Simplified long sword fighting... and why.

[david welch]

I don't want to speak for everyone in the Knoxville group, but the general feeling we were getting was that this fencing "technique" thing was starting to get out of hand. Not long ago, stuff that is just fighting was being made so complicated that new people like us couldn't even figure out where to start... and I was making it sound more complicated now than it did when we started not too long ago.

You see examples of the psychology of why this happens in some self defense training today. If only I knew the secret of the "technique" I will be invulnerable. If only I knew the secret "technique" I won't have to work hard. If only I could figure out the technique I won't have to be afraid.

To tell you the truth... finding "the technique" beats the hell out of learning how to use some simple principles through hard work and blood.

We decided we are going to stop doing this, and this is where our group seems to be headed. I would like to get some feedback on it.

This is what I am starting to believe.

First, every real world effective fighting art has one thing in common... it is simple. When people are trying to kill each other you don't have time to be perfect or do complicated things.

Second, offense rules. Even as late as the training in H2H in World War II, they taught to attack, not defend. As a matter of fact, the Fairbairns type military manuals like "Get tough" that spawned what is now known as "WWII Combatatives" didn't even teach any defense because they thought if you are trying to defend yourself you are already dead... the only true defense being to attack and kill your enemy before he can do it to you. Attack first, attack second, and keep attacking until you overwhelm your enemy and kill him. And they taught this for empty hand, knife, and bayonet.

And this seems to us to be Liechtenauer in a nutshell, and the basic premise of all the Liechtenauer tradition teachers up to and including Meyer. All this other stuff, and to tell you the truth we see it a lot more and much worse in other places but it rears it's head here too from time to time, about getting this technique exactly perfect, getting your hands in just exactly the right position, nailing down the terminology "just exactly", strict interpretation that a guard is not right unless your thumb is at exactly a 47.6 degree angle, just doesn't matter. As a matter of fact, I think if you went through the manuals and replaced 99.99% of the word "technique" with the word "example", we would be better off.

Simplified thinking... and why.

Sword fighting is simple.

Liechtenauer's teaching only covers three main things! How to get the first strike and hammer your enemy into submission, how to take back the initiative if your enemy gets the first strike, and what to do if your enemy tries to take your initiative away.

To do this you use four guards, and the five strikes.

As far as the importance of the guards, Doebringer says you should know the four, and ignore all the others. He notes though that "Liechtenauer does not hold the guards in such a high esteem; he is more interested in that you try to win the first strike".

Later, Meyer uses many more guards... but he uses them as frames in a film to describe actions. If you follow him, you could take the "guards" he moves through and make a flip book out of them and watch his actions he describes as an animation in your head. That I believe is his purpose for them, not to "add" to Liechtenauer, but to explain him.

And that is all about the guards I am going to think about.

Striking.

Doebringer says:

"Liechtenauer says that only five strikes with other techniques should you use in real fencing. And he teaches these straight and simple and does them as quickly and as direct as possible. And you will lay under you all the drumming and new inventions by the [Leychmeistere] or play masters since these [five strikes] are the foundation of his [Liechtenauer’s] art."

To get even closer to the heart of the matter, Meyer goes on to say:

"Now from these both come five for further reading, as the Master Strikes will be named, not that one can thus fully use the weapon Rightly, and Master this art so soon, but that from them one can Master all proper artful elements which will be acted on from knowing them here, and thus you can Fence properly at need, and become an artfully striking Fencer, who retains all Master principles at the same time, and against whom nothing can be borne."

Get that? They are master strikes not because with them "one can thus fully use the weapon Rightly, and Master this art so soon" but because "from them one can Master all proper artful elements which will be acted on from knowing them". These five strikes contain all the principles of sword fighting in them.

Doebringer simplifies things so far as saying there are really only two strikes, an unterhaw and an oberhaw. Every strike you do is just doing one of these two, with either the long edge or the short edge, to the left or right upper or lower opening.

Our simplified fencing principles I am thinking about training and studying by:

Everything you do in a swordfight before you come to grips is from one of the four guards.

You cut from one guard to the another.

A hit can be a cut, a thrust, or a slice.

A strike is trying to hit your enemy with your sword before you are in a bind.

If you are in a bind and try to hit your enemy, you are winding.

If you are trying to get past his sword so you can get a hold of him, you are passing through.

Every strike is from the master strikes.

Every "technique" you use is either a form of a master strike, a string of master strikes used together, or parts of master strikes strung together.

Try and get the first strike, and keep the initiative by attacking relentlessly.

Strike in combinations, with three, four, five and six strike combinations.

If in the middle of a combination your enemy gives you an opening, change what you going to do next and make the opening your next target. This is indes.

Almost everything in the manuals is an example of how you could do one of the above.

There are no magic techniques. These work through the application of sweat and blood.

Any thoughts? Can we make it simpler?

[TimSheetz]

Here is an old quote about War: "In War, the important things are simple, and the simple things are difficult."

The same could be said about fighting with weapons.... "In combat, the important things are simple, and the simple things are difficult."

Being able to seamlessly use basic skills under duress in a hostile environment is far more important than a complicated technique... of course, the better at the basics, the simpler the complex things become...

Peace,

Tim

[JeffGentry]

Hey David

I have been thinking this for awhile myself.

"Liechtenauer says that only five strikes with other techniques should you use in real fencing. And he teaches these straight and simple and does them as quickly and as direct as possible. And you will lay under you all the drumming and new inventions by the [Leychmeistere] or play masters since these [five strikes] are the foundation of his [Liechtenauer’s] art."

Ringeck has a nice neat list of the 5 hidden strike's and "other" technique's in his manuel, it is a list of 17 thing's.

I don't see this as only an offensive fighting system i see it as a system that can go from offense to defense and back in a seemless a manner look at absetzen, is it offensive or defensive? i think it can be used either way depending on the situation, winding is it offensive or defensive? again it is dependant on the situation, so i do think they taught us defense, after all what is fencing? the art of defense and without a defense we have an incomplete system.

I do agree it is very simple and i do think that we sometime's get hung up on the "Technique's", i think the basic principal's and how and when to apply them are much more important.

Just MO.

Jeff

[Bill Welch]

Hey Jeff, my only problem with not thinking of this an offense system is because all of the masters say "The man that defends is dead"

That is why they say to only attack even with what we see as a defensive movement. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[david welch]

Hi, Jeff.

I do see a defensive element in it... if the other guy gets the first strike you can't just let him hit you.

But it seems to me their "defense" was how to regain the initiative while not getting hit, not just defending.

[John_Clements]

LOL!...yes, I understand your view, David. Just this past weekend here at Iron Door I stressed to the students attending a workshop that fighting is indeed "simple." The nature of martial arts is really not complex.

If I can paraphrase Bruce Lee...When I was growing up and constantly playing at swords a cut was just a cut and a thrust was just a thrust. But then, as I was exposed to systematic fencing instruction, and later still as I explored the historical source teachings, I came to believe that a cut was not just a cut and a thrust was not just a thrust.

But now, entering “middle age” after all this time I have come to accept again that indeed, a cut IS just a cut and a thrust IS just a thrust.

This applies especially to the assumingly "mysterious" master cuts often misunderstood or confusing to so many. As I often warn students, don't get caught up in overly technicalizing or exoticizing the nature of personal close-combat.

Cheers,

JC

p.s.
let me also add, I think the key to understanding this is by simply fencing with proper *martial intent.* None of this is secret. It’s all right there in concepts from the source literature such as pressure and Indes and balance. A dedicated student can teach themselves and train to learn to execute actions correctly by using a few key elements that unlock the craft.

[M Wallgren]

Amen!

I stress in my group that we repete the Prinsiples from Döbringer every time almost as mantra, and the we sparr at least 50% of the time. Because I belive that it is in sparring alot the key is.

And in sparring a cut is a cut, a trust is a trust and a strike is a strike.

There is no easy road to swordsmanship just a lot of bruises and sweat and some amount of spillt blood.

IMHO

Martin

[philippewillaume]

hello dave, i am not sure if we agree or disagree

in my undertanding, Ringeck (and the usual suspects) are simple.
I whole-heartedly agree techniques are as you said illustration of a given concept but fencing manual are not a recipe books. Ie a collection of concept.
The concepts works together into forming a system.
The more your systematic approach is thorough/and or developed the simpler it gets.

But this is only half of the equation. To make it simple you need to make it complicated. So you need the technique bit in orders to understand and practice what the said concept is. You will find and recognize the time and the place where that technique is the most pertinent of all the technique you could potentially use.

Sweat and blood is going is like offense in American football you will wind match with it, but defense is what your are going to win the championship with.
So you need sweat and blood to work the concept out but techniques and their systematic application is what is going to make you win fights after fight.

Make it simpler of course we can.
The guard only maters when you are in distance so don&amp;#8217;t bother with one when you are closing. Following the techniques of the manual you are de facto going to end up in one anyway and at a distance where it matter.
Just be in position that does not prevent you to thrust or strike

Strike close enough so he can escape by partially moving his body, otherwise don&amp;#8217;t strike.

May be he will strike before you (ie as you close to get into striking distance) that is what absetzens, the proper abzetsen from the kurmp and piece from the straichen are, so you can go left or right according to the potential other opponent you are facing.

If he does not do so, or go back attack his position with the most relevant masterhaw
Guard are relay just a position of the hand compared to the body, where the sword is matters very little compared to that.
And master haw are just a Zorh that end us differently to the normal zorn. You could even say that the shiel the zwerch and the scheitl ate just prehanpive proper abzetsen with the krump.
From there in either case you will have the initiative or he will be dead and the rest of the technique are there to take advantage of any possible situation.
IE you do not need to stop what you are doing you just need to modify it a little according to what happen

Phil

[philippewillaume]

Dave, i think it seems is a little bit of an understatement.
they kind of squarelly tell us exactly that.

Hie mörck, was da haysst daß "nach".
Mörck, magstu zu° dem "vor" nitt kommen, so wart uff das "nach". Das synd die brüch uff alle stuck, die er vff dich trybt. - Das vernym also: wann er vorkumpt, daß du ihm versetzen mu°st, so arbait mitt der versätzung "indes" behentlich für dich zu° der nächsten blöß, so triffestdu in, ee wann (16 r ) er sein stuck verbringtt. Also gewinstu aber das "vor" und er blypt "nach". Auch soltu in dem "vor" vnd "nach" mörcken, wie du mitt dem wort "in des" arbaiten solt nach der "schwech" vnd nach der "störck" seines schwertß. - Vnd das vernym also: von dem gehultze des schwerts biß in die mitten der clingen hatt das schwert sin störcke, dar mitt du wol magst wider gehalten, wann man dir dar an bindt. Vnd fürbaß, von der mitt biß an den ort, hat es sein schwöch, da magst nicht wider (16 v)gehalten. Vnd wenn du die ding recht verstest, so magstu mitt kunst wol arbaitten vnd dich damit wören; vnd fürbaß lernen fürsten vnd herren, das sy mitt der selbigen kunst wol mügen besten in schinpff vnd in ernst. Aber erschreckstu gern, so saltu die kunst des fechtens nitt lernen. Wann ain blöds, verzags hertz, das tu°t kain gu°t, wann es wirt by aller kunst geschlagen.

Here mark, what is called (hayssen=heissen) the Nach
Mark, you may arrive at the Vor adversly (nitt=nit) so wait for the Narch. This is the break onto all pieces that he uses against you. This goes like so: when he arrives before and you must displace him. So nimbly work with the indes of the displacement to his closest opening. So you finish before when he brings his piece to bear. So you win the Vor and he remains in the Nach. You are, as well, to take notice how in the Vor and in the Nach you are to work with the word Indes onto the weak and onto the strong of his sword. This goes like so: from the hilt to the middle of the blade lay the strong of the sword. There you may well prefer standing against when one has &amp;#8220;binded&amp;#8221; with you. Forsooth (indeed), from the middle to the tip lay the weak where it is better not to stand against. And when you have correctly understood those things, you may use the art to work and to defend yourself. And Forsooth /indeed/ in truth learned Princes and lords, who with this same Art you will fancy besting in play or in earnest. But if you are easily scared, you are hardly/adversly to learn the Art of fencing. For a dim witted, without heart will be defeated for all his knowledge.

phil

[david welch]

Dave, i think it seems is a little bit of an understatement. they kind of squarelly tell us exactly that.

Excuse me, I didn't understand which part you are refering to. Did you mean about the defense?

[philippewillaume]

nope it was about the "it seems" bit.

to seem has a twang of perhaps that,given the original text, i though was a tad avercautious.

[Matthew_Anderson]

Wow, I couldn't agree more David. John told me one time that good fencing is really just hitting without being hit and I still really believe that. To be a little quicker, a little better at judging the range, to have a little bit better timing, these are what makes a good fighter. I can show someone the basic of longsword in a few hours, how to hold the weapon, guards, stikes, counters, etc. What takes time and effort is getting good at doing these few very simple things and that only comes with lots of practice and sparring.

[Matt Bryant]

I really like your thought process here. I admit to being guilty of making things more technical than they often need to be, but that is my German engineer's blood.
But truley, the core of the art is in the fundamentals. They are so simple, yet subtle and complex at the same time. Understanding the concepts and repeatedly applying them is the key to making it all seem so simple again.
I also dig the substiution of "technique" with "example". All techniques are examples of applying a concept. It's flexable. The more I study and practice, the more I come to realize how true this is.

Good post.

[s_taillebois]

Well, there is a tendancy to move into unnecessary complexities, inherent in any art which is not common knowledge. The esotoric tends to breed exclusivity.
The fechtbuch authors knew this, and so often phrased their books very carefully (and often very clearly) to aid memory. And no doubt the fechtbuch authors knew they had to surmount the natural human tendancy not to place oneself in a situation of getting killed. So some of their advice could be a type of medieval psychological conditioning.
As far as the offensive/defensive balance; it would seem the ability to move seamlessly from guards to offense, and back if need be, without losing the initiative would be the ideal.
Concerning using modern warfare as a model, some minor concerns with the analogy. 20th century warfare was premised on mobilization of classes, with the manufacturing and transport systems often driving the pace of warfare. Under those terms, high losses are an acceptable price, especially insofar as the entire population is a martial resource.
Medieval and early Renn. warfare, was often fought by an aristocratic martial class supported by a limited and trained yeomanry (ie English Lowbowmen or Swiss Pikes). Accordingly, they did develop military conventions which formed what would be a type of 'limited offense'. In sieges, a noble often asked his leige prior to an attack- how long he had to hold out to keep his honour. And even in the crusades, despite some massacres, they did make accomodations to this paradigm. And the Italian mercenary armies were quite apt at fighting battles, with very limited casualities to their own class. Obviously the peasant's, were excluded from this paradigm-usually both sides were quite willing to exclude them from these conventions. (Actually, in the 100 years war, there were truces between the English/French so they could go and massacre some unruly peasants)
Later, at places like Towton, or the reformation wars, it got really appalling. But civil and religious wars do have that effect. And that period nudges our own as far as developing attitudes.

[JeanryChandler]

Though we perhaps are more familiar with the German tradition, isn't it true that the equally well regarded Italian tradition put more emphasis on defense and upon counter-attack?

Jr