Teacher Strikes

[jeremy pace]

Hello again friends. I have been in a good position lately to instruct a wide range of individuals on the basics i know of longsword (mainly from Ringeck) and fell into a discussion that led to what i believe is an interesting thought/viewpoint. I am sure we have all encountered, or even been ourselves, people who are very confused on the differences between fantasy and reality when it comes to swordsmanship. One of my good friends is struggling with this but taking well to the german method all said. One evening after wrapping up he made a statement i had to disagree with. "Who the real master is among us has yet to be seen...." I responded with my thoughts that master in the european sense does not mean unsurpassing skill (or not just that) but more akin to teacher. Semantics, yes, but a vital point i feel should not be ignored when it comes to describing what we do. I went on to say there are no modern "masters" even though there may very well be some deserving of the title but instead we are scholars. Scholars because we are trying to revive lost knowledge. He wanted to debate this point but i wont bore with the details since we have had the same one on this forum before.

In reflection though, i may have a hard time phrasing this point, if master means teacher or instructor of a method what do we mean by masterstrike? If the meaning is teacher strike or teaching strike then why do we approach it as the end all be all awesome super secret killing move? The mastercuts do teach us a great deal and as i stated above i have had the great chance to help guide quite a few people. At first we started with footwork/bladework, guards, and basic strikes.... but, again ringeck here, most of my experience with the masters is that in the manuals they placed the guards and mastercuts at the fore and then described how to use them to perform certain counters or opening moves.Looking at this i started teaching new people the ideas of indes/nach/vor and fuhlen first then the guards and finaly the mastercuts and they picked up the other stuff almost by instinct. If you can do a zorn or zwerch at full speed with good accuracy and timing then everything else kind of falls in line doesnt it? Some of the people i originally dealt with are having trouble keeping up with those i showed the mastercuts first now and it definately is an eye opener for me as well. Now we not only do the mcuts but variations on them that i cant find in the manuals and which seem to work well at full speed.

I know some of us stick strictly to the book, and i dont want to offend with this viewpoint, but does anyone else think the mcuts were not meant to be the finish but the start? That they are the doorway to the masters fighting style goes without saying, but the question is when do you teach a novice this and what mindset does that give? I will stick with my method for now, as it is yeilding greater results, but i appreciate any insights.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jeremy

I think your are correct in you perception, Philippe Willuame pointed out awhile back that there is a list of 17 thing's in Ringeck he call's "the true master strike's" i am not sure which page of the Lindholm translation it is on.

here is the list from Philippe's translation.

1. Zornhau 2. krumphau 3. zwerch 4. schiller 5. schaittler 6.vier leger 7. vier versetzt 8. nachreisen 9. uberlaufen 10. absetz 11. durchwechsel 12. zuck 13. durchlaufen 14. abschneiden 15. hende druck 16. heng 17.winding

After seeing this i looked in Goliath, Doebringer, and Ringeck and sure enough the same list was in all three, and the way they list them is basicly the order they write about them with the 5 hidden strike's being first I think it is because they can teach everything else, I think Ringeck coined the term "Master strike's" (I could be wrong) Lichtenauer said "befre displacing, gaurd yourself, set yourself for advantage" which is exactly what these do if you use any one of these they lead right to other thing's in the list of 17, IE you throw a zwerch it is blocked this leads you right into hengen and winding, The opponent tense's to strike you use nachreisen and press the hand's and go to uberlaufen.

I see most of the text as example's of how to use the 17 principle's i think we are supposed to learn proper use of the principle's and all i see in the book's is example's of how to to use them, i do not see the book's teaching us technique's just using technique's to illustrate how the principle's work.

Hopefully that is clear and i do not sound insane, I think you are well on your way though.

Jeff

[Jake_Norwood]

Note that prior to Meyer there were no "master strikes," only the "five strikes" or the "secret strikes."

The meaning of master has warped and changed so much between Ringeck to Meyer and from Meyer to us that you're right, it's hard to really even try to touch the subject...so we generally stay away from it. There are no masters today, and there are very few "teachers," for that matter, either. There are senior students, sure. But who's really a flat-out teacher? I like you comment that we are all scholars trying to revive lost knowledge.

Those 17 things, the "hauptstuecke" or "chief techniques" are an excellent base for any Longsword curriculum. Likewise, however a few things reacure in the teachings that are not blatantly in the hauptstuecke. These are fundamentals upon which the whole art rests:

Distance and Reach
Footwork (the source of all fighting)
Wrestling (the other source of all fighting)
Timing (cf. Silver's true times and vor/nach/indes)

None of these are in the 17, but they arguably have more to do with winning a fight than a krump does.

I really like your implication, though, that the "master strikes" are "teaching strikes;" which is to say that they are boiled-down, fundamental versions of what can be done. Practice these five, I think it says, and you'll figure out the rest. Works for me.

Jake

[philippewillaume]

Hello jereymy

This is the passage jeff is mentioning
Das ist der text von den stucken der zedeln.
Zorn haw, krump, zwerch, hat schiller, mitt schaittler, alber; versetzt, nach-raysen überlauff, haw setzet, durch wechsel, zuck, durch lauff, abschnie, hende druck, heng, vnd mitt blössen, schlach, vach streych, stich, mitt stossen.
Glosa.(18 r )
Mörck, hie werden genampt die rechten haüptstucke der kunst deß langen schwerts. wie yettlichs besunder haist mit dem naman, daß du die dester bas versten kündest. Der ist sibenzechen an der zal vnd heben sich an den funff hewen an.
Item nun mörck: der erst haw haist der zorn haw, der ander der krump haw, der drit der zwer haw, der viert der schill haw, der funfft der schaitel haw; der sechst: daß sind die vier hütten, das sybent die vier versetzen, das acht: die nachraysen, das neindt: die überlauffen, das zehend: die absetzen, daß aylfft: daß durchwechßlen, das zwülfft: daß zucken, daß dryzehend: die durchläuffen, daß vierzehend: die abschnyden, daß funffzehend: die hend trucken, daß sechzehend: die hengen, sibenzehend: daß sind die winden. Vnnd wie du dich mitt den hengen und winden enplösen solt, vnd wie du alle vorgenampte stuck tryben solt, das vindestu alles her nach geschriben.

Here is the pieces of the manual
Zorn haw, krump, zwerch, hat schiller, mitt schaittler, alber; versetzt, nachreisen überlauff, haw setzet, durch wechsel, zuck, durchlauff, abschnie, hende druck, heng, vnd mitt blössen, schlach, vach streych, stich, mitt stossen.
Mark, here are named the true master strikes from the art of fencing with the long sword, (yettlichs from eitel) which are hastily separated/presented by name so that you can better understand their secrets. (as in break/crack; verstend=the darkness bestern). They are 17 in number (an der zalh=in number) and they are abeted/suborned to the five strikes: (anheben= anheben, anstiften)
Item now mark: (name of the pieces see German text) And how you are to loose/unattach/break (emplosen=ebtlosem=losen) yourself with the hengen and winden and how you are to use/do all the pieces above mentioned, that you will find hereafter written.

So you see he used hauptstucke which is literally head pieces so master strike is a kind of modern language abuse.
vnd heben sich an den funff hewen an. Is sometime translated by and the five strike are first. But I think it is incorrect as heben reflect to the there is 17.

Suborned may be a little bit strong, as it carries a notion of unlawfulness, but I think the text says that the 12 other pieces flow from the 5 strikes.

PS I agree with jeff understanding that the pieces are concrete example (ie technique) to illustrate an underlying principle.

[Will Adamson]

Does anyone know of any similar situation in other martial arts instruction? I can't even think of anything in any sort of educational system period. I don't doubt that the tactic would work (actually it would probably keep someone practicing longer when they are new if it didn't drive them away because of frustration) but it just flies in the face of convention. Gotta love that!

Perhaps this is another example of the wonderful peculiarity of the sword arts of the time.

[jeremy pace]

In reference to what part exactly? Or just the situation in general? And frustration imo is usually caused by presentation.

[Will Adamson]

I mean the backwards nature of starting someone out with the more complicated techniques instead of the more basic stuff. I'm just wondering if there are other instances of martial arts using this philosophy.

[Matt_Bruskotter]

Meyer says,

"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,"

Essentialy, you can't be a master swordsman from just knowing the strikes, but the master strikes were tools for learning all the "artful elements" of swordsmanship?

[jeremy pace]

Meaning that all the finer points can be taught inherently through these cuts. After you teach someone proper timing for zornhaus (or any mcut really) then you have taught them indes, sword deflection, and triangle step as well. So why teach them one at a time when one lesson covers all three in a practical mindset of an attack?

[Matt_Bruskotter]

Heck, let's try it. Here's what may be inferred...

ZORNHAU
He who strikes you from above, Wrathful Strike point concludes, Would he first ward, Take off high without driving. To the strong again, Wind stab stab first, take it farther. Mark this well, strike stab stance, light or hard. Immediately and After truly onward the fight will not be awkward. Should the fight roam above, below will he be shamed. In all windings, Strike, stab, cut, learn to find, also should you not test, strike stab or slice, in all engagements, you will lose the mastery.
-The three wisdoms
-Winding, Feeling, parts of the sword involved with,
-Nach and Indes is mentioned but no Vor. Being defensive?! This would help with timing. See Krumphau for Vor
-Breaking what comes "from above"
-Easy to learn "bad peasent strike" as Goliath refers it
-the Four Openings and how to break them
-Very versitile technique and the most described of the five.

KRUMPHAU
Arc out nimbly, throw your point to the hands, Arc to whom would attack, striding much allows strikes.
-Stepping?

Arc strike to the flat and you will weaken the master. When it clashes above then stand off so will I praise it. Strike an arc not a short, show changes through with it. Arc to him who attacks the noble war will be in the Before. Thus he does not know where the before is without driving.
-to displace with the flat
-How to "change through"
-Vor is now mentioned. Noble war.
-Other masters describe it being able to break over and under strikes from his right. This strike then would defend any left and right openings while the Zorn and Zwerch defend your upper openings. Over running defends your lower openings

ZWERCHHAU
Cross takes what comes from the Roof, Cross with the strong, mark your work with it. Cross to the Plough, fly hard to the Ox. That is you cross to the head with a spring. Feints mislead from below against his intent to move
-Breaks anything from above
-Twitching
-Feinting

Inverting forces running through with grappling too, know to take the elbow and spring on the way. Feinting twice hits with a slice, step forward to the left and allow nothing
-Running Through by inverting
-More feinting

SCHIELHAU
Glancing breaks what the buffalo strikes or stabs. Strike shortly where he changes through facing him on. Glance to the point and take his throat without force. Glance above to his head, your leading hand above.
-How to break changing through
-How to break stabs, since this breaks the plough and long point which are major stabbing stances. Can deflect strikes.


SCHEITELHAU
The top of the face is endangered with your turn, the purpose is to take what comes from the Crown, cut through the crown then break hard as the strike hits his, withdraw with a slice.
-Slicing (Schnitt) and Hand Pressing
-Breaks the fool guard. I propose this covers two areas, Over Running and Traveling After. If you attack below the belt line at the lower openings, you would stand in something similar to the Alber stance as you finish your strike and would be exposed to a Scheitelhau. Also, if you cut from above and you miss, you would end in the Alber stance. Thus travel after with a scheitelhau on his head.

1. Zornhau
2. krumphau
3. zwerch
4. schiller
5. schaittler
6.Vier Leger - Discussed in each Master Strike
7. Vier Versetz - Discussed in each Master Strike
8. nachreisen - see Scheitelhau
9. uberlaufen - see Scheitelhau
10. absetz - Not really discussed. Perhaps Schielhau since that deals with mainly thrusting?
11. durchwechsel - How to make it with the Krumphau, break it with the Schielhau
12. zuck - See Zwerchhau
13. durchlaufen - See Zwerch hau
14. abschneiden - See Scheitelhau
15. hende druck - See Scheitelhau
16. heng - ??? Implyed with all the master strikes?
17.winding - See Zornhau

Is this what is meant? Comments?

[Aaron Jones]

I had a similar thought a while back in an e-mail discussion with Jeff Gentry. I was thinking that each strike and its associated techniques were almost lessons in some fundamental. I think the list I had was:

Zornhau-The most basic of strikes, teaches winding.
Krumphau-The success of this strike seems to rest on the footwork, particularly sidestepping.
Zwerchau-I believe that this strike illustrates the concept of simeltaneous attack and defense.
Schielhau-More and more, this strike sounds like a zwerchau turned 90 degrees, so it still attacks and defends, but I think that it also moves your opponent's sword aside, teaching you how to open your lines of attack.
Schietelhau-This strike seems to teach distance.

Take a man and give him a hand weapon of pretty much any sort. He has no knowledge of techniques, but he has a full grasp of how to continue attacks after parries and blocks, proper footwork and stepping, how to attack while closing his opponent's lines of attack, how to open lines into his opponent, and how to control distance. That man would be difficult to defeat.

While I tried to pull out a single principle from each strike, I like how your list shows all the elements encapsulated in each. Weird how everything keps coming back to the fundamentals <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Zach Palfreyman]

I agree that they could teach you the fundamentals, b/c they're basically incorporated into the strikes to begin with. But I'm not sure about them being just 'teaching strikes'. In Dobringer it says something like, here are five strikes and four guards- this is all you need. I think it is pretty straight-forward as being, this is the stuff you want to use, rather than this is the stuff you want to practice so you can learn the stuff you want to use.

[jeremy pace]

My point is though that werent most of the manuals built as instructional guides? If Doebringer says this is all you need, well again thats not very specific.... this is all you need in a fight? or this is all you need to work on when i am not around? I think this issue can be approached a few ways... just wanted to bounce this off you gents and see the response. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Zach Palfreyman]

Well I was only paraphrasing from memory. He says more like Liechtenauer holds only these four guards, four guards only and leave the common ones alone. If you want the exact wording, you'd have to look it up; I believe he starts talking about the guards in detail on page "32 R" which is about page 32 or 33 in the pdf.

I agree that they will teach you fundimentals, but there are other important things to learn for any cut to work. Like stepping, distance, timing, measure, etc. Without a good sense of distance for example, then you'd have two guys swinging at each other even when they aren't in range, or not swinging when they are in range. So I very much find that these are your actual 5 primary cuts, not just teaching aids.

Another quote would be that exersize does well without the Art (ie art of swordplay), but the art does nothing without the exersize. He also says the Art had been around for hundreds of years before he wrote the book. Which I am assuming means lots of stuff has already been tried out, and they now know the best stuff to use (ie the Art).

So I would conclude from this that someone who only studies techniques w/o practice will not be a good swordsman, but if someone practiced swinging around his waster out back with intent, even without any previous knowledge of techniques he could become somewhat competent at swordfighting. And the 5 primary guards and strikes he gives are the best ones of the Art, not simply stuff to teach you stuff to discover it on your own. Otherwise his advice would simply be go out back and try out some stuff. But he does agree with you that someone who knew none of the techniques but had a grasp on the fundimentals could still do reasonabily well (that's basically part of what he is saying with the exersize/art quote).

One last thing I wanted to add about your question for "all you need. All I need in a fight? All you need when I'm not around?" He says a number of times, that it is good for play or in earnest. So 'all you need' is fairly inclusive, both for practice and in war.

[jeremy pace]

Well when we do drills we dont just do them standing still. I think all the masterstrikes give instruction on the fundamentals. To perform them properly you have to have timing/distance/footwork/a good sense of blade geometry. In order to perform shiller properly for instance you need all these. If you can do it, hit the other guy, and not get hit then you are using all those basics. Now, when i show a beginner a more advanced combination they say things like, "ohhh ok. you mean to do this like a zwerch where it protects me from the above strike as i hit!"

My thoughts on all of it is like this (and completely conjecture)
If i lived in the 14th-18th century and i had the phenomenal chance to put part of my art into a written work for either upselling people on my skill or passing down for others to learn, then what would i put into it when i had limited resources such as space/funding? Well i wouldnt put my absolute best techniques because i believe in secrecy and wouldnt want someone to use them against me. Maybe just the beginnings of those manuvers and some thoughts on how to proceed from there like possible avenues of attack etc. I really dont think the masters wrote for us or they would have included more simple things like basic footwork. They were competing with rival schools of thought probably very similar to EMA. Here is my skill in a form you swordsmen can understand and here are some of the methods i use for teaching it. See the differences in what i do and envy my students. Again though, this is all conjecture. The historical aspect is interesting but not what i really want to learn. IMHO most historians change their stories so much (with good reason im sure!) it is a full time job to keep up with it all.

Our group is doing smashing! I am working with people younger and some older and i have to say the youngsters pick up on things a bit faster but are usually still more intimidated by getting hit. The older folks are just rowdier! Not afraid to try and halfsword or use ringen. I still think the small group i showed the guards and masterstrikes first has a better grasp on everything and are exceeding my expectations. I half expected to lose them all to thinking this was too complicated, but it seems the reverse was true. I think it was Mr Bill Welch (sp?) who said to keep sword work simple and not too technical and i agreed with him then as much as i do now. And i have to say it is true Bill. Preach on brother!