Hi again Jorge!
I''ll try to respond passage by passage.
Yep, you can cut through all eight lines, but the masters of the Liechtenauer tradition quite clearly advise you to strike your first strike, the Vorschlag from your strong side. That is, if you are right handed, first attack from your right (when in Zufechten). There is no doubt about this. On that we agree.
What we disagree a bit about is what that means. Yes, you can cut a high or low zwerchhau or a krumphau or a schielhau from the left to the right, but I believe it is weaker and your single stepping will likely be shorter than with a passing step. Therefore you will not have quite the same range of movement as your opponent. To me this means that you really don't have eight lines for the first strike. But, I am open for discussion here.
EDIT: Checking Ringeck he advises:
"Höre waß da schlecht ist / ficht
nitt oben linck / so du recht bist
Vnd ob du linck bist jm rechten
auch ser hinckest"
"Hear what bad is,
Strike not from above and left,
if right-handed you are
and if left-handed
from the right lame you are"
Roughly translated. Then Ringeck continues by saying that you shouldn't strike your first strike from Zufechten from the left if you are right-handed.
"also Wann du mitt zu fechten
zu im kumpst Bist du dann
gerecht vnd mainest den man
zu schlachen So hawe den ersten
hauw nicht von der lingen
sÿtten Wann der ist schwach
vnd magst damit nicht"
Also, from Hs.3227a:
"Hoer was do slecht ist ficht nicht
oben link zo du recht pist / Und ob du link
pist ym rechten sere hinkes/ Auch so vicht
io liber von oben linklichen nider"
END EDIT.
As for the line about "to play on his reading of you", I already described that. That is what the feints, Meyer's third schielhau etc are all about. But, like I said a couple of times, it does not necessarily mean that you are advised to read him. Just that combatants commonly try to do this. It also means you have to try to give as little away as possible, for instance by using the verborgene haw and through frequent motion.
In fact, since you should not wait to take the Vor, and are told to act as if he has no sword in hand, you are pretty much told to not care about his intentions. Which of course is not always so easy to do.
I think you are mixing perspectives a bit, but reading between the lines there are a few things about reading opponents that can be understood. Mainly, that the combatants try to do it. Why else try to hide your intentions?
Also, most people are human, and thus have flaws, little habits that can reveal their intentions. They are more common with less experienced fencers and exploited by those with more. That is why you should notice if your opponent pulls back before striking or thrusting, for instance...
Of course you cannot be hit from zufechten, unless one of you move into krieg. That is why you have to move around constantly... BUT, even if you are constantly moving, you are always in a position that can be read, expected and attacked. That is what the gunners did in bomber aircraft in WWII and it is what duck hunters use; deflection shooting. Not even constant motion provides absolute safety and relying too much on that can leave you vulnerable too, depending on where you apply that concept.
Regarding Krieg, of course constant motion aims at hitting without getting hit. But it does so by keeping the pressure so the opponent cannot "come to strikes".
I will have to get back to you with a proper quote about defining Zufechten. I am in the middle of preparing a birthday party... But, since you should approach your opponent with the left foot leading and follow with an oberhau or a thrust, or lead with the right and follow with an unterhau or a thrust, and you normally strike with the weak that is a pretty good indication of the distance that defines zufechten. And when combat begins, one response is to step back in any angle of your choice. Of course you can step forward as well, but that has no relevance in defining zufechten.
EDIT: I haven't got a proper quote quite yet, but here is a good article discussing Meyer, who is one of the more obviously "mobile" fencing masters, and his advise on guards and distances.
http://freifechter.com/longsword.html END EDIT.
Nope, the whole art does NOT revolve around outsmarting your opponent in Zufechten. It involves many other things, including work in krieg and ringen. BUT there is no doubt that you are advised not to rush to krieg. And it is in zufecthen that the fight starts, thus the importance of the Vorschlag. After that you continue pressuring your opponent into defending.
What I am saying is that you move from zufechten to attack, often come into a bind and then, if your opponent is good at defending, often move back into zufechten.
You should work in krieg too, but only with confidence and skill and when you are certain you can defeat your opponent. Otherwise you are both likely to loose a limb.
Again, Hs3227a and other manuscript says that you need to know how to move well back and forth and be ready to balance your opponents stepping, as if on a scale.
You are quite right regarding my theorizing about what people these techniques were designed to be used against and I expressed myself a bit clumpsily. But "Masters" do not necessarily mean masters of the Liechtenauer tradition, or the Ringeck line etc. Even Ringeck says that many masters do not know of the Verborgene Haw and several times refer to fencers who do not know how to defend against the Meister Haw. Hs.3227a mentions how you will lay under you "all the drumming and inventions by the Leychmeistere or play masters, since the five strokes are the foundation of Liechtenauer's art". We do not know for sure what is intended by Masters in the reference you make.
Also, the teachings of Liechtenauer weren't open to anyone. Initially they were kept secret to a selected few. And bits and pieces, like references to puffels and pawels, or Wallerstein's advise on how to rob a peasant reveal that this was not reserved solely for use against the skilled fencers of the Liechtenauer line. It was certainly used against a whole lot of other people. So, even if we can assume that the tradition we study aims at not revealing intentions, it can also be assumed that they tried to manipulate people who tried to read their intentions.
Still, there is certainly a lot of advise on how to use principles and techniques against skilled "Liechtenauer"-fencers too.
Finally, I do not think we disagree much, despite the huge mass of text. Both agree that frequent or constant movement is good. I think we regard zufechten a bit differently. Also I think the word "predict" is a bit misleading. It is in part right, but much more involves reading your opponent.
Have to go now, wish I had the time to write more carefully.
Good talking to you!
