Long-sword material translated from Christian Egen

[Mike Cartier]

Hi Keith
I totally agree with you on the Kron, I have seen the other references to the other Kron types (defensive and offensive)
But there it is clearly described in this manual. It feels much better to me to do the proper zwerch motion rather than this.
However when you add some heavy traversing of the opponent , such as in the Fehler, its not as awkward. I think perhaps there is information concerning the footwork on this that was not put down or described. Certainly the idea of attacking someone with 3 ringing strikes to the temple sounds very easy to defend against. Now if you put in some footwork moving you around the opponent it might make more sense.
I hear exactly what you are saying about the stress it puts on the arms and elbows when done this way though, I think i am inclined to agree with you on the Zwerch being done improperly here and it being better to change the details of it.
Let me know if you find anything in the original German translation.
One thing I have noticed in my very limited experience with German martial arts is the use of concepts is much more common than I would have thought.
I see this in the different uses for the same terms, them having a different meaning on defense than on offense etc.




That meaning of the cut backwards "backcut" occured to me at first keith, but under the scrutiny of use i had to re-evaluate the meaning.
For instance take the Kron technique, the very last strike is described as follows "The third strike backwards with the true edge" how does one achieve that if its a backcut? Especially if the strikes are more at head height than fully diagonal.
Wouldn't the preceding strike determine what a backward strike was? If you are doing a right to left zornhau wouldn't a backward strike to the head after that be a left to right backcut unterhau?
So if you strike at the side of the head from right to left, wouldn't the backward strike after that be a Zwerchau type cut with the false edge?

[Mike Cartier]

Ok here is my history of the madness known as "Flugel"
here is the text itself
Take the wing out of the high gaurd or hochsort. The first strike "von tach" (from above) to the left ear. The next one from below with a step of your left foot. The third strike backward to the head.
When done as described, you end up committing the greatest sin of longsword, striking against your flanked ( forward) leg. This felt horribly awkward, thats when i realized i was putting my own opinion into the interpretation, everytime i see the word step i think passing step. i think the key to this is the second part that reads as follows
The next one from below with a step of your left foot
Instead of using a backcut unterhau with false edge here i use a true edge unterhau and step with my left foot behind my right foot

Also when i saw the "strike to the left ear i thought of a full downward strike originally, but i think its right at the ear, more of a clip in the ear than a Zornhau type cut.

This all works together like this for me as the Flugel

Step and strike to the opponents left ear, then quickly strike and step to your right with your left foot while doing a unterhau, and follow through with a Zwerch at the end.
This works together with a RATATAT beat. 3 beats to the normal one and it takjes you something like 45 degrees to your opponents side. Its very fast and more of a half arm cut than full weighted blows. To me it feels alot like the Fehler, where you move around the opponent in a lively fashion and works directly in concert with the fehler or Kron.

it works on either side this way also, as does all Three of these techniques.
Admittedly i am out stretching on a limb with some of my interpretations here, but i am trying to cover 3 areas of measurement to evaluate them.
1. is the use of some of the terms consistent across all interpretations? IE: backwards means same thing throughout, only step when they say to step, if they don't say step, then don't step.
2. is the technique, at least in concept replicatable on both sides of the body. Given that this is a two handed weapon, there is always bound to be a weak side, but any technique concept should be replicatable on both sides of the body.
3.do the technique concepts complement each other, can they interplay with each other without conflict?


When I practice these 3 techniques i roll them all together in different combinations.
I can start with a Fehler, end with a Kron, work my way back towards the right side with a Flugel. Go back to the left side with a fehler again, then do a left flugel sending me even further to the side of the opponent.
The Kron feels like the coup de grace to the fehler and the Flugel being that the Kron is a forward moving technique.
So you can move to left and right of the opponent using Fehler or Flugel from either side and then press the attack with Kron at any instant.

I look forward to your thoughts on this Keith, you have much greater grasp of these things than I .

Hopefully i haven't lost too much in my poor description of things. its so much easier when you can just show someone what you mean.

[Derek Wassom]

I printed thid out last night and have been looking over it ever since. I was lucky enough to have a break in the lousy weather to go over some of the basics.

Mike wrote:

"Instead of using a backcut unterhau with false edge here i use a true edge unterhau and step with my left foot behind my right foot "

That is exactly how I read it. It makes sence this way.

[Derek Wassom]

I lied.
I misunderstood. After stiking the first cut, I am in left tail guard. I then do a rising cut with the long edge, stepping with my left foot forward.
Is this wrong?

[Guest]

Ok guys here is my take on the three.
Flugel: The first strike seems to be the same as the first strike in the 8 segno cut exercise. A simple decending right to left diaginal cut only without the passing step. the second strike seems to be that you just reverse the preveous cut and take a step forward with your left foot forward. now here comes the confusion the third strike "bakward" to the head. Is this just another diaginal decending only with the false edge?

The Kron: This seems to feel realy good but look really strange if I am doing it right. I think that all the steps are simple steps not passing steps. I think the cuts are shorte cuts not full lengh cuts. the only way i can think to discribe what I am doing is that I am am drawing a butterfly with short archs. ( on a side note once i got going boy could i hear the blade cut the air i love tht sound).

Fehler: I dont think i can explane this any better than it was in the beginning of this discusion, so i am not going to. Mike had that one right on I think.

so what do you guys think? <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Mike Cartier]

The way you guys have described the Flugel is exactly how i did originazlly, the only problem is that final backward attack, there is no way to do it as its described, i think.
Thats when i changed my approach to the technique, instead oif doing a full diagonal strike i took the text at its word and strike at the opponents left ear, literally, so itsa more like the Kron technique, in that its not a full body cut.
The problem i think is that also there is no step described for the last strike, which makes it impossible.
I think the Flugel is a quick attack, RAT-AT-AT , like a triple beat on a single time. This can't be done with a full body strike like a zornhau, but it can be done with a quick half arm cut style like the Kron.
I know I am taking a radical position by interpreting the left foot step as a step behind and to the right instead of forwards as seems most logical. but It just fell into place for me when i put it together with the Kron and Fehler, the cut style is sthe same, not whopping cuts like a zornhau, but quick decisive, well placed cuts, that are deceptive in thier placement..
The problem is that backwards cut thats described in all 3 techniques, there is only one way I can make that term uniform across all 3 techniques, if i take it as astraight backcut on the same line it doesn't flow or work right in every instance.

I am probably just over thinking the damn thing, but thats bound to happen <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
I look forward to the Feb 16 th event in central Florida so I can show J.C. what my interpretation is like so he can set me straight .

[Guest]

I agree with you 100% mike I was just trying to make shure I was on the right track. Although i am still having trouble preforming the backward attack. For some reason this one is frazzling my brain <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Shall we discuss the defences of Aforementioned moves?
Lets start with the "Flugel"

It says "When someone wings at you, displace the first one from above. The other stick from below wih your true edge ang grab his pommel with your left hand. Acting this way you throw him over his iown sword."

the first part is obveous (correct me if i am wrong <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> ) block the first strike with an upward blow to the advisarys sword. The second strike you should block with a downward blow only hold it there. Next grab the pommel with left hand this part i am scetchy on. How exzactly do you make him fall over his own sword by grabbing his pommel?

on a side note, thanks gentalmen your helping to make this into a very enjoyable and enlighting discussion <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Mike Cartier]

That is a tricky one that making him fall over his own sword.
One of our study group members did it to me and it made sense but i couldn't tell you what he did or replicate it.
My brain is being numb on that one i guess <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Derek Wassom]

Vom Auffstreichen

"When you stand in the Nebenhut at your left side and somebody strikes an 'Oberhau' from his right shoulder at you, strike with the short edge strong upwards against his sword. If he holds strong against it and is not high with his hands, duplier with the short edge between him and his sword to his left ear."

Duplier is described as "double hit", but I don't know how to do this. Can someone describe it to me?

[Guest]

Well Your way ahead of me <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> but I jumped ahead to this and worked it for a little bit to find that when you make the first strike out of the bind to his left side you should make a small Horizontal tear drop with the blade an bring it back to the same point. I think that this move is not very devistating but I think that it will push your advisary back and posibly stun him. I could be way off base here so please let me know if I am. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> On a side note I am confused as to how you can get around his gard to strike his head <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

OK I am lost on the defence to the Kron and the Fehler
on the kron it says to "When somebody strikes a crown at you, displace the first. Then place your short edge at his neck and he will hit himself." All I can say is how in the heck are you suposed to do that?
on the Fehler it says "Beginning from the Ochs strike down against him through the roses and place him your false edge in his face. Turn short away and let follow a strike with the true edge.
(Through the roses= circular strike with the lowest point of the arc at the thigh).
This one isent all that clear eather can anyone help me out on these <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />
<img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Mike Cartier]

Ok I think perhaps our interpretation of the Kron is not right
here is what it says.
"Step and strike from above with your true edge to his left ear. The other step and strike from above with your short edge to his right ear. the third strike backwards with the true edge"

When you do this with the zwerchau-like whipping motions overhead its a tremendous pressure on the forearms and expecially the elbows. Keith was mentioning how he found it unnatural too and that perhaps the problem is in the translation.
Here is what i found from re-interpreting it
Instead of using the swerchau like motions, use full cuts.

Step and strike at his left ear with a high horizontal strike, step and backcut with your false edge along back along the same line.Then bounce the sword around in a zwerchau like motion to strike his right ear with the true edge.

I haven't messed with the breaks too much, but one thing i have noticed is that a simple displace with the blade is the starting point for all the breaks, indeed thats almost the only break you need, its stops the whole attack in one motion.
Thats always the part where i get confused, once you have displaced its hard to figure out where the opponents blade should be.

[Guest]

Hi,

Forgive me for intruding, but here's a bit of input from an outside observer.

I agree with Keith, Lecküchner is not exactly a good resource for beginning longsword. In fact, he deviates a fair bit and is best understood only after reading some of the other, better, fechtbücher out there.

Lecküchner tends to jump straight to set pieces without first explaining the terminology he uses in these sets. He also used terminology a fair bit out of sync with most other period masters. This is doubly annoying.

So, in short, I think it's counterproductive to spend any time on Lecküchner before first studying a more comprehensive and coherent treatise. In my experience, I find Meyer to be an excellent primary source, Danzig and Ringeck to be great secondary sources, Döbringer and Talhoffer as tertiary sources. Meyer covers all the basics first and only then, after 10 chapters, does he get into set pieces. Seems much more logical to me.

After looking these works over, Lecküchner looks irrelevant to longsword, Messer maybe, but not longsword.

That said, study of any one treatise is insufficient, it helps immensely to vary one's sources and hopefully understand with synergy, not just cumulative effect.

Sorry to be dismissive, but Lecküchner isnt a very useful fechtbuch IMHO.

Cheers,

-M

[John_Clements]

Yes, and as I have expressed before, Meyer is also doubly relevant for us today because, like us now, he too was developing a style that was not necessarily for battlefield self defense, but had a function as a classroom style for exercise and martial sport. When combined with Paulus Hector Mair, it makes the whole German school of fencing much clearer.

JC