Research and Discussion Forums

[philippewillaume]

Hello Szab
This is about the text. Personally I do not think there is anything in the main glossator's texts that support a dynamic approach to the breaking of the guard and close scrutiny.

Ringeck clearly tells us that we break alber with a strike from the sheitel not with the sheitel. As he tells us that when our opponent is standing against us in the guard albert.
Clearly that is static.

VD (lew speyer) text says (and usually has the same format for each breaking of the guards ).
wenn du mit dem zů vechten zů ym kumpst legt er sich denn gegen dir in die hůt alber. So setz den lincken fuesß vor und halt dein swert an deiner rechten achsel Inn der hůt / und spring zů im / und haw mit der langen schneid starck von oben nider Im zů dem kopff

when you come at him with the “zu fechten”, lay he himself against you in the guard albert. So set the left foot forward and hold your sword at you left shoulder in the guard (ie Von tag) and jump/spring (at him) and strike him to the head strongly from top to bottom with the long edge.

It can be understood two ways, either as we are getting in rage he takes alber so we take von tag and strike. IE he is waiting for us in alber, granted fro a minimum amount of time but he is there before us.

Or as he takes abler, we take the guard as the same time.

Whichever way we look at it, the movement in his movement is a taking of the guard not the strike. As we take the guard and then strike and he just take the guard.
Usually as well the conception of zu fechten is when you are getting in fencing distance. So the best we can get from there is we both get in fencing distance as we both take the guard.

If we were to strike at the same time as he takes the guard and that was important, I believed we would have been told so explicitly.

Just for completeness, I am a member of hemac and it is a known fact there is a relatively strong disagreement as to how to translate medieval German text between some German fencing researcher and me . They are aware of it and that is an example of why. The contention is that I believe current German dialect of much less relevance compare with medieval grammar and dictionary.
This is not a slight on their person, school, organization or their fencing style; I am just explaining where the difference is.

_________________
One Ringeck to bring them all In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hmmmm....good discussion folks. I would say that the point (OK bad pun <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) of a schielhau (or any meisterhau) is that it does 2 things at the same time:

1. Hits him.
2. Closes off his line of attack to you.

some work better against specific leger/posta than others (krump vs. ochs, shielhau vs. pflug or lang ort, etc.). I think the implication we can draw from this is that the shielhau (and its friends) has a broad application against a range of things your opponent does, whether he is holding a static guard (hence Ringeck's advice to use shielhau against pflug or langort) or in a moving technique (hence the advice to use the shielhau against the buffalo).

IMO the key thing here is not so much what your opponent does (provided you are using the right meisterhau for the situation), but rather that YOU are moving with good speed, power, range, focus and all that nice stuff. That is what makes it work.

For what it is worth, I use an ascending krump against ochs all the time and works pretty well. Still have some problems getting the descending one to work, but I think that has more to do with my poor footwork than anything else.

Great discussion!

[Jake_Norwood]

They say, "Strike when he strikes and thrust when he thrusts," true. But they also say not to rest, not to be stationary. If you can't break a guard then that would encourage one to be stationary since you can't be broken.

The Meisterhau have much more to do with thinking three moves ahead, like chess, and basic geometry in the way they close off gaps. The vier versetzen break stationay guards because they break the attacks that come from those guards as well, thus you can "pay no mind to what your opponent does" and just do your five strikes and other techniques. If your opponent rests, he dies. If he strikes (moves) you strike.

Striking in response to the motion of an opponent is nochslag or nachreisen--one of the ways to take or keep the VOR through the principle of NACH or possibly even INDES. If the masterstrikes are only for use in the nach or the indes, but you are told always to strike in the vor whenever possible, and you are told only to do master strikes, then obviously you can initiate krieg from zufechten with a masterstrike...meaning that you can attack a guy regardless of whether he is in motion or at rest.

Whew...make sense?

Jake
_________________
Sen. Free Scholar
ARMA Deputy Director

[Derrick Berrier]

Jake,

Once again you bring simplicity to a subject that has gotten overly complicated. Being new I guess I haven't had the chance to make things complicated for myself. Still I could see that if I had been studying for a while and pouring over different manuals and training with different people, that maybe I would begin to over analyze everything. It seems however that the basics in themselves are hard enough. I could talk about Nor, Nach, and Indes all day, but who knows when I will be able to accomplish them with confidence. Anyways thank you once again for a clear concise post, I found it very helpful.

Derrick

[Jake_Norwood]

Derrick,

We'll go over all this stuff together in September or October, after I'm back from the sandbox. I'm coming home to the TN/KY border, after all.

Vor, Nach, and Indes are really easy. Here's a bonehead (oversimplifed) guide:

Vor (before): strike before he does. The "initiative."
Nach (after): anything you do in response to his action. Sort of. If he moves and you hit him it's nach. If he strikes and misses and you counter-strike and hit it's nach. Nach leads to Vor.
Indes (as soon as, just as, just when): this is sort of a half-nach. It's changing what you are doing to fit what he is doing in the middle of you doing it. Sort of. It's more fluid, more sudden than nach. Sort of.
Gleich (simultaneously): This one's from Meyer. It's when you and your opponent act independently but at the same time. It's usually not good, and requires someone to change what they are doing "indes" in order to exploit the situation and gain the vor.

Jake,
who realizes that this will probably start a whole discussion...
_________________
Sen. Free Scholar
ARMA Deputy Director

[Jaron Bernstein]

Jake,

Gleich sounds like an invitation to a double kill. Saw some video here of that when one guy threw a right zwerch the same time as the other. Both nice cuts, both hitting the left side of the opponent's head at the same time......Which takes us back to that whole "place yourself for advantage" thing. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jaron

In that video we both made the same opening attack(zwerch against zwerch) at the same time it realy wasn't gleich situation, if you slow the video down i went over his head and he hit me so it actualy wasn't a double kill.

Jeff
_________________
Semper Fidelis

Usque ad Finem

Grace, Focus, Fluidity

[david welch]

Well... there is going to be a lot of this now that The new Meyer book is out and we have stuff to work with.

From The Art of Combat, Jeffery Forgeng's new Meyer book translation:

P.97

"Counter against the plow

When an opponent comes before you in the guard of the plow, then promptly lat on him with the squinting cut. As soon as he goes up, then work to his lower openings, and then to all four targets."

Sound to me like he is "breaking plow" by forcing his enemy to move out of the guard, and attacking the opening plow was protecting. This is a standard form of attack in the Meyer book.
_________________
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD.

[JeffGentry]

[david welch]

That is the whole passage.
_________________
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD.