Vadi: all unterhau done with false edge?

[Guest]

I just got the newly-translated book on Vadi's treatise. It's really good. But it seems to me from what he says that all "unterhau" were done with the false edge. I don't quite understand this...
please help.

Thanks,

B.

[Randall Pleasant]

Brandon

Please forgive me that I don't answer using Vadi's terms, I have just began to read the book myself.

If you cut an underhau from left to right, such as right after cutting a Zornhan from your right side, then it is best to do it with the false edge so that your hands are not crossed. If you cut a left to right underhau with the true edge and you bind with the adversary's blade then your hands are crossed and weak, making it easy for the adversary to counter, grapple, or disarm you.

Crossed hands is not an issue when cutting a right to left underhau into the left Ochs.

[Matt Easton]

Well I was training in Luca's Vadi class at the weekend in Dijon, and he in my Fiore class, and I got the impression that the Vadi strikes are done just like Fiore's.
Which is:
Fendente - true edge
Mezzani - true from right, false from left
Sottani - false edge

Randall is right - when people do some of the things we see in certain German manuals, the standard Fiore/Vadi response seems to be volta and disarm or close. Winden and crossed-wrist strikes can be cancelled by voltas and passes.

Matt

[Guest]

OK...I just checked out the glossary. I think I understand now. They can be done with both true and false.

[Matt Easton]

I happen to think that Fiore's sottani (upwards) cuts can be done false or true edge, but there is no evidence overtly to proove it in any of his treatises, except that he is specific about the edge to use for mezzani but not from sottani or fendente.
Having said that, he says in Getty that the sottani can stop in Posta Longa, so we know for sure he does them with the false edge at least, and in the techniques where he says a sottani could occur, it is clear that a flase-edge sottani is implied.

Matt

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Guys,

I have Luca's Vadi in front of me.

The relevant passages are
"The true edge should strike with the right blow,
and be well aware of what I say,
riverso and false edge go together"

-and-
deritto with the true edge goes,
riverso with the false edge stays,
except for fendente who wants the true edge.

Sounds pretty clear to me people. Vadi doesn't do unterhau, he does rota. I try to use the correct terminology when looking at various manuals as it helps to keep you from mixing incompatible styles.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Matt Easton]

"The true edge should strike with the right blow,
and be well aware of what I say,
riverso and false edge go together"

I believe that refers to the volante/mezzani - which makes it exactly the same as Fiore.

"deritto with the true edge goes,
riverso with the false edge stays,
except for fendente who wants the true edge."

It is possible that he is not even mentioning the Rota/Sottani, in which case this agrees with Fiore, and even if he is refering to the upwards cuts, we cannot say this goes against Fiore, because Fiore does not mention which edge to make upwards cuts with.

The *only* evidence in any version of Fiore that upwards cuts *could* be done with the true edge is natural transition to Posta Fenestra, and one ambiguous sword technique, described in the text of the poll-axe section.

If we go purely by the techniques shown in Vadi and Fiore, then they both seem to use the same combination of:
Fendente - true edge always
Mezzani/Volante - false from left, true from right
Sottani/Rota - false edge always

By hey, there are gaps in this explanation and questions left ambigiously answered. That's interesting though <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Matt

Matt

[Guest]

Stuart,

I used "unterhau" because it was more familiar to me, and probably a lot of others, as a sort of generic term. It does after all mean a "cut from under (below)." You only use the terminology from each individual manual...bully for you...but who says the German and the Italian are incompatable? That's highly arguable. The Italian stuff features more guards than the earlier German stuff, yes, but the fundamentals are essentially the same.


B.

[Guest]

The glossary has this to say about the Rota

Rota: One of the seven basic blows...Rota are rising cuts that transcribe a diagonal line opposite that of fendenti. Striking hands, arms and head. Vadi advises that the deritto rota should be made with the true edge, the rivsero with the false edge.

So, it appears there was a deritto and a riverso rota. Both true edge and false.

This book is really amazing! <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Matt Easton]

Deritto (also dritto, destraza etc) means from the right; reversa, sinistra or stanca means from the left.

Unterhau means 'under-blow, sottani means 'under' or 'below', and rota means something like 'rotar' I seem to remember.

Mittelhau means 'middle-blow', mezzani means 'middle' or 'medium', and volante means 'wheel' - actually in modern Italian it usually means the steering wheel on a car! <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Fendente is an interesting word which does not have direct translation in English, but means something like cleave. Dente means tooth, so a fendente is something that cleaves or cuts like a tooth.
- Steve Hick corrects me - it comes from Fendo apparently - to let fall, or strike!

Matt

[Jeffrey Hull]

BH wrote:
***
...But who says the German and the Italian are incompatable? That's highly arguable. The Italian stuff features more guards than the earlier German stuff, yes, but the fundamentals are essentially the same.
***
Yes, the German and Italian ways are congruent enough that we should be able to understand many moves as the same despite differing name in the respective languages.

Good luck,

JH

[Randall Pleasant]

Jeffrey Hull wrote:
Yes, the German and Italian ways are congruent enough that we should be able to understand many moves as the same despite differing name in the respective languages.

I would think that Fiore would have agreed with you. After all, he studied under German masters! <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Brandon,

I must strongly disagree about Vadi being compatible with any German longsword source I have seen.

The following are observations based on a reasonable knowledge of Ringeck and only a few readings of Vadi so I could well be wrong.

However::D

As far as I can see.......

Vadi's wards are very much on the centreline and do not seem to create binds at the same angle as occurrs in Ringeck. Because Vadi's cuts are "pushed down the centreline" rather than chambered from above as in Ringeck, the bind in my experience tends to be realised with the swords alot more upright in Vadi than Ringeck.

A REALLY big difference is that Vadi often tells us to use double time defences. In doing this he tells us to move into the blow and choke it up which is the opposite method to most people's interpretation of Ringeck.

This is my current theory as to why winden are not used by Vadi: With the swords closer to vertical, a volta (similar to a German twitch) makes alot more sense than trying to wind against a sword that could easily disengage from your bind due to it's lack of lateral commitment.

Another important difference is that Vadi uses (and even writes about) a very linear stance. Ringeck (for me) seems to work best from one that is quite broad by comparison.

Vadi also has that very cool false edge circular parry method of dealing with mandritti which interestingly in found in later Italian single sword manuals. Although you wouldn't use this parry all the time, it does create a different feel to the fight. (I LOVE this parry)

I really don't think mixing these methods is a good idea.
Cheers,
Stu.

[John_Clements]

No, I don't think he does.
He says to use Mezzo Tempo, middle time, which is equivalent with the German Indes Fechten. It's not a double time movement, nor truly even a simultaneous one, but a timed reaction in the middle of theirs just as you perceive it.

As we are in the infancy of reconstructing and interpreting this subject, it makes no sense to me to say that one source text is or is not compatible with another or one master’s work should or should not be mixed with another in the course of study. They all provide insights to learning and they all reveal techniques and concepts and principles that are similar or even identical at times. We should not assume from our current readings they must each have had their own distinct "style" but rather instead, try to learn the teachings in terms of those very techniques and concepts and principles, and then over time, as we practice them, allow a "style" to emerge. Whether this will then be “the” historical one, who can say? Not the masters, they are long gone.

JC