Question on stances in known Fechtbüchs

[Ryan Bandics]

My question is thus:
In most fechtbuchs Ive seen (most have been on our web page) the common stance seems to be knees slightly bent, front toe forward, rear toe at 90 degrees from front toe, etc.
The only exception Ive seen is Meyer's stance and a few anonymous fechbuchs of the late 16th century which is lower, knees bent more, toes pointed away etc.
So is this lower "Meyer" stance a product of an evolution in stance technique, or something Meyer preferred to teach, opposed to other teachers?
Also as students should we explore differing stances, chooing one "best" for us or is there a "best" or "right" stance between the two mentioned above?
Should we as students be changing our stance when practicing different time frames of historical manuals? Does any one stance carry over into different weapons i.e. from longsword to sword and buckler? Can we assume a correct defalt stance from above and apply it as a commonality in our training?

Thanks All
Ryan Bandics
Las Vegas Study Group

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

Two things to begin with. Meyer's Figures have longer stances because his plates show men in motion, and as you are making a cut, your stance will be longer than your "base" stance.
The rear foot is more in the range of 45 degrees in relation to the front toe. 90 degrees is more of a linear rapier fencing. This 45 helps to give stability to you and make moving easier.

When I swtich from longsword to arming sword and dagger, I just stand like I had taken a powerful Zornhau with the longsword. Then I can keep my "base" stance fairly easily when switching from different swords. (I do tend to adopt a more linear stance when fencing with the rapier, but I will learn more about that later this month).

As students of Historical European Martial Arts, I feel that we are to try and reproduce what they did. It obviously worked quite well for them. So our stances should be those that emulate (sp?) the manuals as best as possible. Some variations may be needed, but trying to retain the closest possible to what the masters wrote will help us to more accurately reconstruct the art. From my studies, it seems that the same concept remains for all of the tools of the fight, meaning that the same "base" stance is usable for all, with only minor variations (such as a one cut step change). Anyway, that is what I get from the Fechtbuecher.

[Mike Cartier]

My question is thus:
Also as students should we explore differing stances, chooing one "best" for us or is there a "best" or "right" stance between the two mentioned above?

depends on the situation i think. Both have thier uses.

Should we as students be changing our stance when practicing different time frames of historical manuals?

hmm i dunno about that...

Does any one stance carry over into different weapons i.e. from longsword to sword and buckler?

absolutley, we train in longsword, polearms, dusack, dagger/wrestling, rappier and sword & buckler. The stance works throughout these weapons.

Can we assume a correct defalt stance from above and apply it as a commonality in our training?

Sure, just make it practical with lots of drilling, and use it in sparring alot and it will become part of what you do and you will know where to use it.

[Jaron Bernstein]

I don't believe that Meyer invented anything new. IMO the strength of his manual is that it shows with very clear "in motion" woodcuts and detailed written instructions techniques and methods that were already in use. More a clear codification than "new" material.

[ChristineChurches]

I agree with you Jaron. In Meyer's introduction to his manual, he states that he is writing his manual to record for posterity "the knightly and noble art of combat" which had at the time "gone somewhat in decline with many people".

IMHO, one other thing to keep in mind is that in earlier manuals, the pictures were hand drawn or painted to remind a student of a master's teachings, such as a specific technique, whereas stance would have been a part of the student's lessons from day one. In contrast, Meyer wrote his treatise so that one might learn the art without much instruction - therefore he needed to be a bit more precise with body and foot positioning.

Christine Churches
ARMA LV

[Mike Cartier]

In contrast, Meyer wrote his treatise so that one might learn the art without much instruction - therefore he needed to be a bit more precise with body and foot positioning.

Well Meyer himself says you cannot learn from a book,however yeah you are correct, his book was written specifically to gie the knowledge of the noble arts of war to the new classes springing up in central Europe (Burghers). The new need for more civillian based armies led to a the necessity of disseminating the knowledge out side of the nobility.

[Benjamin Smith]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are numerous questions of perspective here. Talhoffer for instance shows numerous stances with the feet pointed away from each other in very wide positions, though none with the hands at the level of the knees such as appears in Meyer's Pflug. Older manuals do show very extended stances. Some of them may even be more so with the front foot so far forward that the knee cannot come quite over the heel. Although my memory seems to say that the only recollection I have of really deep lunges come later in the Renaissance, but this correlates with the developments of "realism" and "perspective" in art and I don't think this is a coincidence.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are numerous questions of perspective here. Talhoffer for instance shows numerous stances with the feet pointed away from each other in very wide positions, though none with the hands at the level of the knees such as appears in Meyer's Pflug. Older manuals do show very extended stances. Some of them may even be more so with the front foot so far forward that the knee cannot come quite over the heel. Although my memory seems to say that the only recollection I have of really deep lunges come later in the Renaissance, but this correlates with the developments of "realism" and "perspective" in art and I don't think this is a coincidence.

Perspective in which manuals? I wouldn't rely on the perspective in Talhoffer, Vadi or the I:33 as 100% replicable just due to the limitations of drawing at that era. Other manuals like Fabris, Von Aeurswald, Meyer and Capo Ferro IMO have images that can can be said to be accurate for replication.

[Kevin T. Crisalli]

Something else to consider is that concepts of perspective and anatomy didn't really show in europe until the 15th century, and weren't terribly common until much later. Many of the plates that I see I tend to assume are fairly stylized and attempt to see them not as they are, but as what the artist was trying to convey.

IMO, it's best not to take them too litterally.