The 12 Rules

[John_Clements]

Ahhh....excellent question.
My answer has always been becuase Vor & Nach are attacks that can be made from inaction and by just voiding, whereas In Des is a deliberate middle time counter-strike displacement against their blade as they actually commit a strike.
Make sense?

[TimSheetz]

I don't know the total context of Ringeck, but closing in could mean also not to begin and engagement too early.

I think that position matters if the environment is more than a judicial combat. Terrain, sunlight, and other people who may or may not become involved in the fight all factor into whether and how you should battle... the closer we get to our opponent the more 'tunnel-visioned' we get and less situationally aware we are. Initiating an attack before noting your opponent's three other friends would be bad.

On the other hand, it perhaps just means hanging out at Zuefechten in order to work your opponent to make him commit or expose himself to an attack.. I would think that fighting at Zuefechten until the opportunity to explosively move into Krieg is a sound system for one to use fairly consistently. Why move into the 'midway' of Kreig and put yourself at huge risk (if you move back you are in Zuefechten and not safely out of range) when you can work the situation to your advantage and then sieze the initiative. I think being the aggressor too quickly means you can easily have the initiative taken away and then you begin to react to your opponent.

I also thinks that he refers definitely to closing to grips with your opponent. To try that too early before you have confused your opponents actions would lead to a failed close which I think would equate to a fatal close.

[John_Clements]

9. If you fight near the body, do not avoid the Zeckrur (“provocations”).

This one has always confounded me somewhat.
It is an apparent referrence to Einlauffen (closing in) or to fighting at the middle range of Krieg (war) / Handerbeit (handiwork), possibly even closer at Ringen am Schwert (wrestling at the sword).

The manuals are full of terms referring to 'provoking', such as Zeck / Zeckrur / Zecke / Zecken / Zeckruroren - which has been variously translated as “tick”, to deliver a slight hit with the weapon when in close combat or a distracting hit or provocation, as in a light cut as a result of a “Winden” that often catches the opponent by surprise.

Any of these would seem essentially as feints or slicing snappen to distract and provoke so you can apply a stronger action. Thoughts?

JC

[Jake_Norwood]

9. If you fight near the body, do not avoid the Zeckrur (“provocations”).

I'm going out on a limb here, but could this be a reference to the saftey of "dodging in." If the provocations are those little wrist cuts and feints (which I believe they probably are), then they really offer no substantial threat to you if you are close in--you're too close to the fulcrum of the lever, so to speak. Therefore if you close in you shouldn't waste your time or ability "avoiding provocations," because they are no threat to you. If you did avoid them, however, it could take you away from your goal, and give the opponent the opportunity he sought with his provocations.

What I'm saying is that perhaps it means "don't avoid your opponent's provocations when you're in close" instead of "don't forget to use provocations on your oponnent when in close."

As always, I could be wayyy off, but it seems reasonable to me at this point.

Thoughts?

[TimSheetz]

John,

If the word 'provocation' is an accurate translation, I'd have to say that the first thing that comes to mind is viscious and unpleasant actions taken on your opponent. If I am in close to his body, there are tons of things that people trying to kill each other would do - spitting, shouting unkind or distracting words, kneeing to the genitals, head butting (even if both are helmeted), smacking their head/neck/arms with the cross of your hilt. I think that all of these are provocations that could stimulate a tempered and uncontrolled or confused reaction on which you can capitalize.

[John_Clements]

It may also refer the actions you employ when at crossed swords to press and slide and bind and feint to maneuver or force your way into position by using hard and soft to open him up to an attack.

JC

[TimSheetz]

"It may also refer the actions you employ when at crossed swords to press and slide and bind and feint to maneuver or force your way into position by using hard and soft to open him up to an attack."

I can see that. The hard and soft actions 'provoking' him to a certain reaction that you exploit...

[John_Clements]

A colleague just recently pointed out to me <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> that the anonymous, c1500, "Goliath" manual essentially describes these same rules as derived from Liechtenuar's teachings in its introduction:

"A meaningful lesson in the Long Sword."

"If you will show art, send yourself to Left and Right in striking, and left with right is how you fence correctly and strongly. Who strikes after deserves a less joyful art. Strike closely at him as you will, that nothing comes unto your hilt, head, or body, you let nothing be cut. With entire body, fence, as you strongly can drive: Hear what is bad, fight not to left, if you are right, and if you are left, the right is very limiting; Before and After, the two things, all things come from one spring. Weak and Strong, "Just As" these words do mark, thus you will learn with Art work and bearing..."

Cool.

[John_Clements]

10. In the Binding step close, otherwise you will be injured.

This is interpreted easily enough. When swords are crossed close at the Ringen (grappling) range, in order to strike or attempt Schwertnemen (sword taking/disarms) you have to push in close against the opponent, to use leverage, trap their arm or hilt, and prevent them from withdrawing or doing the same against you. Move in quickly against the strong of their blade and control the encounter before they disengage.

[John_Clements]

11. The forehand is called true edge, seldom allow a Versatzung (displacement) on the short edge.

This is self explanatory enough. The edge facing the opponent is the long edge and the back of the sword is the short edge (called falso filo, or false edge in Italian). The admonition not to allow a displacement (deflecting counter-strike) on the short edge can be interpreted one of two ways with this translation. It can mean to not use the back edge when striking against the opponent’s cuts, because although it has application it typically lacks power to do this effectively; or it can mean a warning to be watchful of the opponent committing his own displacement against the back of your sword, thereby knocking it downward and leaving you vulnerable. Either is a valid criticism.

JC

[Jake_Norwood]

I find that many false-edge defenses work very well, and Ringeck teaches many of them from nebenhut. I'm leaning toward the second definition, therefore.

[John_Clements]

12. If you are frightened easily, do not learn fencing.

Well, this advice is straightforward enough.
Yet, I think there is more to it. It is a warning to those who are timid and skittish that in learning and practicing it is a rough art and you have to learn to face threats and deliver them yourself. It's not playing and its not a game. It's self defense. It does require a tough mindset.

This applies even today when, though we don't pusure the craft as earnest combat skill, nonetheless if are to understand it thoroughly we much approach it as a sincere and genuine martial art, not entertainment, pretend escapism, or fantasy role-playing game.

JC

JC

[Jared L. Cass]

This rule is especially true when one is first learning and attempting to close with an adversary. I remember how scared I was the first (and second and third...) time somebody took a swing at me with real intent! Trying to override the natural tendancy to keep running away out of range, and instead just "get in there and get the job done," was very difficult. But, once accomplished, it was truely amazing to realize what propper training can do for a guy! I believe that this rule is all about learning to accept the fact that one might lose, get hurt, or even die. Like you said, John, this rule is basicly self explanitory. Seems to me that the author of this Fechtbuch wanted to make this obvious for a reason. Perhaps to weed out weak knee'd individuals, and to reenforce the real possible sacrifice all warriors might someday have to pay.

Jared L Cass, Wisconsin

[Jared L. Cass]

In addition, let's all keep in mind that even training can be dangerous! Even with proper safety equipment, controlled actions, ect., anybody training could fall victim to a freak accident. Just think back on each and every one of your training groups, and I'm sure that in no time, you'll remember at least one accident (or fifty!) caused by: pure chance, [censored] judgement of time and distance, an overly zeolous training partner, lack of concentration, .... The list goes on and on. Serious stuff.

Jared L Cass, Wisconsin

[John_Clements]

Yes, it also reflects, I feel, some modern instructors and students who want to study the craft from historical source literature but don't want to engage in anything too stressful or exert themselves in something too intense. If so, then practicing with intent is not going to be present in their training, and they have to acknowledge that as a result they will be missing a significant aspect of the subject, I think.
But, different "strokes" for different folks --literally, as they say.

JC