Matt said:
"I disagree - Fiore and Vadi cut with the false edge mezzani from the left and they cut with the false edge from below. They always refrain from crossing their wrists in front of their bodies. This is very different to the Liechtenauer lineage.
Which German treatise does the same cuts as Fiore and Vadi?"
That last sentence is what I was trying to get to in my post: IMHO, -at least concerning von Danzig and Ringeck- there are no "basic cuts" described. We have certain "Haue" and "Meisterhaue", that's true. Yet, if you take every description in von Danzig, for example, there remains a lot of stuff you can do with a sword that's not talked about. I surely *can* take my sword and hit you along any concieveable angle with either edge. It might not be too effective, but still. Instead, we have only a few, selected, movements that are carefully described to be executed in a very particular manner.
Why? Because whoever read this treatise was supposed to know how to fight already and it is, in a way, highlighting special aspects of fighting that might not be given much thought otherwise.
Quote from von Danzig, 1452, p. 9v:
"Alhye hept sich an die Gloß und die auslegung der zedel deß langen swertz
Die gedicht und gemacht hat / Johanneß liechtenauer der ein hoher maister in der kunst gewesen ist dem got genädig sey / Und dar umb daß die kunst fürsten / und herren / Ritter / und knechten zu gehört daß sÿ die wissen und lernen süllen / Dar umb hat er sÿ lassen schreiben mit verporgen / und verdachten worten daß sÿ ÿeder man nicht vernemen / und versten sol / Und hat daß getan durch der leichtfertigen schirmaister willen die ir kunst gering wegen daß von den selbigen maisteren sein kunst nicht geoffenwart noch gemein solt werden / und die selbigen verporgen / und verdachten wort der zedel die stenn her nach in der glosen / also verklert / und ausgelegt daß sÿ yderman wol vernemen / und versten mag der do anderß fechten kan"
My quick translation, trying to stay as close to the original as possible:
Here begins the text and interpretation of the system of the long sword
That was composed and made / by Johanness liechtenauer wo was a high master in the art and on whom the Lord may have mercy / And since the art [belongs] to sovereigns / and lords / knights / and servants so that they may know and learn it / [that's why] he had it written down in hidden / and secret verses so that not not everyone should witness / and understand it / And he did it because of frivolous fencing masters who take their art lightly so that his art should not be publicized or commonly known so that everyone could witness it / and these very hidden / and secret words of the system are put down in the following texts / explained / and interpreted [in a way] that everyone should witness / and understand them who can otherwise fence"
That last part seems very important to me. These texts -in the eyes of Danzig- contain the high arts of the sword that are directed towards those, who are already accomplished fencers. Why would he then waste space for stuff that those advanced students already knew?
If I were to compare this to a modern day video-game, I'd say that you are supposed to know how to hit, jump and kick. This manual tells you about the specials and combos. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
