Doebringer

[James_Knowles]

I would agree that the simplest explanation was some really bad scribal error, assuming that Doebringer had a subordinate do the actual writing who then got it totally confused. Or maybe it was his own that he overlooked in later editing.

Is the extant manuscript an original or copy? Hand-written works are fraught with scribal errors. I've seen it all over the place in different areas of research. It's maddening. Even on the RMA topic, one may look in the I.33, where the text mentions the artist's errors. Also, in Codex Wallerstein there are the two pages that have the text and pictures swapped. (I don't have my manuals handy, so I can't reference the exact plates.)

The fact that the funny text stands alone --- other manuals don't mention the same thing --- implies this could be an error either made originally or later on.

Personally I would assume the former because even with Lichtenauer's fame, I assume he was also but one man operating within an existing, active tradition. At least I'm under the impression that he didn't make everything up himself.

Just my random input.

James Knowles
GFS
ARMA Ogden, UT
www.arma-ogden.org

[Jeffrey Hull]

It could be there was some hard to discern meaning or analogy that Doebringer realised that is hdden to us. I am sorry that I do not know. It confuses me I confess. JH

[Casper Bradak]

As for the not gripping by the pommel thing, not going into detail, I think both you and the Master have a point. Each method has it's strengths and weaknesses.
On the other hand though, it could have to do with the length of grip he chooses to use. If a couple of inches longer than average, it will compensate, in a fashion, for any leverage lost by not gripping the pommel on a shorter hilt, while still giving some of his described benefits.
That said, I also find not gripping the pommel to be more maneuverable with some swords (I guess it depends on the sword/balance, and technique you're trying to accomplish). Working either outside the axis of the cut, or at the axis of the cut, changes things somewhat, and we can see both methods in art.
But then, martial arts the world over are known to have misleading texts and teachings on purpose every once in a while, such as cryptic verse, and/or rearranged or inferior technique..."Hah! I've read your book! I know all your tricks!" "Do you now?"

[JeffGentry]

Hey guys

I wonder if maybe the change from a pure cutting sword of the type XIIa to more of a type XVa might have something to do with it, I know i am using more of a type XVa as opposed to the earlier type XIIa and the pommel is very useful and handy.

Jeff

[Jake_Norwood]

That's along the lines of what I'm thinking. I think.

Jake

[Jeffrey Hull]

CB

What you said has merit about *misinfo*, I think.

It is highly conjectural, so we must be careful in any assigning of such. However, I confess that I have conjectured that *mistakes* were perhaps done on purpose rarely in fightbooks, and may have been furthered either wittingly or unwittingly in succeeding editions.

If it is possible that a few manuals are arguably bogus (and I do not mean Liechtenauer editions), then it is possible that legitimate ones (like Liechtenauer editions) had a couple wittingly misleading things thrown into them for whatever purpose.

But like I said, this is highly conjectural and perhaps can be proven only by either finding a secret diary of a fightmaster ("Hah! Only the truly initiated ever knew that the description of Technique-X was a decoy!"); or by having a large sample of various fencers (what - like hundred or so?) try some confusingly described thing until they all agree that its description is junk -- unless one of them happens to have an insight that makes sense of it after all.

Maybe none of that really applies to the Doebringer question at hand, so I should stop rambling. <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

JH

[David Craig]

Obviously this seems to be good advice if you're using a wheel pommel or a ball pommel...but much less so with a scent-stopper.

Well, I use a wheel pommel [I prefer them -- I know, I'm weird] and have no trouble gripping the pommel with gloves on. Without gloves, the same grip is a bit uncomfortable, but if I really wanted to, I'm sure I could practice repeatedly without gloves and build up some calluses on my hand to take care of that problem.

My medieval German is not good and I don't have an English translation handy, so I can't seem to locate that section in which Doebringer comments on the grip. Is this part of a gloss, ie. the words of Doebringer, or the words of Liechtenauer himself? If, as I'm assuming, the words are Doebringer's, couldn't this simply be a matter of him passing along his own personal preference? In other words, he didn't like the pommel grip and simply threw that passage in there. Naturally there is no way to tell for sure why he included it, but if it was important it is strange that none of Liechtenauer's other commentators mention it.

David

[Jake_Norwood]

It's in the beginning. I don't have it on me. I'll get back to you.

Jake

[Jake_Norwood]

Well, regardless, a wheel pommel--unlike a scent stopper--isn't designed to be gripped. At least not fully (although I have one with a wheel pommel and a protruding nut of sorts that clearly is meant to facilitate about 30% of the hand on the pommel).

Anyway, the pommel reference is on page 15R, in the middle.

Jake

[David Craig]

Well, regardless, a wheel pommel--unlike a scent stopper--isn't designed to be gripped. At least not fully (although I have one with a wheel pommel and a protruding nut of sorts that clearly is meant to facilitate about 30% of the hand on the pommel).

Anyway, the pommel reference is on page 15R, in the middle.

Jake

Thanks. Yeah, I don't actually grip the entire wheel pommel. But part of my hand is on it.

David

[philippewillaume]

hello all,
just from my personal experience.
I use the dobringer way of striking and i find it very effective.
I would not be surprise if it was no so good in tamashigery but it is really impresive against harder target or target without a strong support.
and it is very very quick.

about "mixing up" the Wilhelm (late 15 has them mixed up as well so.
i can not remember how exactly but if i remember well it is not the same "mix up" as in Dobringer.

cheers phil

[Matt_Bruskotter]

I was thinking along these lines. Most of the control from the left hand when striking is pulling of the lower left pinky toward you and pushing forward of the thumb. Hit's hard to describe without visually showing you but bare with me.

When I personally grab a pommel, disk is my only experience, it becomes hard to pull with the left pinky if the pommel is the the palm of my hand. If the left hand is above the pommel, this becomes easier to do even if your grip is partially above the pommel. To test this, just hold a sword with your left hand and try swinging only with your left. When I hold the pommel, the sword is a little harder to control than if it's just above it. Though the leverage would be greater, control is sacrificed. Sling cuts are another story...

I think I agree with Dobringer on this one. But I have nowhere near the experience of most of you. Am I missing anything important?

[Jake_Norwood]

Actually, many of us have more limited experience with a wheel pommel than, say, a scent-stopper. I know that my Del-Tin has an oval wheel pommel that is gripped best exactly as you state...and has a little lug for the pinky and ring finger to torque against as you describe.

I think that Doebringer is talking about wheel pommels. I also think that when he says "grab the pommel" he means the whole thing, not just half of it as is pictured in many manuals and as we generally do around here.

Jake

[ChrisThies]

Hello Matt,
My experience is limited solely to a wheel pommel (i.e. just a thick disc pommel), and I totally concur with your descriptive application.
I think that when Doebringer says both hands on the handle is 'safer' [sicher] (page 5, or 15 Recto of the Lindholm translation now available in ARMA manuals section) he's correct regardless of pommel type. There's less chance of loosing the trailing hand's grip, and there's less of an opportunity for your opponent to grab your handle between your hands [i.e. Lindholm's translation of Ringeck's explanation of Lichtenauer's 'Ain ander ringen im schwert', page 148].

I probably know less about physics than Jake, but I agree with him that Doebringer's assertion that the two-handed grip will provide a 'harder' strike is incredibly suspect.

But as far as his assertion of this also being 'truer', there could be arguably some merit there. If he's referring to blade alignment (and I assume he is), wouldn't there be greater potential for improper blade alignment to creep into a strike the farther apart one's hands are?

And to add to the list of possible errors in Doebringer's text, notice how his description of 'Dy drey hewe' (page 57, 48 Recto, of ARMA translation) is underhau, underhau, oberhau. Perhaps Doebringer was having another 'relapse' when he wrote that! <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Jake_Norwood]

And to add to the list of possible errors in Doebringer's text, notice how his description of 'Dy drey hewe' (page 57, 48 Recto, of ARMA translation) is underhau, underhau, oberhau. Perhaps Doebringer was having another 'relapse' when he wrote that!

Why do you think this is wrong? Do we have the drey hewe anywhere else?

Jake