Some thoughts on "Indes"

[John_Clements]

When describing the term / concept “Indes” it is sometimes defined as meaning “simultaneously.” But I belive we must be careful that Indes does not literally mean acting “simultaneous.” Rather, it means more “in the same instant” or “just as”. I am convinced trying to apply the concept as meaning “simultaneous” leads to misunderstanding (and edges bashing on edges). This is easily enough to demonstrate in person with weapon in hand, but for example, consider that one can strike either before, during, or after the opponent makes his own action. The before and after are easy enough to understand as taking advantage of the opening created in the opponent’s timing. But the “during” is more subtle. If two people strike independently at the very same time, so that their actions coincide, this would definitely be “simultaneous” (and such does happened on occasion in fighting).
Yet the idea in striking with Indes is to first perceive the opponent’s own intent to strike and then, just as they make their strike, to react in the same instant during their motion so that your own counter-strike succeeds instead. Thus, the fighter does not really move “simultaneously” because he must first detect the opponent’s action, make the decision to act himself, and then make his own action –all in the briefest instant. The Indes is dynamically responsive. His action is not independent, but dependent on his intent at countering the adversary’s in the middle of their motion. The two actions do not just coincide in time, rather there is a relationship of cause and affect. Strike before he really commits to his attack and you are moving in Vor, wait longer and you act in Nach/Noch. Paradoxically, when you try to counter-strike with Indes, if you attack too soon you can be hit after by his own Nach, while if you start your attack too late he can hit you in Vor first. Indes is I believe the same as the "Volarica" principle of Vadi.
Make sense?

[Derek Wassom]

I have been doing a bit of thinking about Indes as well.
Your opponent thrusts at you, and you thrust "at the same time," deflecting his point and hitting him "at the same time." This is both offensive and defensive "at the same time." But like you said, not exactly simultaneous because you have to react to his action. But by reacting to his action, would that not be Nach?
So does Indes mean that you act "during" his action?
Or does it mean that you react (Nach) with an attack (Vor) simultaneously?
Liechtenauer:
“Indes-that word-always remember. So should you learn with skill to work and defend.”
Ringeck:
“So if you have to displace him, make the displacement Indes and from the bind strike immediately at his nearest opening. So you win the Vor and he remains in the Nach. Also, you should-durring the Vor and Nach-notice Indes how you can work against the strong or weak of his sword. “

[TimSheetz]

John,

Makes sense.

It is so much easier to show this than explain it, but you did a great job.

It is hard to try to explain this. We are "quantifying" of time, but only in comparision to another's actions. It'd be a lot easier if the historical masters had said, "If you move any time before your opponent you are in Vor, if you initiate any time after them but before .25 seconds have elapsed, you are In Des, and if beyond .25 seconds, you are in Nach."

Even trying to quantify along those lines is entirely inadequate, (and silly) as all the actions are relative to the actions of your opponent.

All that to say that I think you 'pinned down' and explicated a simple concept, i.e. the rendering of time into tiny pieces of actions, that is very complex when you try to verbally explain its significance in relation to real action.

The actions of In Des are not necessarily simultaneous, but the counter action is done "within the time lapse" of the initial offensive action, thereby being, 'the same time'.

Peace,

[John_Clements]

Yeah, thanks, Tim.
I remember when it occured to me to teach the understanding of Indes this way: I tried to show how to counter-cut by displacing with a meisterhau and that if I cut just before my assistant opponent I ended up missing and being hit beucase, obviously, I wa stoo ealry. Then I showed that if I delayed by waiting, I was bonked on the head by his strike in the meantime. But, if I acted in the middle of his strike, boom, there it was. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> It was an effective demo.

Another thing though, while we think of Vor, Nacj, and Ides temporaly as meaning the three times in which any action can occur, recently it was revealed to me that Liecthenuar used Vor and Nach to also mean striking the "first blow" before the adversary could, and then striking the "second" blow as a follow up before they could react or counter your first. Further, he stressed Indes to also mean acting upon the instant of perceiving their next intention when you were at crossed swords. Thereby in all cases maintaining the initiative. Interesting...dual meanings. I'm sure further insights wil come, But man, this stuff is gooooood.

JC

[John_Clements]

Good point, Derek.
Do you recall in my class where I made a strike during free play then stopped and asked everyone's opinion as to whether it was delivered before, after, or during? And then different people, including the opponent, gave different responses as to what they thought?
The lesson was that sometimes, we decide to act first but also discern he is about to strike, but then we delay it just ever so slightly so that it seemingly occurs during, yet after as well because we slip past his strike. The answer I give in this lesson is that sometimes in a sense it's both and neither and so it doesn’t really matter what we call it. Remember?
It’s a matter of perceptions. Did he think we struck during?, did observers think it was simo?, we’re we conscious we were striking after? etc.

JC

[Kirk Siemsen]

"Indes" literally means however, meanwhile, but. It may imply "in response to." I think, although I'm just an ARMA newbie, you're right on when you say that it is not immediate, but implies a moment of decisive action.

[John_Clements]

I know a lot of translators now have differing definitions for it, but I find no words best describe the essence tactically of what Indes means better than "during".

[John_Clements]

Hey Stu

I think the concept of timing is very fluid one that is not just temporal but tactical. We make a Vorschlag, first strike, striking before the opponent just as we anticipate or foresee his intention to strike. Then we might follow up after with Nachschlag, an after strike that is not following after his action but our first --and which very may be made in the middle of his own intention to strike after our first attack, thereby making it Indes. Curiously, to break or counter the opponent strike by a strike after still requires acting Indes in a sense, and the result in effect breaks his Vor with your own Nach. Kinda’ profound.

Interestingly, Liechtenauer’s original teachings stated that Vor and Nach were “the source of all matters” in swordsmanship, yet he later added to not to forget the Indes “in all the techniques you perform.” This makes me wnder about how in a way, all actions occur "in the middle" of some other action. Master L after all did instruct to consider and debate these matters. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

How this all relates to Versetzen counter-striking and parrying is also interesting. At least one translator of Liechtenauer confirms that this can be understood in two ways, counter-striking his strike as we know, but also a block followed by a “simultaneously” defensive counter-strike. –-contrary to some opinions that this type of action is not a counter-strike but a “parry and riposte.”

JC

[John_Clements]

Hi Stu

Here’s the thing. While it’s generally understood that keeping the initiative in a fight is beneficial because it deprives the opponent from having the opportunity to strike back and hurt you, this has to be done by maintaining a constant offense. Yet, whenever an attacker strikes he inherently makes himself vulnerable because every attack contains in itself an opening which an adversary can exploit with their own counter-strike. This is the nature of fencing.

But Liechtenauer for instance, whose system emphasizes counter-striking blows, stresses making the first attack (as well as continuously attacking). How to do this without being countered yourself?

The answer lies in understanding what is really meant by the Vor, Indes, and Nach elements of timing. If you make the first attack, Vorschlag, in such a way as to provoke the opponent’s own reaction, drawing his response, you are obviously striking Vor, but just as he reacts you then suddenly in the middle of it make a change in your attack and strike him anyway as he reacts (Indes). You follow this first strike with a second (Nach),where so if he managed to put aside that first strike your second is delivered just before he makes his own second (Nach) strike so that you hit him –in the middle of his own attempt. Thus, it all occurs “Indes” despite being delivered “before” and “after.” This then is why Master Liechtenauer stated that Indes is behind every action even as he instructed Vor and Nach were the vital elements striking.

I’ve been trying to teach understanding this somewhat subtle and profound idea for years now and the best way I’ve found to help students think of it is this: imagine walking toward your opponent with your longsword held at long point. They can’t ignore it. If they don’t react they will be stuck in the face or belly. They have to respond in some way. They have either to hit at you first, hit your weapon off, move themselves out of the way, or move out of the way and hit. But just as they attempt it you make your attack. You provoked and force their action despite their being on the defense. Even if they somehow manage to set aside or ward off your attack you immediately follow with another and another, each one timed to the instant they attempt to respond, thus “countering” them while still keeping the initiative. Make sense? They are so busy defending and trying to counter you that you hit them “first.”

I think you can also see where Versetzen as "parrying" fits into this.

JC

[Craig Peters]

John,

Your example sounds not unlike the use of the Zwerchhau to "jump" from side to side, striking for the four openings and forcing your opponent to constantly defend, until he is simply overwhelmed and struck.