follow with a
second and downward shield-hew (smiting with its rim), if you must. It should be said that shield-hew can be
utilised in this sort of fighting quite often and from any angle; and it reminds
us that the shield can be a weapon itself – and of course combined technique
is the way to go. Despite the appeal of such complex
gambits, forget not basic gambits like the waker (Wecker), which is simply the crumpler, and
is so called by Andreas – for it awakens the foe to the side of his head as
he least expects it – as it will let you stand (stan) your ground simply and decisively. Driving and striking will go Erstcoming and nextraiding beknown Speeding overlope and slashes as well Now to finish the fight-lore: Siber recalls fundamentals such as driving and striking of the sword are
to be done as you go – as you move,
tread, pass – by footwork and torque, not by staying still; and indeed will
go (wil gan) together, for you should drive your strikes with your
whole body if needed. Driving (Treiben) your striking (Streichen) well is done by treading
from balance into balance as you hit with your weapon with full might in
needed timing. Some think the best way
to achieve this is by moving weaponry first followed by body when driving
forth; and moving body first followed by weaponry when driving back – compare
GS’s true time & false time. Driving and striking well are the same as
flowing well in fight. The timings of before, during and after are
dealt with in this couplet. We may
take erstcoming (e komen) at
face-value, as another way to call the tactic of striking in before-time, which
WP calls prior, and which HT calls
by name of zulegen (onlaying) for his longsword. WP tells his Student the importance of
before-time or erstcoming: Unde qui prior
vadit prior erit ad faciendum dampnum suo aduersario. Thus he who steps first and struggles
first causes damage to his adversary. However, nextraiding (noch reissen) takes some translative explaining.
Firstly, noch has kinship to “nigh” or “near” (OE neah), as well as with the superlative “next” (OE niehst). Secondly, reissen has kinship to “raiding” or “rushing” (OE ræsan). Let us explore the history of the
latter: considering context of the
lore’s time and place, the Alemannisch
word reissen is most likely of same
meaning as Preußdeutsch word reysen, which as utilised throughout
the German-speaking world of 1491 AD would mean “raiding”. By that time it would have been used with
that sense for nearly three centuries hitherto, not only as witnessed by the
manifold documents and chronicles of the Teutonic Order, yet by most all
Germanic Ritterschaft as well, who
would have known and taken to this meaning if they did not already speak it
in their manifold dialects, since they had been ongoing partners in the
frequent crusading forays and campaigns east of Prussia, whether the
knighthood was Alemannic or otherwise.
This reysen could also mean
“rushing” or “racing”, which are accurate in a looser yet older sense. The cognate OE ræsan is of interest to this meaning, as the 755 AD entry from
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells
us. It relates how King Cynewulf
fought Earl Cyneheard, for EC came spoiling to avenge his brother’s death by
KC at the door of KC’s mistress, so KC: ...þa
ut ræsde on hine ond hine miclum gewundode... ...thereout
rushed upon him and him mightily wounded... And it is of great note that by the end
of the 14th CentAD the Middle English reisen most
definitely had the same meaning as reysen of Preußdeutsch as witnessed by the Knight of Canterbury Tales: Full oft time he hadde the boord bigonne Aboven alle nacions in Pruce; In Lettou had he reised, and in Ruce... Fully oft-times he had the champion-seat Mostly in the nation of In Now, a superlatively literal rendering
of noch into “next”, put together with a contextual rendering of reissen
into “raiding” gives the fighter the holistically right tactical
idea: nextraiding (noch reissen) –
the foe attacks so the fighter counter-attacks into it or avoids then attacks
– hence “raids next” – thus striking in during-time or after-time. JLSR state nachraisen superbly for longsword versus both hew and thrust: Aber ain
nachraisen: Item wann
er dir von oben zu hawet laß er dann sein schwert mitt dem haw nider gen zu
der erden so rayß im nach mitt ainem haw oben zu dem kopfe ee er mit dem
schwertt uff kumpt Oder will er dich stechen so mörk die wil er das schwert
zu im zücht zu dem stich so rayß im nach und stich in ee wan er sinen stich
vol bringt. Thus another nextraiding: When he hews at you from above, then let
his sword with the hew go nether to the Earth, so raid him next with one of
the hews from above to the head before he comes up with the sword – or if you
mark that he would stab, because he withdraws the sword to thrust, then raid
him next and stab him before he fulfills his stab. And of course these tactics of
erstcoming (striking before-time) and nextraiding (striking during-time or
after-time) should be so natural and customary to you that they are well beknown
(der sytt – literally
“custom or habit”). And lastly some germane techniques,
perhaps here together at the end because maybe they were favourites of
Siber: Speeding, the overlope and the ever useful slashes
(die schnidtt) most definitely should be known as well. That is basic lore To which to turn The basic
lore (gemeÿne lere) has now
been told unto you – to it you may turn
(kere) in time of need. Every attack has its counter, and every
counter has its attack. This is the stück
und bruch of HT and all KdF. It makes wisdom Which art and knowledge praise Siber speaks of these virtues in
personifying verse, common to the poetic speech of his time. The greater sense that I have gained from
Siber is that the wisdom (wÿssen) of the fight means the fighter
needs knowledge (kündent) of technique and tactics yet
must also be a creative fearless improviser who thus understands it as the art (künst) of fighting. If it
all works together rightly, then in effect these all praise (prÿssen) one
another. Siber’s fight-lore ends. ***** Martin Siber’s Fight-Lore of 1491 AD a prose rendering as training-regimen This prose
rendering of mine is more or less a severe abridgement of my interpretation,
distilled for the swordsman. Thus it
requires that one has made himself familiar already with Siber’s techniques
& tactics. This training-regimen should
lead one to realise the goings, which should likewise lead one to sparring. Good luck! Foreword: Master Martin Siber has made and set this new summary of sword
& buckler fencing. It is a
veritable teaming of skirmishes fought by many masters of the art of
fighting. It is dealt and set into six
goings, which are matches or bouts that Siber and/or other masters
fought. And in the summary are wards,
or dynamic stances, with colourful names such as ox and plough, and strikes
like the mighty skull-hew – not presented in isolated manner, as it seems
they were by an earlier unnamed unknown book, but rather here together in
explanation to help us learn them as united techniques of changing tactics in
the fight. So heave oneself at the
foreword, the poem, and the six goings – altogether making Siber’s summary of
deadly sword & buckler fight-lore. Whoever will
earn honour before princes and before lords in fighting with the sword would
do well to follow Siber’s fight-lore – and it may even make the Fighter good
and holy. The six goings, which are
like set-plays for training two swordsmen, have wards which are wieldy &
useful – for they teach the Fighter the cunning techniques and tactics of
many goodly masters. The lore is based
upon how these sundry masters fight all over In the goings the Fighter treads or
steps mostly to the right where he can stay readily behind his shield – so if
he treads left then he should remember to mislead, as such exposes him more
readily to the Foe’s strikes. In
stabbing the Fighter presses strongly by putting his body into it and/or
treading so he may achieve it well.
When Fighter sights for openings through a window of space around or between
his weaponry, then he does it best when he stands open, and when he sees
through it, then he goes to the opening with his sword to strike or stab
swiftly. Such offence-as-defence makes
the Fighter hard to kill. In the work
or infighting of binding, winding, and wrestling, the Fighter treads
roundabout – thus the daring fellow wins out.
Now some ethical yet practical advice:
If the Fighter would
raise and strengthen himself by his fighting, then he must have
the right to fight, some valid reason to do so. The Fighter must ward himself from great
wrath – whether the great wrath-hew or the unbalanced feeling of great wrath
within his mind – and he must bring forsetting to such, which he may achieve
well when in all his fighting he is nimble of body & mind. This foreword ends. First Going:
Fighter wards in plough and Foe wards in plough. Fighter speeds weak of his sword to his
right, down back and around, as he hop-steps same way, to overhew at Foe while
he also winds through amid the fight with his shield to cover and/or forset
if Foe thrusts. However, if Foe treads
back & avoids, then Fighter treads forth to overwhelm him by doing
speeder with might to both sides twice, a flurry of windmilling to repel or
remove Foe. Yet if Foe avoids these and
retreats to ward again in plough, then Fighter wards now in bow, and treads as
he overwinds Foe’s shield strongly to thrust-strike his sword from bow
swiftly, and his shield either knocks away Foe’s shield or runs cover
below. In all work Fighter treads
roundabout, and thrusts with this right-side bow. Second
Going: Fighter wards in roof and Foe wards in
roof. Foe overhews so Fighter treads
forth as he crumples within his strong at the weak of Foe’s blade to forset
& strike Foe in one move as he covers high with shield – yet if Fighter
fails because Foe binds or forsets, then Fighter winds through his sword with
marking of next opening to thrust while he covers with shield. Yet if this fails and now Fighter wards in
plough & Foe wards in long-point and then hop-steps to stab low, then
Fighter winds away the strike with his shield as he overlopes Foe’s attack
with his forweaponed point and knop – his ready sword – to stab Foe in the
face as he either hintertreads or stays put & torques body to drive it. Yet if Foe forsets this with shield up from
below, then Fighter goes with it to catch Foe’s shield with the cross hooking
lower rim, to work and fight, to push it up away as if to hew with blade from
above, yet Fighter should bethink the misleading knop and simply hammer it
upon Foe’s top to make him ill as he hop-steps inside and stifles Foe’s sword
with shield. As this going tells, in
all work Fighter treads roundabout, thus the daring fellow wins out. Third Going:
Fighter wards in roof or tresses and Foe wards in roof. Foe overhews by wrather or skuller so
Fighter squints with short-edge at what comes from roof as he
hop-steps, side-steps or stands ground and withdraws shield to cover high, to
stop Foe’s attack and strike him. Yet
if Fighter wards in roof or tresses and Foe wards in roof & strikes by
crumpler, then it goes not through Fighter’s thwarter to Foe’s upper
openings, with shield shifted to cover high behind head as he treads back. Fighter must look into Foe’s business to
deem what gambit Foe betrays from roof, to reckon whether to strike with
squinter or thwarter from his high-ward.
Fighter does the squint-hew with might by hop-step and/or torque. If Fighter wards in tresses and Foe
overhews from tresses then he forsets him by wrather with tread or switch, and quickly offtakes from the hard-bind rather nimbly within the strong of
the blades, and precisely shifts or
winds to strike Foe’s upper openings as shield covers hilt-hand, hence
weaponry twained, as he treads, stays put or side-steps. Instead, if Fighter threatens the hew from
tresses against Foe in plough while he strongly advance the shield at him,
then by Fighter’s open-stance he coaxes Foe to thrust low with hop-step and
withdraw shield, and so by overloping Foe’s attack with wrath-hew to his
extended arm as he withdraws shield to forset the point with tread back or
switch, hence weaponry apart, thus the Fighter overcomes Foe. Yes, in all work Fighter treads roundabout,
thus the daring fellow wins out. Fourth
Going: Fighter wards in ox and Foe wards in
roof. Fighter thrusts the ox through
with two big steps, to charge over Foe – either smiting him with sword &
then slamming him with shield; or ramming him with sword & shield twained
in wedge. If Foe forsets with shield
and overhews with sword, then Fighter winds it away with shield as he treads
back and counter-winds his sword up above and treads forth to swiftly make
the skull-hew; yet if Foe forsets with shield then strikes by hew or thrust,
then Fighter avoids by tread back, only to tread forth to strike that
unfriendly hitter straight away with sword, by thrust in belly and by slash
upon neck. Naturally, in all work
Fighter treads roundabout, thus the daring fellow wins out. Fifth Going:
Fighter wards in long-point and Foe wards in tresses. Foe wrath-hews and withdraws shield so
Fighter stabs the long-point through simply by hop-step forth and up-tilt of
his sword to let Foe thirl himself, as he covers high with shield near body. If Foe avoids or forsets, then Fighter withdraws
to half-swording as he treads back, stabs-again from below with tread forth,
then strikes from above by morte as he treads back. Instead, Fighter in long-point hop-steps
and strikes by blind-hew to head of Foe in tresses, then lets sword bounce down
into strike of Foe’s advanced leg as he treads back – and so Fighter may go
well and flow. If Foe rebuffs all this
and wrath-hews again, then Fighter hangs sword & shield against it thus
soon, forsets sword of passing Foe, hintertreads while lowering his shield to
cover while he speeds sword against him, at the back of Foe’s head and then
return-steps to middlehew or stab Foe in bread-box – and thus Fighter makes
of Foe a real gawk. And, in all work
Fighter treads roundabout, thus the daring fellow wins out. Sixth Going:
Fighter wards in roof and Foe wards in
tresses. Foe wrath-hews from roof
Fighter shifts sword over and down as he raises shield to ward now in
left-side bow, and as he forsets Foe’s strike he reaches inside with shield
and fares through by hop-step, thus by overwinding Foe’s sword-arm with his
shield to grapple, and by striking with his sword from roof, Fighter wards
himself. Instead, as Fighter wards in
roof or iron-gate and the Foe wards in roof or tresses, Fighter thwarts
through the Foe before-time or within Foe’s overhew during-time, thus really
soon, with tread forth to strike him by sword as shield covers high. Fighter then blind-hews by return in-line
out of nearby-ward, with tread forth or back, and carries through to speed
anew behind & around to beat the point from above into Foe’s breast,
while either standing ground or gather-stepping behind foe to throw him over
hip – thus finally the Foe has lost.
In all work Fighter treads roundabout, thus the daring fellow wins out. Poem: This deals with
tactics applied to techniques: Overhew is for countering Foe’s stabs, and
underhew simply breaks strikes from above by striking Foe, while middlehew
thrown in the width of the fight and the Foe, across one’s range, can end it
well for the Fighter. Now look out for
what that really means – do it and let it not be done to you! In changing-hew seek Foe’s folly by
feigning strike to one opening only to shift sword mid-air to another – in
this spirit, Fighter should spy for the forsetting of his strike by the Foe,
and change it typically into a pounce-hew by winding the blade, perhaps
finding his face left bare of shield.
Hence to change from out the skuller, Fighter may wind it into
thwarter and so strike with the short-edge there to side of Foe’s head
instead of top. Fighter may invert
pounce-hew by changing sword from thrust above Foe’s shield into thrust
beneath it, there to stab his body and teach him fatally. Other gambits are to make wary in iron-gate
or conversely nearby, to bait Foe to overhew at upper openings, only to fare
up with the point of sword in twain with shield, whether to simply move into
or to forset and/or strike into the ward of unicorn, wherefrom Fighter offers
lower openings at times instead – and of course reversed. Either way Fighter sets
up Foe for some sort of counter, and indeed Fighter can use these
luring wards either separately or together by changing, to achieve his
counter-strike. Gambits such as when
Fighter serves the Foe roses, whereby he forsets & strikes Foe with
shield & dagger held together, inside Foe’s own roundling, a triple
threat along with sword. More tactical
wisdom is that Fighter tugs the tresses against good sense – for to try to
trick Foe with such a faraway blade or strike again therefrom may be
folly. If Fighter hits Foe with
shield-hew, then he may next quickly drive from boar-ward to make the wing,
which is either bent arm and shield together flipped upwards or is shield-arm
wound into crossed-twained, which goes above to forset Foe’s strike therefrom
or to flank, and lets a thrust follow through at Foe, and perhaps another
shield-hew. However, despite the
appeal of such complex gambits, Fighter must not forget a basic gambit like
waker, which is crumpler by another name, as it will let the Fighter stand
his ground simply & decisively. So
to finish Siber’s fight-lore, the Fighter recalls such fundamentals as: Driving and striking will go and go
together – which is simply to drive any strike by treading & torquing, by
moving the whole body – the same as flowing well in the fight. The tactics of
erstcoming (striking before-time) and nextraiding (striking during-time or
after-time) should be so natural to Fighter that they are beknown. And lastly techniques of speeding, the overlope, and the slashes
should be known as well. That is the
basic lore to which one turns in need – every attack has its counter,
and every counter has its attack – and that makes wisdom, which the art of
fighting and knowledge praise. ***** Bibliography: Primary Sources: The
Archaeology of Weapons;
Ewart Oakeshott (auth & illus); Barnes & Noble; Codex
Speyer (Handschrift M I 29 or Fechtbuch); Hans von Speyer (edit & comp); Beatrix Koll
(transcr); (transcript thereof & formerly also facsimile); Almania; 1491;
Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg; 2002; <www.ubs.sbg.ac.at/sosa/webseite/fechtbuch.htm> Das Deutsches Wörterbuch; Jacob
Grimm (auth) & Wilhelm Grimm (auth); Universität Trier; 2003; <www.dwb.uni-trier.de/index.html> Jörg Wilhalm’s
Fechtbuch; Jörg Wilhalm
/ Sorg / von Huter (auth); Germany; 1523; Bibliotheca Regia Moacensis;
Armaria; 2003 Liechtenauer’s Sword & Buckler Teachings; Keith
Myers (auth); ARMA Web-Site; 2001; <www.thearma.org/essays/LeignitzerSandB.htm> Medieval Combat; Mark Rector
(transl & interp); Hans Talhoffer (auth); Bayern; 1467; Greenhill Books;
London; 2000 The
Medieval Art of Swordsmanship: Facsimile & Translation of Royal Armouries
MS I.33; Jeffrey
Forgeng (edit & transl); Chivarly Bookshelf; Union City; 2003 (from 1300) Medieval
Swordsmanship; John
Clements (auth); Paladin Press; Meister Hans Thalhofer: Alte Armatur und Ringkunst; Hans Talhoffer
(auth); Thott 290 2º; Bayern; 1459;
The
Northern Crusades; Eric
Christiansen (auth); Penguin; Records of the Medieval Sword; Ewart Oakeshott (auth); Boydell Press;
Ritterlich
Kunst; Sigmund Ringeck
(auth); Johannes Liechtenauer (auth); Stefan Dieke (transcr); Mscr. Drsd. C
487; Bayern; 1389 & 1440; Sächsische Landesbibliothek-Dresden; Die
Freifechter Webseite; 2001; <www.freifechter.org> Sword &
Buckler Plays of Liechtenauer & Ringeck; Jeffrey Hull
(transl); unpublished; Oregon; 2004 Walpurgis (Manuscript I.33 or Tower
Fechtbuch); Anonymous; No. 14 E iii, No. 20, D. vi.; Germany;
1300; Royal Library Museum; ARMA Web-Site; 2000; <www.thearma.org/Manuals/i33/i33.htm> The
Wars of the Roses; Terrence
Wise (auth); Gerry Embleton (illus); Osprey; Oxford; 2000 Secondary Sources: Albrecht Duerer’s Fechtbuch
Art; Albrecht Dürer (illus); Handschrift
26-232; Nürnberg; 1520; ARMA Web-Site; 2001; <www.thearma.org/Manuals/Duerer.htm> Altenn Fechter
anfengliche Kunst; Christian
Egenolph (auth); Alexander Kiermaier
(transcr); Franckfurt am Meyn;
1529; Die Freifechter Webseite; 2001; <www.freifechter.org> American
Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots; Calvert Watkins
(edit); Marion Severynse
(edit); Houghton Mifflin; Anglo-Saxon
Thegn: AD 449-1066; Mark Harrison (auth); Gerry Embleton (illus); Osprey Publishing; ARMA Interview
with Hank Reinhardt, August 2001; ARMA Web-Site; 2003;
<www.thearma.org/spotlight/hrinterview3.htm> Avoiding the
“Commonplace” in Historical Martial Arts; Russell
Mitchell (auth); HACA
Web-Site; 2001; <www.thehaca.com/essays/CommonPlace.htm> Beowulf; Seamus Heaney (transl); WW
Norton; Chaucer’s Poetry; Geoffrey Chaucer (auth); ET Donaldson
(edit); Ronald Press; Cheyenne
Dog Soldiers; Afton;
Ellis; Halaas; Masich (edit);
University of Colorado Press; 2000 (from 1869) Codex
Wallerstein; Gregorz
Zabinski (transcr & transl); Bartlomiej Walczak (transl & interp); Paladin
Press; Boulder; 2002 (from 1470) Consolation of Philosophy; Boethius (auth); Victor Watts (transl);
Penguin; Danzig Fechtbuch; Peter von Danzig (auth); Monika
Maziarz (transcr); Preuszen; 1452; ARMA-Poland; 2004; <www.arma.lh.pl/index.html> Duel of the Century: The Judicial Combat of Jarnac
and Châtaigneraye - France, 1547; John Clements (auth)
& Belinda Hertz (auth); ARMA Web-Site;
2003; <www.thearma.org/essays/DOTC.htm> Fechtbuch
von Albrecht Dürer; Albrecht Dürer (illus); Handschrift 26-232;
Nürnberg; 1520; Armaria; 2003 Fechtbuch
von Paul Kal; Paul Kal (auth); Niederbayern; 1462-82; Armaria; 2003 1536; Milan;
Newsidler; de Milano (compos); Jeffrey Ashton (perform); Gagliano Recordings;
audio CD; 1997 (from 1536) Flos
Duellatorum; Fiore dei Liberi (auth); Hermes Michelini (transl); Italy;
1410; Knights of the Wild Rose; Calgary; 2001; <www.varmouries.com/wildrose/fiore/section5.html> Genealogy of Morals; Friedrich Nietzsche (auth); Francis
golfing (transl); Anchor Books; New York; 1956 Gründtliche
Beschreibung; Joachim
Meyer (auth); Alexander
Kiermaier (transcr); Straßborg;
1570; Die Freifechter Webseite; 2001; <www.freifechter.org> A
Guide to Old English; Bruce
Mitchell (auth & edit); Fred Robinson (auth & edit); Basil Blackwell;
Infantry
Attacks; Erwin Rommel
(auth & illus); GE Kidde (transl); Manfred Rommel (intro); Greenhill
Books; London; 1990 (from 1937) Kings
and Queens of England and Great Britain; Eric Delderfield (edit & auth); DV Cook (auth); David
& Charles; Newton Abbot; 1975 Liber
Chronicarum; Schedel; Wolgemut; Pleyenwurff; Alt;
Koberger; Füssel; Nürnberg; 1493; bound uncoluored Latin edition; Wilson
Collection; Multnomah County Library Libr.Pict.A.83; anonymous fightbook; Life in Medieval Britain; Mike Leighton (writ & prod); Stephen
Clinch (edit); Lowry, Swanston, Brown (contr); Cromwell Films; Great Britain;
1995 Magister Andreas: Fencing Instructions
for Sword and Messer; Mike
Rasmusson (transl); Beatrix Koll (transcr); MS I 29; University Library
Salzburg; 2003; <www.schielhau.org/fechtbuchandreas.html> The
Martial Artist’s Book of Five Rings; Stephen F Kaufman (transl & inter); Musashi Miyamoto
(auth); Tuttle Publishing; The
Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe; Sydney Anglo (auth); Yale University Press; New Haven &
London; 2000 Medieval
Europe: a Short History;
C Warren Hollister (auth); Alfred Knopf; Medieval Life; Andrew Langley (auth); Geoff Dann
(photo); Geoff Brightly (photo); Dorling Kindersley; London; 1996 MS 3542: The Harleian Mauscript Analysis
Project – Parts I & II; Hutton; Hick; McLean; Brown; Clements (transcr, transl, edit);
England; 1450; ARMA Web-Site; 2001; <www.thearma.org/Manuals/Harleian.htm> The
Myth of Edge-On-Edge Parrying in Medieval Swordplay; John
Clements (auth); ARMA
Web-Site; 2002; <www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm> Norton Anthology of English Literature
Volume 1; MH Abrams
(edit); WW Norton; Ordo Virtutum; Hildegard von Bingen (compos); Sequentia
(perform); BMG; audio CD; 1998 (from 12th Cent) The
Panorama of the Renaissance; Margaret Aston (edit); Thames & Hudson; Paradoxes
of Defense & Brief Instructions; George Silver (auth); Steve Hick (transcr); Sloan MS #376;
London; 1598; ARMA Web-Site; 2000; <www.thearma.org/Manuals/GSilver.htm> Parzival; Wolfram von Eschenbach (auth); AT
Hatto (transl); Penguin Books; Ralph Roister Doister; Nicholas Udall (auth); Clarence Child
(edit); Riverside Press; Sigmund
Ringeck’s Knightly Art of the Longsword; David Lindholm (transl & interp); Peter Svärd
(illus); Johnsson & Strid (contr); Sigmund Ringeck (auth); Johannes
Liechtenauer (auth); Paladin Press; Boulder; 2003 (from 1389 & 1440) Tain
Bo Cualnge; Senchan
Torpeist (auth-attrib); Ernst Windisch (transcr); S Hirzel Verlag; Leipzig;
1905 (from 9th-12th CentAD MSs) Twenty-Five
Counters to One Cut: Simple Sword and Buckler; Stewart
Feil (auth); Armaria; 2003 The
Wittgenstein Reader; Ludwig Wittgenstein (auth); Anthony Kenny (edit); Blackwell; The
World of Dürer: 1471-1528; Francis
Russell (auth); Time-Life
Books; ***** Appendix
I: Codex The original
manuscript resides at and belongs to the Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg. The URL of its
transcript is: http://www.ubs.sbg.ac.at/sosa/webseite/fechtbuch.htm The
transcription there is the 2003 copyright of Beatrix Koll and Universität
Salzburg. Here are the
contents of that work at the Uni-Salzburg Web-Seite: (1r-2v) Martin Siber: Fechtlehre (3r) Fechtlehre (5r-7r) Magister Andreas: Fechtanleitungen für Schwert und Messer (10r-44r) Meister Johann Liechtenauer: Fechtlehre für das lange
Schwert (46r-117r) Hans Lecküchner: Messerfechtlehre (119r-126v) Meister Ott: Ringkampflehre (130r-136v) Meister Lew: Fechtlehre zu Fuß (137r-141r) Meister Martin Hundfeld: Fechtlehre mit dem kurzen
Schwert (143r-146r) Fechtlehre für den Kampf mit der Lanze zu Pferd (146v-158r) Fechtlehre für den Schwertkampf zu Pferd
This sword proved to be quite wieldy for the techniques
and tactics described in Siber. I
contrast it as somewhat heavier yet dynamically balanced than the lighter yet
statically balanced replica of an OT-VI which I had utilised too. I found this OT-XVI replica to track well
in thrusting yet to have a hefty presence in slashing and hewing. The stuff in Siber could be done decently
with a variety of OTs, yet the OT-XVI is outstanding overall, and originals
of the type doubtless would have existed and been wielded during his
lifetime. Such swords were common
enough in Buckler diameter: 331 mm mass: 1360 grams thickness: 1.0 mm This buckler
is simply a smooth blackened steel dome, with a wood & leather grip over
a flat-iron handle spanning within. It
ended up luckily about the same weight as the sword. It is a replica of generic design, common
enough in Dagger overall length: 475 mm mass: 455 grams blade-length: 315 mm (diamond) blade-width (at
shoulders & 50 mm from tip):
43 & 21 mm blade-thickness (at
shoulders & 50 mm from tip):
5.5 & 3.5 mm pommel: brass mushroom; 31 mm diameter & 15 mm
thick grip: leather-wrapped; 130 mm long & 35, 20,
26 mm thick (guard, midway, pommel) crossguard: brass rectangle; 45 mm broad & 7 mm
thick point of balance (from
shoulders): 10 mm This double-edged steel
coulter could be called either a late ballock or
early rondel, a typical enough design found throughout Appendix III: Documental Notes and
Translative & Interpretive Reasoning Siber does not actually tell or show us exactly how
to do any of his techniques – warding, striking, or forsetting, nor any of
his winding or treading – nor does he explain his tactics. He really does not make much clear – other
than he means the “daring fellow” to win the fight. Thus said, I did my best to arrive at a
small yet complete method from his summary.
Although Siber’s verse is rather laconic and enigmatic, seeming quite
open to interpretation, his key terms, much comparison to other sword &
buckler sources, and my own praxis led me at last to my final rendering. I found that Siber’s unique fight-lore
shared martial validity with the greater Kunst
des Fechtens. Now, the Mittelhochdeutsch
(MHD) dialect of Siber is Alemannisch (Alemannic),
which was/is found in Switzerland, western Austria, parts of Bavaria, and in
Alsace – hence much of the Teutonic Alpine.
I based my MHD transcript upon magnified and careful perusal of a
high-density colour facsimile of Siber’s part of Codex Speyer. I made my own transcription so that I could
take full responsibility for my assertions. Both the Neuhochdeutsch (NHD) and New English
(NE) translations leave out MHD scribal redundancies, and leave NHD separated
prepositional nouns which are either normally prefixed or unusually suffixed
– like the rhyme-friendly joined equivalents in MHD – as such, noted by
hyphenating (-). I have tended towards
British spellings for the English throughout.
In rare cases, I found need to name the unnamed – some few techniques
arrived at logically as one moves through the goings – sparingly denominated,
generally cross-referenced to other relevant sources, and with notice
given. The rather ungrammatical MHD
text would not have hindered the fechter
under masterly mentorship during the 14th-16th CentAD,
for the verses were to remind him of what he must have been taught already in
physical training – he would have understood the poetry even if the modernist
does not. Other anomalies and/or odd
phrasing are trusted to the friendly reader’s realisation of translative judgement and the desire to retain the original literary
voice. No theory of literary criticism holds sway here. Unlike academic modernity, it must be
understood that verse & poetry of Medievality had a listening life – it
was not just seen & read, yet was mostly spoken & heard. If my rendering of the text seems archaic
and atavistic, then it is because swordsmanship is inherently so relative to
modern times. The whole idea was to reckon what works. Lastly I state the following: I was vernacular and often literal in my
translating, as I am weary of partial and/or modernist versions of sundry
other fight-books. Why bother trying
to further fight-book knowledge in ones own language if one refuses to go all
the way by fully rendering a given source – especially if the key terms are
left in the original language? I chose
not to do as such, because I think that a more literal translation is more
accurate yet more forgiving – and certainly more lively. Also, If my wording runs counter to
established vocabulary then perhaps the establishment needs to reconsider its
wording. I ask the reader to keep an
open mind and give my rendering a chance.
My translations treat English and German as
the sister-languages that they are. No
apology from me thusly. I have made
philology my guide to translation and kinesiology my guide to interpretation. Thus I have tried to follow the wisdom of
King Alfred: hwilum word be worde, hwilum adgit of andgiete sometimes word for word, sometimes sense for sense *****
Acknowledgements:
My thanks to Stewart Feil, Geoffrey Gagner
& Lisa Kline, the Grimm Brothers, Beatrix Koll, Donald Lepping, Monika
Maziarz, David McGirl, Multnomah County Libraries, Keith Myers, Phú Hòa &
Hankins, Portland Community College, Brian Pugh, Deirdre Ryan, Bartlomiej
Walczak, Windlass – and Martin Siber. Mittelhochdeutsch transcription,
Neuhochdeutsch & New English translations, the
interpretation, the imagery, and the whole work are the 2004 copyright of
Jeffrey Hull. |
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
