I.33 and Falling Under the Sword & Shield

[Keith Culbertson]

what Ran is describing here reminds me of one of Meyer's various actions at the bind, I cannot recall the term, but effectively you go in as if seeking the strike/bind, but then 'fall' into a diffeent angle of attack...similar or no?

[Jon Pellett]

Ran

I don't do I.33, but I think that is a very interesting theory and does seem to fit the words well. Cool.

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi!

Randall, thanks, I believe I now am fairly sure I understand what you are describing. As such, that action could be done, but has the danger of being a long action while possibly leaving your face open for a thrust. Is this what you see as what the 'common fencer' would do? And something you would reply to with a stichschlach? Would this then be done by closing the line with the buckler, and thrusting simultaneously from your left side, with the hand supinated (as in a rapier quarta)?

Interesting.

Two more questions, what do you think it refers to, when the instruction is given not to execute a strike from underarm? Isn't a zorn, as you say, to the arm very much a strike?

And, how would you describe the relationship of the priests three actions, the durchthreten, mutacio and the wrapping with the arms in the context of your interpretation?

- Ilkka

[Randall Pleasant]

Randall, thanks, I believe I now am fairly sure I understand what you are describing. As such, that action could be done, but has the danger of being a long action while possibly leaving your face open for a thrust. Is this what you see as what the 'common fencer' would do? And something you would reply to with a stichschlach? Would this then be done by closing the line with the buckler, and thrusting simultaneously from your left side, with the hand supinated (as in a rapier quarta)?

Ilkka

When I cut a left Zorn from the Under-Arm guard my buckler is out in front of me just under eye sight protecting my hand and providing good protection to my upper openings.

Cutting without first binding and performing a Shield-Strike is what a "common fenser" does. So why does the priest cut at the arm like a common fenser? Because he can't get a good over-bind against Half-Shield. Therefore the priest makes the cut to the student's arm to entice the student to move into a position where he can get a good over-bind on the student's sword.

Two more questions, what do you think it refers to, when the instruction is given not to execute a strike from underarm? Isn't a zorn, as you say, to the arm very much a strike?

The priest is warned not to cut to the student's upper openings because he cannot reach them. I think this means the student's upper opening are too well protected by Half-Shield. The priest is also warned not to cut the the student's lower opening because it will leave his own head open to attack. However, no such warning is given about cutting to the student's arm.

And, how would you describe the relationship of the priests three actions, the durchthreten, mutacio and the wrapping with the arms in the context of your interpretation?

As you point out, if the student gets a good over-bind then the priest can attempt to make a "stepping through" cut (without a bind) or attempt to grab the student's buckler. However, I see these actions as more high risk since the student's sword is left free to counter attack during the same time. The mutation of the sword to an over-bind is much safer since it ties up the student's sword.

[Brian Hunt]

Hi Randall,

I see where you are coming from now. I still wouldn't call your full motion the action of "falling under the sword." I see that as the establishment of the over bind on the right in order to control the opponent's sword when he opposes your 1st ward with half shield.

Instead I would describe what you have posted as faking the "fall under the sword" then immediatly moving into the "change of the sword" in order to avoid the "rebind and step" and establish an overbind on the left.

In other words you are baiting the "rebind and step" with a fake "fall under the sword" so you can move straight to the "change of the sword" and gain a position for your own "shield strike."

I can see why you might describe the whole action simply as "falling under the sword" because what I have written is cumbersome verbage. However, as far as I am concerned simply "falling under the sword" is the action of cutting from the 1st ward into an overbind on the right.

Thanks for sharing, I plan to pressure test this the next time I spar with a sword and a buckler to see if I can make it work against a resisting opponent.

all the best.

Brian Hunt.

Co-author of "Polearms of Paulus Hector Mair."
http://www.paulushectormair.com

[Randall Pleasant]

I see where you are coming from now. I still wouldn't call your full motion the action of "falling under the sword." I see that as the establishment of the over bind on the right in order to control the opponent's sword when he opposes your 1st ward with half shield.

Instead I would describe what you have posted as faking the "fall under the sword" then immediatly moving into the "change of the sword" in order to avoid the "rebind and step" and establish an overbind on the left.

In other words you are baiting the "rebind and step" with a fake "fall under the sword" so you can move straight to the "change of the sword" and gain a position for your own "shield strike."

Brian

I do see "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" as baiting the student but the cut is not fake since only a powerful cut will get the student to react by attempting to over-bind. Yes, I do believe the priest should move straight to the "change of the sword" since there is no advanage to allowing the student to get a good over-bind.

I can see why you might describe the whole action simply as "falling under the sword" because what I have written is cumbersome verbage. However, as far as I am concerned simply "falling under the sword" is the action of cutting from the 1st ward into an overbind on the right.

That I interpret "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" as the whole process shown on page 5 & 6 has nothing to do with your verbage. I reached my interpretation based exclusively upon the text and images of the I.33 manual. Given that the whole process shown on page 5 & 6 is the only thing in I.33 that matches "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" I must disagree with you. "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" is s a simple set of instructions that clearly match a set of actions that are well described and illustrated right where the instructions are given in the manual.

Thanks for sharing, I plan to pressure test this the next time I spar with a sword and a buckler to see if I can make it work against a resisting opponent.

Please keep in mind that my interpretations deals primarily with where "Falling Under the Sword & Buckler" starts and ends. The whole process that I think represents "Falling Under the Sword & Buckler" is clearly defined on page 5 and 6. Pressure testing of that process is really a test of I.33.

[Brian Hunt]

Hi Randall,

I don't disagree with the action you have described, just the descriptive term you are using for it. I guess we will just have to disagree on that. Since interpretation is open to variation, that is OK.

Once again thanks for sharing.

all the best my friend.

Brian Hunt.

Co-author of "Polearms of Paulus Hector Mair."
http://www.paulushectormair.com

[Randall Pleasant]

Thank you too Brian for the discussion

Take care,

[I. Hartikainen]

Randall,

I understand where you are coming from with your theory. I'm trying to challenge it, but please see that only as trying to make your case stronger - I don't actively study I.33, and personally I have no conclusive opinion about how this play could be done. I place all the available interpretations on the same line.

I get the idea that you are suggesting that the mutacio gladii is the default action after the falling under the sword and shield. Am I right in reading you this way?

If so, do you still think that both the thread through and the wrap are actions done after the falling under? Do you see the mutacio as being more important because it is depicted speciufically in the manuscript?

I can understand your reasoning on the advice not to strike, even though it is not conclusive in my opinion.

There is one more interesting thing, and that is that the student is said to counterbind instead of simply binding. I have my own take of this, which does not negate your theory, but do you think that this has any significance? I was pointed out elsewhere that the fact that the student is doing a counterbind would suggest that the priest had already made a bind. On the other hand, on page 50 (if I recall it right) a counterbind is executed against a thrust.

I'd love to see a video of you performing this!


Yours,
Ilkka

[Randall Pleasant]

I understand where you are coming from with your theory. I'm trying to challenge it, but please see that only as trying to make your case stronger - I don't actively study I.33, and personally I have no conclusive opinion about how this play could be done. I place all the available interpretations on the same line.

Ilkka

You and others have taken me to task in a friendly and professional manner and it has been most enjoyable. Presenting an interpretaiton without some questioning would have been very boring. Good questioning also forces one to tie up loose ends. Questioning each others work is the fulfillment of an obligation we have to these arts as scholars. I thank you and others for fulfilling that obligation.

I get the idea that you are suggesting that the mutacio gladii is the default action after the falling under the sword and shield. Am I right in reading you this way?

No, I do not see the mutacio gladii as happing after "Falling Under the Sword & Shield". I see the mutacio gladii as the actual "...Under the Sword and Shield" action. The mutacio gladii is what takes the priest's sword under the weapons of the student.

If so, do you still think that both the thread through and the wrap are actions done after the falling under? Do you see the mutacio as being more important because it is depicted speciufically in the manuscript?

I see the "thread through" cut and the grabing of the student's shield as options that can be performed instead of the "mutacio gladii". Since the safest manner to attacking is with a bind and a Shield-Strike I see the "mutacio gladii" as the best option. When one performs the "thread through" cut or grabs the student's shield they are at high risk of being hit by the student's sword since it is not bound by any thing.

There is one more interesting thing, and that is that the student is said to counterbind instead of simply binding. I have my own take of this, which does not negate your theory, but do you think that this has any significance? I was pointed out elsewhere that the fact that the student is doing a counterbind would suggest that the priest had already made a bind. On the other hand, on page 50 (if I recall it right) a counterbind is executed against a thrust.

I veiw counter-bind as countering a cut or a thrust by binding against it.

[I. Hartikainen]

Randall,

thank you for the discussion as well. It has inspired me to look more closely at I.33, which I haven't done in a while.

The idea that the falling under and the mutacio would actually be one and the same action is an intriguing one, but I think that is a rather bold suggestion. It is of course possible, but the text reads (from the Freywild website), page 4:

Sacerdos autem tria habet facere videlicet mutuare gladium q vt fiat superior Siue durchtreten vel sinistra dextra manu comprehendere brachia* scolaris i. gladium & scutum

Hec tria sunt cleri durchtrit mutacio gladii
dextra siue manu poterit deprehendere gladium schutum

The priest, on the other hand, has three options, namely mutation of the sword, so that it be higher, or durchtreten, or with the left right hand grasp the pupil's arms, i.e. sword and shield.

These three are for the priest: durchtritt, mutation of the sword, or with the right hand he may grasp sword and shield.

Here three distinct actions are given, and I don't see that the mutacio was described as being the same as the falling under, or in anyway distinct from the other two apart from being technically different.

Before this, the text reads on the same page:

N otandum quod scolaris [religat hic & calcat] ad hoc ut recipiat schiltslac vt infra Sed caueat de hiis que sunt facienda ex parte sacerdo[tis quia ...] post religationem sacerdos erit prior ad agendum

It is to be seen, that the pupil is here binding and entering, so that he may place a schiltschlac, as below. But he should take heed of what is done by the priest, as after the bind the priest will be the first to act.

This text, to me, suggests that the priest's actions are done after the bind of the scholar, and if the scholar was to omit his bind the priest would enter with a thrust (as shown on page 50). This separates the actions of falling under and its three (or four if you count the thrust in case the scholar fails to act) continuations. I understand that this doesn't necessarily mean that the action of falling under could not refer to the continuation as well, as that would (especially in the case of mutacio) fit the text rather well.

As I see it, the case for the priest initially binding is based on the interpretation of religacio meaning a bind that is done against a bind, but I don't believe that myself - it goes against the prevailing principle of being weak against strong, and I can't recall a place in the treatise, where a bind would be done against a bind, resisting force with force. Indeed, the mutacio is a regaining of the bind, but even that is done by yielding to the initial bind.

The action of doing a rising cut against the opponent's sword from the left side is a standard action in almost all swordsmanship, but that does not mean that it was the case here. I wish I.33 would be a bit more specific about this, as the whole set of actions from the first ward is the key to the whole system!

One thing that supports your case is, that in none of the pictures displaying the result of falling under is the performer's sword in a stronger position leverage-wise. On the other hand, in none of these pictures is the performer's sword literally under the opponent's weapons.

I will give this theory more consideration and try it out in practice. On a related subject, I sometimes find it 'frustrating' that the treatises often have something in the very first play they describe, that is easy to understand conceptually, but difficult to be absolutely sure about. Besides I.33, Fiore's initial crossings of the swords, while everybody knows what is being explained, are perhaps the most debated aspect of his treatise. Likewise dall'Agocchie, who has as the initial defense an action I wouldn't really want to do in earnest, the Anonimo Bolognese, whose first play sword against sword is the longest and pretty challenging to interpret and the list goes on...

Yours,
Ilkka

[Jaron Bernstein]

The I:33 can be a bit fuzzy at times, but that just makes it all the more challenging. S&B sparring is certainly a lot of fun if nothing else. You might read this article if you haven't already as a good S&B primer:

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/I33-guards.html

This discussion has had me reading the I:33 in detail for the first time. My other background with S&B is having attended two excellent classes on the topic at ARMA events, a lot of sparring with S&B, and the Boars Tooth S&B DVD. This is my current understanding (which may be wrong) based on several of the plays and the above training:

A. Most importantly, you are not cutting to his sword in any of the initial attacks. You are cutting at him (either arms or body). All the subsequent binds, overbinds, rebinds , disarms, and the like then feed off that initial real attack.
1. Stand in first. Your opponent faces you in halfshield.
2. If you just do nothing and just stand there, he can handily either thrust you from halfshield or separate his sword from the buckler and cut at you.
3. You may try to cut between his sword and buckler (aiming at his body or arms and not his sword) or you may "fall under the sword and shield". This means you step circularly to your left while cutting over and down on his right arm from your left towards your right (from first ward). He can either then react or have his sword arm cut.
4. From there you are now engaged. Any number of things can follow, as listed in the various plays.

[I. Hartikainen]

Jaron,

the text specifically tells us not to make a strike from the first ward. Like Randall does, it can be taken to mean that a strike to the body is not supposed to be done, but even that is not conclusive. A strike to the body it definitely is not supposed to be.

Generally in I.33 the purpose of the besettment is to force the opponent to bind (as far as I know), the seeking of the bind is a very important aspect of the manuscript.

That, in a sense, is an argument for why the priest could be looking for a bind from the first ward, even though the term "to fall under the sword and shield" does not sound like a bind. Neither does it sound like a cut to the arm either.

Randall's point (if I finally got it right!) is that the falling under refers to an action of literally making the cut so, that if the scholar goes to bind, you continue in one single motion to the other side, then performing the mutacio and establishing a momentary bind of your own, then returning with a 'nucken', which is probably some sort of quick cut.

Nothing wrong with this action in itself, but if it truly is meant to be this way, it is in my opinion a strange action to put as the first in the text and to refer back to many times later. But my opinion proves nothing regarding the original intention of the author, of course.

- Ilkka

[Randall Pleasant]

Randall,

thank you for the discussion as well. It has inspired me to look more closely at I.33, which I haven't done in a while.

The idea that the falling under and the mutacio would actually be one and the same action is an intriguing one, but I think that is a rather bold suggestion. It is of course possible, but the text reads (from the Freywild website), page 4:

Sacerdos autem tria habet facere videlicet mutuare gladium q vt fiat superior Siue durchtreten vel sinistra dextra manu comprehendere brachia* scolaris i. gladium & scutum

Hec tria sunt cleri durchtrit mutacio gladii
dextra siue manu poterit deprehendere gladium schutum

The priest, on the other hand, has three options, namely mutation of the sword, so that it be higher, or durchtreten, or with the left right hand grasp the pupil's arms, i.e. sword and shield.

These three are for the priest: durchtritt, mutation of the sword, or with the right hand he may grasp sword and shield.

Here three distinct actions are given, and I don't see that the mutacio was described as being the same as the falling under, or in anyway distinct from the other two apart from being technically different.

Before this, the text reads on the same page:

N otandum quod scolaris [religat hic & calcat] ad hoc ut recipiat schiltslac vt infra Sed caueat de hiis que sunt facienda ex parte sacerdo[tis quia ...] post religationem sacerdos erit prior ad agendum

It is to be seen, that the pupil is here binding and entering, so that he may place a schiltschlac, as below. But he should take heed of what is done by the priest, as after the bind the priest will be the first to act.

This text, to me, suggests that the priest's actions are done after the bind of the scholar, and if the scholar was to omit his bind the priest would enter with a thrust (as shown on page 50). This separates the actions of falling under and its three (or four if you count the thrust in case the scholar fails to act) continuations. I understand that this doesn't necessarily mean that the action of falling under could not refer to the continuation as well, as that would (especially in the case of mutacio) fit the text rather well.

As I see it, the case for the priest initially binding is based on the interpretation of religacio meaning a bind that is done against a bind, but I don't believe that myself - it goes against the prevailing principle of being weak against strong, and I can't recall a place in the treatise, where a bind would be done against a bind, resisting force with force. Indeed, the mutacio is a regaining of the bind, but even that is done by yielding to the initial bind.

The action of doing a rising cut against the opponent's sword from the left side is a standard action in almost all swordsmanship, but that does not mean that it was the case here. I wish I.33 would be a bit more specific about this, as the whole set of actions from the first ward is the key to the whole system!

One thing that supports your case is, that in none of the pictures displaying the result of falling under is the performer's sword in a stronger position leverage-wise. On the other hand, in none of these pictures is the performer's sword literally under the opponent's weapons.

I will give this theory more consideration and try it out in practice. On a related subject, I sometimes find it 'frustrating' that the treatises often have something in the very first play they describe, that is easy to understand conceptually, but difficult to be absolutely sure about. Besides I.33, Fiore's initial crossings of the swords, while everybody knows what is being explained, are perhaps the most debated aspect of his treatise. Likewise dall'Agocchie, who has as the initial defense an action I wouldn't really want to do in earnest, the Anonimo Bolognese, whose first play sword against sword is the longest and pretty challenging to interpret and the list goes on...

Ilkka

Page 4 is where the author of I.33 talks about what the student should be do in response to the inital cut by the priest. And of course, the student wants to execute the primay counter technique of I.33, which is to get an over-bind and perform a shield-strike followed by a cut or thust. However, the priest does not want to student to be successful in the actions show on page 4. If the student does form an over-bind but is slow to pefom a shield-strike then the priest does have the three options listed, including the mutation. The best option for the priest is to go straight into the mutation since it does not allow the student to bind and shield-strike and that is what is shown on page 5 and 6. Again, this seems confusing because in the middle of describing "Fall Under the Sword & Shield" from the priest's point of view the author of I.33 talks about what the student does (page 4). Only on page 5 and 6 does the author show the complete process and in that process the priest goes straight into the mutation. We can see that if all things go right for the priest that his actions are not done until he has the over-bind.

[Randall Pleasant]

This is my current understanding (which may be wrong) based on several of the plays and the above training:

A. Most importantly, you are not cutting to his sword in any of the initial attacks. You are cutting at him (either arms or body). All the subsequent binds, overbinds, rebinds , disarms, and the like then feed off that initial real attack.
1. Stand in first. Your opponent faces you in halfshield.
2. If you just do nothing and just stand there, he can handily either thrust you from halfshield or separate his sword from the buckler and cut at you.
3. You may try to cut between his sword and buckler (aiming at his body or arms and not his sword) or you may "fall under the sword and shield". This means you step circularly to your left while cutting over and down on his right arm from your left towards your right (from first ward). He can either then react or have his sword arm cut.
4. From there you are now engaged. Any number of things can follow, as listed in the various plays.

Jaron

Cutting between the sword and shield when you adversary is in Half-Shield is something you do from your right side. It does not make much sense to attempt it from your left side since his hand is already exposed and you would have to move your blade to the other side of your adversary's blade.

I don't think a large circular step is really necessary when performing "Falling Under the Sword & Shield". With heavy footwork influence from JC's new longsword interpretations (http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23959) I no longer depend upon large circular footwork with sword and buckler. I usually just make a passing step just slightly offline to my left. Sometimes I just make a simple step directly toward the adversary. Of course all of this depend upon the distance between you and your adversary.