Meyer stance/guard questions

[TJ Ulrich]

I am working on Meyer (Rasmusson's translation from http://schielhau.org/Meyer.title.html). Mainly I'm putting this online reference into a format suitable for making a hardcopy that I can take out in the yard or park where I can't access it online. It's format is kinda clunky for printing. Also I'm working on developing a study guide from it for our local group to use. Anyway, as I am reading/interpreting the manuscript I have come across a few questions about his stances/guards that are puzzling to me.

On page 2 (3rd paragraph) Meyer lists the 4 principal stances (roof, ox, fool, plow) as well as the 8 secondary (wrathful, window breaker, long point, barrier guard, unicorn, key, iron door, and changer). On page 6 he begins the explanations/descriptions of the guards and at the end of the 1st paragraph lists the secondary guards as (wrathful, long point, changer, close, iron door, hanging point, key, and unicorn) ... notice no window breaker or barrier guard, but the addition of close and hanging point. Why the change? Which of these (close or hanging), if either was he meaning by window breaker?

Also, the close guard is not pictured anywhere in the illustrations. The description is poor and could be interpreted to be something akin to fool (but with short edge down) or a tail guard. Talhofer's close guard (tafel 16) doesn't really show either of these as "close". What is the general accepted interpretation of Meyer's close guard?

TIA,

TJ

[JeffGentry]

Hey TJ

Which of these (close or hanging), if either was he meaning by window breaker?

Hanging or hanging point is the window breaker Doebringer calls it Sprechfenster or talking window, the close gaurd is pictured in Meyer illustration D the guy on the right hand side in the fourground it is also called the changer gaurd, it is more akin to tail gaurd than fool.

Jeff

[Jake_Norwood]

If you're serious about studying Meyer you need to pick up Forgeng's translation (available at Amazon.uk) called, I think 'The Art of Combat') and start looking at the facsimiles available through the Higgins Armory.

I don't agree with all of Forgeng's ideas about Meyer, but he's done lots and lots of very useful academic work on the 1570 manuscript. Just remember he's a translator and not a martial artist and you'll be fine.

Mike Cartier in the ARMA Florida group is doing great work on Meyer, too, in addition to Jeff and Jaron in Ohio. I've got a few study guides that I wrote in the Armaria, as well, though the longsword one is pretty dated at this point.

Jake

[TJ Ulrich]

Jeff,

Thanks for that little Doebringer insight. When looking at (and saying) Sprechfenster vs. Brechfester ... looks like a transcription error. I can see it now ... "What's this Sprechfenster? I said Brechfenster!" Yeah I know, Doebringer was first, but somehow Brechfenster seems more appropriate to me.

Is it possble to translate Brechfenster as "broken window" rather than "window breaker"? This would make more sense from my POV. As I see it the hanging point is akin to the high block (hands above head, pommel high, tip low, blade at 45 deg. out and 45 down) where you are looking through a triangular window of sorts (i.e., the blade as the hypotenuse and the forearm and upper arm making the other 2 perpendicular sides). Thus a "broken window" is roughly the same but with the hands lower (and point directed more toward the opponent) so that you are no longer looking through the window, i.e., "broken window" not "window breaker" ... just a thought.

As for close guard, I'm still a little skeptical:
1) When a stance is pictured he [Meyer] refers to it as such, yet that reference is absent for "close" (at least in the translation that I am working from). Thus I don't agree that close is pictured ... though changer is (in the figure that you mention).
2) The description mentions how other stances are bimodal, having a left and a right "mode" (Ox for instance). If close and changer were the same stance (but opposite sides) why not just add it to the list of bimodal stances and avoid having a separate secondary stance name? Meyer clearly lists close and describes it as a separate secondary stance with no reference to similarities with changer.

I do agree that I don't think it is a short edge up version of fool, that just doesn't seem right either.

Any thoughts? Feel free to refute my arguments, they are just MY interpretations, I make no assertions that they are correct.

I'm off for our weekly class and sparring session. I'll have to do some playing around with different versions of the close guard and see what becomes of it.

[TJ Ulrich]

I'll check out the material from the Higgins armory, but I'm intentionally not using any other sources (other than posting a few questions here) until after I finish my own interpretation. It will be interesting to check out those other peoples work afterwards though. Thanks for the heads up.

[Mike Cartier]

I see close as nebenhut, out to the rear. I find the description fits perfectly the notions of nebenhut elsewhere in the german system.

Brechfenster is the binding guard, its a cousin to the Kron guard. meyer admonishes us to never do this guard except when we are binding. The bechfenster is the initial position you find your self in on the way to the kron position.

meyer messes up his list of guards, he also makes some other faulty references . i highly recomend the Jeff Forgeng translation as well as the Higgins sword guild cd release which is mostly meyer.

[JeffGentry]

Hey TJ

As for close guard, I'm still a little skeptical

And rightly so Illustration D is not close gaurd it is in fact changer, which is a diffrent gaurd, I do not know what i was thinking.

close gaurd in behind you.

Hope i didn't confuse you, It is what Mike said.


Jeff

[Jake_Norwood]

TJ,

You're already working with someone's interpretation by using Rassmussen's excellent page. If a translator speaks instead of write's he's called an "interpreter" for good reason: You can't possibly translate without interpreting.

I'm very fond of Rassmussen's translation, but I think that the Forgeng translation is an absolute necessity if for no other reason than that it's complete where Rassmussen's is, sadly, not even close. There is no formal "interpretation" of techniques or moves in the Forgeng book, only on his disk or on his site.

Nebenhut in Meyer is almost certainly related to the modern tail guard. It's not bimodal with Wechsel because wechsel and tail can be performed on both sides, though it may not always be wise do to so.

For example, in the Windthauw, you begin in wechsel (it's stable) but immediately transition to nebenhut before striking a long-edge underhaw to the flat of the incoming attack. In wechsel on both sides the short edge leads; in nebenhut the long edge does. Or that's *my* interpretation. And I know that it both works and is supported by other texts.

Also, by "finish your interpretation" how many years do you have lined up for this? Meyer is several hundred pages long! Or are you only doing the longsword portion (understanding that Rassmussen's page only has about half of the Longsword stuff from Meyer, and that the stuff he leaves out is the most important to seeing "how" Meyer advocates one should fence). Going off of what you have is like trying to learn a language with a dictionary but no grammar. Possible, sort of, but ultimately it will be incomplete.

Note that I'm not saying that you should use anyone else's published interpretation (not mine or Mike's or Mr. Forgeng's), but you need to at least read all of Meyer before you get too deep into your own.

Try deciphering Iron Gate without the Rapier section, for example!

Jake,
Meyer fanatic

[TJ Ulrich]

Jake,

Yes, I'm just doing longsword (for now), and no I don't plan on taking years. I've read some of the other manuals and books (John's book, lindholm's doebringer, wallerstein) mainly bits here and there, except for John's book which I read cover to cover. I have had the opportunity to bounce things in those sources off of a sparring partner here and there, but I realized that I wanted to do something a bit more systematic, serious and regular than what I had done before. I do research for a living (I'm an experimental physicist at Los Alamos National Lab), so I'm very much familiar with what is involved in any research, as well as how fulfilling it can be. I'm not concerned about making a comprehensive study, or making something that I need to publish. This is just a way that I've found that is a more rewarding way to pursue things. I've come and gone several times from WMA and AMA for ~15 years (since taking John's first classes back in the early '90's). John once said to me (I'm paraphrasing here) that a true swordsman is one who would pursue it even if he were the only man on earth (not sure if he still thinks that way, you'll have to ask him). I knew back then that he would do that ... but I wouldn't. I need to have an active partner and a planned activity in order to pursue just about anything. Having a couple steady partners who are interested in pursuing the original manuals, and have a plan of attack (i.e., interpreting Meyer's longsword) gives me something to sink my teeth into and a way to do it. BTW, I didn't mean to sound snotty about not looking at other people's stuff yet ... I just meant one thing at a time. With a 3 y.o. and another due next month, a full time job and general family stuff, it's all I can do to look at one source right now.

Well, kinda wandered all over the place on that one. It's nice to go stream of conciousness after writing about wavespeeds, attenuation coefficients and time reversal invariant elastic systems all day. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />