I sure do love swords and swordsmanship.
I may be mistaken, but it looks as if the discussion has seemed to have shifted from the assertion of strength not being important in cutting relative to speed, to one of, cuts that are shorter and quicker are strong enough, and therefore presumably, to be preferred.
To go with this line of conversation then, I would say the Germans masters are pretty adamant about the need to “fence strongly.” I don’t think there can be much equivocation on this or viewed that they were being metaphorical. The necessity in learning to strike cuts using the whole body with can’t be discounted.
I don’t think any one would argue that a fearsome full-arm blow with a longsword is not harder to displace than a shorter (although, quicker) blow from the half-arm, or that a larger outstretched blow would do less damage than a shorter one. It’s logical that a short swing cannot possibly have as much force as a larger one moving in a greater arc. It’s a simple fact of physics that the larger the circumference a blow travels the more force is behind it (Bruce Lee aside). As the master Giacomo Di Grassi in 1570 wrote, “a Circle that goes compassing bears more force in the extremity of the circumference, than in the center thereof.” While he advised against shoulder blows with short slender swords, he acknowledged their fearsome power with two-handers. Nor could it be disputed that such a full arm blow has greater reach. Again, to quote Di Grassi (who taught two-handed sword and frequently advised the arms be “stretched forth from the body”), “he that is nearest, hits soonest.”
My experiences in almost 24 years now of doing this, and over a decade of teaching it, leads me to the conviction that learning how to properly strike with force in this way is one of the biggest obstacles facing modern students. They have to be taught the difference between cutting from the full arm and from the half-arm, and hand. Many do not instinctively grasp the necessity of stepping into their blow to add power or of using passing footwork to put their hip and shoulder into the cut from the full arm. They invariably pull their blows and step short and often cut by pulling the hilt from their shoulder down to their hip instead of stretching out with their arms as so many of the images in the source manuals depict. In my estimation they can't learn strong full arm cuts using the body by striking short blows. Nor can they develop the proper body mechanics to then strike shorter blows with force from the half-arm without first practicing these full-arm ones.
As a man of average height and build myself, with above average speed, I personal don’t like to rely on "strength" of blows in my fighting style, but on agility and skill. So, I am happy to note Di Grassi further advised, “there is no doubt but he vanquisheth which is most nimble, and this nimblenesse is not obtained by handling of great heftes or waightes, but by often moving.” He echoes Vadi’s comment on the need for the virtue of a swift eye, strength, knowledge, and quickness.
From the 13th century tale, "Iwein", we similarly read of the knightly hero’s martial craft where, “With practice the weak man can too learn to fight far better, otherwise the state of swordsmanship, as an art, may not have achieved this level of skill. Here was the union of skill and strength.” Again, here it is not physical strength alone, but prowess –and arguably meant agility, speed, courage, and experience, as well as muscular strength.
Though he was a later teacher, Di Grassi, (who wrote on ways of strengthening the arms and the body for fencing), also stated the “scope of this art consisteth not in reasoning, but in doing” and therefore, for anyone “desirous to prove cunning in the art” it was prerequisite they be both discerning, as well as “strong and active” in order to be able to put into execution what they knew. But he added, “this may not bee done without strength and activitie of bodie” to give the necessary “power to sustaine the weight of blowes.” He also declared, “let everie man that is desierous to practise this Art, indevor himselfe to get strength and agilitie of bodie.” Again, here is that strength with agility thing.
So, in regard to relying on making strong cuts with short moves closer to the body, I don't feel they can be either preferable or superior. Force and reach in striking blows with a longsword comes from stretching out the arm with the full body behind them in a large passing step (...which is itself another matter entirely and one also found repeatedly in the texts).
We can note that a great many techniques in the German school often require the arms to stretch out (the Kron and the one handed “spring” come to mind –the latter a move also advised in the 15th century English fencing poem MS 3542). Zabinski’s Codex Wallerstein (plate 13) reads: “So, you fight long against someone, and you come to him at the distance of the sword, so both of you are hand-to-hand. Then, you should stretch your arms and your sword far from you, and put yourself into a low body position (die Waage), so that you have a good grip and long reach in your sword, and so that you attack and parry against all which is necessary. The reach is that you stand behind your sword and lean yourself; the grip is that you stand low as it is depicted here, and make yourself small in your body so that you are great in your sword.” Plate 14 adds, “when you get engaged in close quarters with someone, keep the sword flat and stretched forward with the point to the face and wind him with the short edge.” Mike R’s translation of the 1570 Meyer offers a description of the main cuts where the arms must be stretched out: “The Direct strikes are named such as they strike against the opponent with the long edge and outstretched arms. There are four, the Over, Wrathful, Middle and Under Strikes, and from these all the others come forth, and in the world will still be found none conceived as such, and of them not one of these will be feebly grasped and joined by you. These are named the Lead or Principal Strikes.” So, different cuts call for different arm motions, obviously, and we use a variety in our repertoire. Vadi's section on half wording at one point for instance also comments, “Go with outstretched arms, bringing the edge in the middle of your partner.”
All this talk in the literature of physical strength and strong blows with outstretched arms…and so little about speed, other than Fiore’s and Vadi’s quick right arm, does make one wonder. It occurs to me that the right hand is considered “quick” because it is the lead hand and acts first in guiding strikes and actions –as for example with the “Adder’s Tongue”, ‘Garden Hoe”, and Peacock’s Tail” techniques in the German school. After all, at least for me, when I swing a two-hand sword, my left arm seems to be moving about as fast as my right, it just isn’t directing, it’s following and assisting my lead. Strikes with power come with speed (the whole force/mass /velocity thing). You can’t hit slow and hard, and if you hit fast –with correct body mechanics –you will have stronger blows.
So, there is a clear value and need for short strikes (effective as they can indeed be on the forearms and hands), but not without understanding the necessity of acquiring skillful use of powerful, far-reaching, full-arm cuts.
[Last side note: as to how “easy” is supposedly is to cut strong blows by just using muscle, I am reminded how at several public test-cutting demos and class sessions we've held, attendees and students were invited to try their hand at cutting thick cardboard tubes, and the larger guys –usually with rattan fighting backgrounds --invariably halled off and just bashed the target, sending it flying but barely scratching it –then Hank Reinhardt walks up with the same blade and with a swipe shears through the tube effortlessly (sometimes even twice in a row). Several of you know what I am talking about as you have seen this sort of thing from him or even from me.]
JC
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
