Döbringer's 'Vorkere' of 35 Verso

[ChrisThies]

I'm trying to conceptualize, at the end of the "Durchlawfen" segment of Döbringer ['D'] (35 Verso), the application of a "...Vorkere if he grabs the pommel". The only other mention I found of this term by 'D' is "Vorkerer" on 27 Recto. First, is he talking about your pommel being grasped prior to your Durchlawfen (when your hilt is before you), or after/during your Durchlawfen (when your hilt is above/behind you)? I assume the latter, but would like to be open minded.

Second, does Vorkere/Vorkerer = 'Verkerer'? And if so, then how can the various explanations of Verkerer be applied to this specific - 35 Verso of 'D' - Durchlawfen technique? Verkerer can be read/seen in: Ringeck (page 86 of Lindholm translation, as well as on page 194 in Schrankhut segment); Goliath (30 Recto, page 59 of www.schielhau.org translation); & Meyer (page 19 of www.schielhau.org translation). And in the commentary section of Lindholm's Ringeck, page 86, Verkerer is translated as "backward, upside down, turn, or turning."

Finally - [here I'm seeking opinions in regards to optimal martial soundness with the following question] - could 'D' be possibly implying in 35 Verso, with "...take hold if you wish to wrestle [Rangen]...", that the option of possibly pursuing two handed Ringen (therefore releasing your sword) exists, BUT -[my 'BUT']- IF your pommel is grasped THEN one should DEFINATELY retain/struggle for the control of one's sword? Or would the general consensus be that two handed Ringen, in conjunction with a Durchlawfen, is a considerably less desirable option compared to one-handed Ringen? And that 'D' is more likely making reference to a one handed Ringen option.

Thanks,

[Jeffrey Hull]

I have time to help with part of the excellent questions:

Yes, verkehren = vorkehren. It is a demonstrable fact that these were variants of the same word, just a dialectical difference of "ver" or "vor", depending upon the given fight-book. As you basically stated, it means *turning, flipping around, inverting*.

It is seen in other places, in Lindholm-Ringeck book. It can be used to describe position/movement of either the sword (p 86 & 194) or the hand (p 146-150). Verkehren of sword often reults in what is more or less a Sturzhau (pouncing or plunging strike -- even if not always designated as such).

The rest of the answers I shall leave to other fellows to provide you.

[Jake_Norwood]

I don't have much time except to echo what Jeff said and to applaud one of the best questions to have hit this board in a while. This one's going to keep me up tonight.

Jake

[philippewillaume]

Hello, Chris
According to BZH Verkeren is to reverse/ to inverse.

But you need to make the difference with the verb and the technique.
The verkerer described in ringeck (VD, lew, speyer and so on) is a technique that
Says that
so verker dein schwert, das din doume vnde kome; vnd stich jm oben jn zu° dem gesichte So zwingstu jn, das er dir versetzen mu°ß.
it can be translated to
So reverse your sword, that your thumb (daume) comes under, and thrust him high in the face, so you compel him that he must set you aside

As you can see we use the verb again here but ringeck precise what we reverse and how we reverse it
Then we continue with the rest of the piece which in is integrity makes the verkerer
Vnd jn der versetzung begriff mit der lincken hand sin rechten elebogen, vnd spring mit dem lincken fu°sse für sinen rechten, vnd stosß jn also dariber.

And in the set aside grab him with the left hand at his right elbow and spring with your left foot toward his right and strike/move at him thus.

And then we have the second option with the reversal
Oder lauff jn mit dem verkerrer durch vnd ringe, alß dü jn dem druch lauffen her ach wirst finden
or come in through/across with the verkerer and wrestle as you will find in the durchlaufen afterwards (her ach=hernach).

As you can see, Ringeck has strongly qualified the word, but it does not mean that other author have the same strong qualification for that word.

For example the goliath (and VD and Lew for that mater) call it the half strike or the winding of the hand.
And the goliath indicate that we actually stab him (Ringecks seems to indicate that we really expect him to set aside.)

In any case for those author we keep the sword in hand and do aiki-otoshi+ koshi nague or a koshi nague haed under alone (the other uberlaufen even though it is not as clear as in Ringeck ) as well it seems easy to branch the verkerer to the other wrestling at the sword where you are using you pommel to hook/rip (IE as if that was your second hand ) and where technically you reverse the sword.

From what I undersnd of Dobringer, he is much more generic that the mid 15th glossator who seems to have a much more defined (i.e. restrictive) vocabulary.
But I believe that the options are the same.

philippe

[david welch]

Try the trans from the ARMA site. I work better using it.

35V
Das ist von durchlawfen // nu[e] sich
Durchlawff loz hangen mit dem knauf /
greif wiltu rangen / Wer kegen der sterke /
durchlawfir do mete merke / durchlawf und
stos / vorkere / greift her noch dem klos


35V
This is regarding the running through
[Durchlawfen], now look
Run through [Durchlawff ] and let the
pommel hang, take hold if you wish to
wrestle [Rangen]. If one presses at you, run
trough and note. Run through, thrust and
turn (in this case inverting is also possible)
[Vorkere] if he grabs the pommel.

In our interpretation of Doebringer, turning is kind of moving from one side to the other, and changing edges (clear as mud... I know). What he is talking about is very close to this, except you have a sword, and the BG has gripped the pommel:
http://www.tacticalselfdefense.com/LE/MEB/2handeddef.htm

Note how the last picture is almost boars tooth, and ready to thrust.

[ChrisThies]

Hello Phillipe,
Your response was very helpful to me, but the EMA reference -

In any case for those author we keep the sword in hand and do aiki-otoshi+ koshi nague or a koshi nague haed under alone (the other uberlaufen even though it is not as clear as in Ringeck )

- went over my head. If this was an überlaufen reference, than it's not necessary for you to elaborate any further since my question is focused upon the durchlaufen/verkere relationship.

According to BZH Verkeren is to reverse/ to inverse.

Who is 'BZH'? After taking a closer look at the context/applications of 'verkere' listed in my initial post, as well as 'verkert' (and variations thereof) as used by Talhoffer (Plates 61,131,135,157,161,206), I think that 'reverse/ to inverse' is an excellent translation of this verb 'Verkeren'. If I had to choose a single modern english word I'd say 'invert', which is defined as:1. to turn upside down;2. to reverse in position, order, direction, or relationship.

But you need to make the difference with the verb and the technique.

This point you've made is actually the heart of my question. I'm wondering if perhaps 'vorkere/verkere' was just a verb, or type of winden, to some (earlier?) masters such as Lichtenauer or Döbringer. A specific winden because it is a direct change to the opposite angle and it maintains the same oppositional bind, whereas a winden could be to any angle (less than or greater than opposite) as well as an oppositional or yielding bind. What if what we know as the 'technique' of 'the verkere' didn't appear until later masters described it as such, like with Goliath's usage of the words "Den Verkerer"? Just something to think about.

Anyway, Ringeck and Goliath describe the same verkerer and the same immediate follow-up options (either an elbow grab/throw or a durchlauffen). The Goliath text explains a little more definitively, saying to elbow grab/throw when the opponent's hands are low and durchlauffen if his hands are high.

So getting back to Döbringer's ('D') Durchlawfen (35 Verso) - "...Run through, thrust and [Vorkere] if he grabs the pommel" - I think that you're saying his 'vorkere' here is the verb application of 'verkere'. I agree. I think 'D' is saying to durchlawff, then turn about thrusting either to/from high/low as is situationally prudent, but if he grabs your pommel (presumably during the durchlawff when you're holding it high above/behind with either one or two-hands) then vorkere=invert the sword to its opposite angle to break free of opponent's attempt to control it.

Upon further review I've decided my question of one versus two handed ringen with a Durchlauffen was unnecessary. 'D' tells you to hang with the pommel. As do other masters such as Ringeck, Goliath, etc., who go on to describe one handed ringen moves. I'm now thinking two-handed ringen (via durchlauffen) was mostly just applied in a judicial duel type scenerios. I not sure what to think of Talhoffer's two-handed ringen via Inlouffen (plates 63-65), but that would be another thread!

[Randall Pleasant]

Chris

As you probably already know, the following image from Goliath shows the Inverting technique. The man on the right parried the adversary's oberhau with a hanging but instead of stepping out and cutting he stepped in front of the adversary, let go of the hilt with his left hand so as to pull the adversary over his upper leg.

<img src="http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/67.jpg" width="400" height = "500" />


The following four images show different ways in which the Durchlauffen (Running Through) technique can be performed. Keep in mind that while Inverting and Durchlauffen are similar they differ greatly in the amount of power that you put into the throw. When Inverting you step in and basically trip the adversary. When performing a Durchlauffen you actually RUN toward the adversary and use that forward momentum to SLING the adversary around and over your leg by turning your body about 180 degrees during the throw (This is not clearly shown in either Lindholm's or Tobler's book). When performed at speed Durchlauffen results in a very violent throw that is hard for the person being thrown to roll out of. Note that in all four images the person being thrown is completely off the ground! In the ARMA DFW study group we practice this technique at no more than 1/4 speed.

This image correlates with pictures on pages 138 &amp; 139 of Lindholm.
<img src="http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/114.jpg" width="400" height = "500" />

This image correlates with pictures on page 140 of Lindholm. It is important to note the left foot of the man performing the technique. You simply cannot properly make this throw with the right leg leading (as shown in both Lindholm and Tobler), the extry step with the left foot allows you to get your arm around the adversary's back.
<img src="http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/115.jpg" width="400" height = "500" />

This image correlates with pictures on page 141 of Lindholm.
<img src="http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/116.jpg" width="400" height = "500" />

This image correlates with pictures on page 142 of Lindholm.
<img src="http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/117.jpg" width="400" height = "500" />


I hope this was helpful. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[philippewillaume]

Hello
Yes aiki-otoshi and koshynague are refereeing to uber lauffen (and in fact really are nothing more than what Randal has posted).

On the verkere bit I think we are on the same length wave.
Yes a verkere can be a sort of winding. In fact I teach the verkere (the technique) as what to do when you see that the winding is not going to work.

But bear in mind that I am seeing it only from a Ringeck point of view and that where I was going with my vocabulary thing.

In ringeck you only do a duchlaufen when you opponent is coming at you. And verkere just make him do that if he does not enter that much then you control his elbow to gain entrance and smash his head in.

To be fair in most case both option are as viable but as a rule of thumb I find it better to use the elbow when our opponents tries to increase the distance between us and the durchlauffen when he tries to close the distance.

But that does not make what you said about the goliath irrelevant or wrong, it is just another way of looking at it and possibly in the context of a different tactical application. And it is the same for the vocabulary some author have a much narrower meaning of the vocabulary than other. I think Ringeck promotes the safest version (ie the more difficult to counter) of the technique
That is why he does not worry about the opponent grabbing the hilt pommel because in Ringeck condition of application it does not change anything.
But if you are doing a durch laufen and keep you hand in front of you, your opponent can grap the hilt/pommel

All that being said it is possible that Dobringer refers to the pieces that ringeck describe as wrestling at the sword

phil