Vom Tag;"on" the shoulder or "over"

[Webmaster]

Trust me Stu, if you're close enough to attack John's elbows in that stance, you've already been hit. Personally I find the raised elbows better for propelling the weapon in a strong extended arc, whereas more relaxed elbows seem to result in more of a snapping action which is a little bit shorter and weaker, though it may be slightly quicker some of the time. If I get hit from here, it's usually on the hands or forearms during the cut, not on the elbows while waiting to attack.

[Shane Smith]

In many respects,I am leary of looking to Asian styles for vindication and validation of the Western arts. It's not quite a comparison of apples and oranges in my opinion but it's nearly akin under many circumstances.

[Jay Vail]

Shane, I agree one must be cautious of comparisons. However, they were very useful in expanding our understanding of what is still an largely unknown and unreconstructed combat art.

When confronted with a question or an uncertainty in interpretations of Western fencing, it makes perfect sense to look at how similar martial systems have addressed the same issue. It is quite plain that different martial systems, separated by geography and culture, have independently arrived at the same solutions for the same problems. This conclusion is inescapable when comparing ringen with similar Asian grappling systems. Anyone with a judo/jujutsu/chin na background can look at Fiore or Talhoffer and immediately identify dozens of techniques they know already. I once showed Fiore to my sensei and he was knocked out by how similar abrazare/ringen was to what we do. I have a photo of a 2000-year-old Roman copy of a Greek statute of two wrestlers, one of whom has the other in an arm lock known in judo as hara-gatamae, a technique that is also found in Talhoffer, plate 175. This congruence is just as true when looking at Asian vs. European fencing systems. Anyone with an open mind can see the similarities in underlying principles of combat technique. The more I learn about Western fencing, the more I am simply blown away every time I look at my shinkage ryu tapes. In those tapes I have seen the same guards, master cuts, half swording, and more. You may recall how I posted on the forum a picture of GI’s practicing kali, with both men standing in von tag with machetes.

Thus, when facing a question about Western martial arts, a look at what other systems do in the same situation leads to a conclusion about what is true more likely than not in Western fencing. This is the well known scientific process called comparative analysis. It doesn’t conclusively prove the point, but it provides strong support for the point. If the interpretation of the point of Western fencing is radically different from what is found in other systems, one must question that interpretation and remain skeptical until very solid support from the ancient texts is uncovered for that departure.

[Shane Smith]

Hi Jay,
I am largely in agreement with you in your last response. There are obvious parallels to be seen in many instances and only a blind man would pretend that there are not.That said,when I am arguing the case for the Western arts,I prefer to find my evidence in the western source texts to support my case.The fact that the asians often arrived at similar solutions is simply the icing on the cake of my debate. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[TimSheetz]

Hello all.

I don't want to 'talk out of turn' here but my personal view on this is as follows (feel free to consider or 'flush it' as you deem necessary).

In practical application - sparring - it seemed that the ON-the-shoulder position left your left forearm in a position for easy exploitation to a quick downward cut from an OVER the shoulder or head position.

One observation I received at this past summer's gathering was that if both fighters are using the position ON the shoulder the technique worked great. All the meister hau's from that position worked. All the other techiniqes worked with the caveat that the other individual was executing techniques similarly.

In long sparring sessions (back in my 'hey-day' at West Point when we would spar for 3-5 hours with little breaks occaisionally) the rest the sword ON the shoulder position became much more attractive certainly while waiting UNTIL the other opponent moved into closer range.

Also, ever fight in a room with a low ceiling? Most OVER the shoulder or head positions can have problems when your weapon is hits the ceiling. To my knowledge there is nothing stating anything about fighting in closer quarters, but it certainly is worth thinking about and practicing. Another circumstance where space is a consideration and to my mind makes the ON the shoulder position perhaps more viable is in close order with other allies. If you are virtually shoulder to shoulder the nature of techniques from the ON the shoulder postion warrant some exploration I think. Any larger group willing to try that? I hope so.

Anyway, there is my thinking. I prefer OVER the shoulder as it works very well indeed for me, but I can see where in certain situations and circumstances the ON the shoulder becomes a more viable option.

My 2 cents.
Tim Sheetz

[claus drexler]

Hi John,
could you please be so kind to provide the exact pages of historical manuscripts you are quoting?
Luckily I know the manuscripts quite well, so I do not have to search to long a time, but others need the Folio number to check your arguments.

My elbows look just like ones in countless historical images and I don't get hit on them---

So, if images of the roof stance as held "over the head" were often drawn strangely (so that they appear to not be above it), isn't it reasonable that ones drawn "over the shouder" were as well?

John, in another posting you wrote, that one should not take those images literally?
Now, you argue, that you hold the sword this way because of countless images???
This is confusing.

From a reliable translation of Doebringer’s verses of Liechtenauer (4r) “from the roof” (Vom Tag), is defined as where “the sword is held over one’s head or the right shoulder.” No mention on being "on" it that I find so far.

So, if the translation is so very reliable, who wrote it then?

Apart from that, there is no page 4r in Doebringer, which describes fencing stuff. Page 4r is a copy of Marcus Graecus: Liber Ignum.
Apart from that “vom Tag” is not translated as “from roof”. Vom Tag is a technical term, that should be used as such. “Tag” is translated as “day”. I know that there are some manuals which perhaps say “Dach”, but you have to be carefull with medieval German and its dialects.
Another thing is, that the description of the guards in Doebringer are VERY different to those 60 years later. So IMO you cannot cite Doebringer as a reference for your favourite version of Vom Tag, cause Doebringers is probably different to yours.
And: You surely know, that Doebringer is probably not the author of the manual Hs.3227a. It is quite obvious that his name was only inserted in a row of “the other masters” like “Andres Juden / Josts von der nyssen / Niclas prewssen”.

From von Danzig’s Glossa on the four guards or defenses: (26r):
“Merck die h&amp;#367;tt haist vom tag / do schick dich also mit / Stee mit dem lincken füeß vor / und halt dein swert an deiner rechten achsel oder mit auff gerackten armen hoch über dein haubt / und stee also in der h&amp;#367;t”

“Notice, the fourth guard is called ‘from the roof’, and assume it this way: stand with the left foot forwards and hold your sword on your right shoulder or with straightened arms high above your head, and stand in the guard this way.” He here does not mention it being "on."

This translation is again not precise.
Danzig speaks of “halt dein swert an deiner rechten achsel” which has IMO to be translated as “hold your sword at your right shoulder”. No “on” or “over”.
I mentioned this already in one of my previous postings.

Later he adds: “The fourth guard, “from the roof”, is the “long point”: who leads it well with straightened arms, cannot be hit well with neither strokes nor thrusts, but he himself may hit well, and it [the guard] hangs above the head.” This hanging above the head by the blade certainly occurs when the weapon is held over the head or over the shoulder, but arguably not really when held lower and resting on the shoulder.

This is pure speculation. Nobody knows how Doebringer performed his Hut vom Tag. See above.
His vom Tag could be a thing between Langort and Vom Tag over the head.
Doebringer is very different in his description of his guards than the other following masters.
He emphasize more the “hengen” than the 4 fighting positions.
The second thing is that you now obviously quote and switch to Doebringer again, where as you spoke of von Danzig one paragraph before.

After all, we certainly don’t want our stances resting statically or immobile.

Please re-read the previous postings. Nobody said, that the stances should be statically or immobile. So this paragraph is really unnecessary. Really everybody knows that.

Best,
Claus
_________________________________
"Ochs - historische Kampfkünste e.V."
HEMAC-Member

[John_Clements]

Clause, the issue of cutting with sufficient strength has been pretty thoroughly covered in the online article here on this subject. I "strongly" recommend it. We find far too many enthusiasts practice softly and play fight with little real understanding of the brutality and intensity of actual personal armed combat.

JC

[John_Clements]

A "preoccupation with speed"??? A few inches reach will not make a big difference??? Wow.... I cannot express the unfortunate impression such comments leave on me. In my opinion they betray a fundamental and profound misunderstanding of fighting. After 2.5 decades of intense weapon sparring with martial artists from all over the world and of many different martial arts styles, I’ve never heard such statements expressed by anyone except young novices and non-practitioners. No offense intended, Stew, but I find those sentiments astonishing. I honestly can’t fathom where they might originate and can only hope they don't find fertile ground in any new students just starting out.

JC

[John_Clements]

Thanks for the post Stew. You are entirely correct. Ours is a group effort. I am not sure why some folk assume I should be expected to read and personally answer every single Forum post here as well as respond promptly to our own ARMA Elist daily, reply to the literally tens of personal emails (from members and non members) that I receive about this subject, and then still have time left to run the club, administer the membership, update the website, refine our curricula, and somehow manage to do my own writing and research. Would that I could, but even working full time continuously as I do on this, there is just no way any human has that emotional and mental energy in the day. It would be nice is more people understood this simple reality.

JC

[John_Clements]

Tim,
Here's a thought: is it possile that the inclusion of on and over positions for Vom Tag, even for unarmored fightig, take into consideration that when armored, the on the shoulder position is possibly more feasible due to restrictions and limitations of wearing harness?

[John_Clements]

Hi Claus,

In reply to my statement that confused you regarding our postures resembling the images in texts, yet my expressing concern for not taking images literally: Yes, you noticed the inherent contradiction. On the one hand, if our experiences consistently resemble the images it’s a good verification –though we cannot ever be truly sure. On the other hand, we must be willing to wonder if the images are expressed in a stylized manner and if we are forcing our own interpretations to fit a false preconception. In the case of Vom Tag here, I submit the large majority of images from across period artwork and manuals support it being held over the shoulder, which, from our sparring and test-cutting experience, seems a more natural and effective position.

So, if the on the shoulder position is just an imprecise drawing, and the text translations/explanations really do mean holding it not against it but above (as other art clearly shows), then my seeming contradiction makes more sense. …Unless I am sounding really confusing now?

Anyway, I think the real issue here is not of technical efficacy (because people will always argue what does or doesn't work for them) but whether or not the source manuals taught to use both these positions or only one? Isn’t that what we need to determine?

JC

[John_Clements]

Claus

As you admitted, the language is not precise and I see many of your countrymen and others do not agree on either the same translation or interpretation. So I leave it to you all to argue who’s is more accurate. I’ll consider them all.

As to the issue of the import of being mobile, it is precisely relevant here since we have argued throughout the thread that the on the shoulder position is slower, shorter, weaker, and offers less opportunity.