Lack of Master Strikes

[Craig Peters]

I am sure this has probably been debated in the past, but I'd like to know if anyone has any theories why Fiore does not include the master strikes (meisterhau), in his fechtbuch, given that he supposedly learned parts of his craft from German swordsmen.

Or, do these strikes appear under different names with slightly different interpretations?

[Casper Bradak]

Perhaps he didn't think much of them, or perhaps he wanted to keep them to himself. Perhaps he never learned them as such. Maybe it has something to do with the bastard sword as opposed to a wider blade.
I've noticed at least one in there, though he does not refer to it as one.

[John_Clements]

Perhaps this issue, like so many others in the subject, is as Dr. Anglo suggests, a matter merely of structuring the information at the time and the gulf with which we now view it. In other words, different teachers constructed different approaches to relaying the similiar core elements of fighting, and we today looking at them see things that aren't there or miss things that are.

JC

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi All,

Nice topic Craig.

I think the reason we don't see masterstrikes in Fiore (or Vadi which eliminates the "different weapon" argument quite nicely) is that they have different tactical approaches to the fight.

Painting with a *very* broad brush, Ringeck for example seems to want to dominate the fight through presenting mutiple credible threats until a hit is achieved.
The Fiore and Vadi seem to both want to make attacks where they are well covered through the closure of lines and by body positioning and in defence seem to want to see to their own security before attempting single time actions on the blade. (There are isolated exceptions of course)

Interestingly, the English seem to share the same tendencies are the Italians. The big difference though is that the English will directly close the line of attack via defensive wards where the Italians will leave the line open to bait the attack. (Again there are exceptions).
This point of view comes from having studied to varying degrees all three arts with people who specialise in them. The systems are quite distinct and IMHO tactically incompatible. There are tricks you can take from one to the other but you have to make the choice *gets broad brush out again* between all out attack to overwhelm and careful positioning to remain secure.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Casper Bradak]

Isn't the whole idea of the master cut to safely displace the enemy's attack while delivering your own?
You're not implying that if Fiore or Vadi would land a strike, or have their attack displaced, that they would disengage and start over, like a tae kwon do sparring match?
Ringeck, for example, only begins with multiple threats if his first failed to win him the fight. Common sense says italian masters taught the same. Like JC says, it must be a matter of presentation.
Initiative doesn't go with nationality, it goes with the principles of combat.
This matter of presentation can be taken both ways. Like you said, the checking actions, or coverta, are explicitely taught in the italian texts, but not mentioned as far as I've seen in the german ones, but they're common sense and they are present in the illustrations.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Casper,

Like a TKD match?

I am most definitely implying that striking and flying out is something that Fiore might well do. Do you really think that striking and retreating is not a historically documentable strategy? The Silver most certainly did it and so did Fiore.

A good example of striking and flying out in Fiore's system is where you slip back and to the outside of a blow to give a thrust to the face from bicorno. Whether or not the strike hits, getting out of the way of the next blow or retreating to make your rapidly expiring opponent have to move is a very good tactic indeed.

Doggedly staying in distance when you are in an unfavourable bind is tantamount to suicide in my book.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Casper Bradak]

No no, I agree with you in the different context you just put it in, but that's not the common context.
The example I used, like a tkd match, is score a hit, disengage and start over, etc.
But like you said, if you outclass someone, are at a disadvantage, or strike with no cover, and in all cases are against only one opponent in a situation you can take your time in, I agree.
Master Vadi says if you're overwhelmed or some such thing, to disengage and start over.
But I never said anything about being in an unfavourable bind. In fact, the whole idea of a combination attack, winding, or pressing the initiative is about turning the bind to your advantage if your first attack was either unsuccessful or a falsing.
Obviously, any of Master Fiore's binds could've resulted from an attack on his part that was displaced. His techniques are what happen if your attack wasn't successful. Seeing as how they don't show the basics, like "cut his head". You do the basic strike, he deflects, there's your crossing, he shows the technique.
I seriously doubt the "italian thing to do" was to result in unfavourable binds or play strike tag as the norm. That is tantamount to suicide in any situation where you don't outclass the other fighter or are in battle or against multiple opponents.
Striking and flying out isn't bad at all in the right situations, but by starting over like that, you're taking your chances all over again.

[Stuart McDermid]

Cool, we are pretty much on the same page then regarding terminology and meaning. I don't see fencing at wide distance as "taking chances" at all. In fact, my "Silver affected" brain doesn't want to remain in close distance for any longer than I have to unless I have a nice 90 degree cross that I am about to attack from.
Cheers,
Stu

[Casper Bradak]

I c, I think subtle differences between our "primary" weapons styles increase the risk of misunderstanding as well.
I don't see fencing at a longer distance to be taking ones chances, but if you are in the habit of attacking and flying out, if your attack didn't have the desired effect, you're essentially starting all over again once you've broken your measure. It's that situation in which starting over again you're taking your chances when you should've maintained an attack.
I do see that method far more viable in most single sword, rapier and cut + thrust fighting. (like Silvers) My point of view is usually stuck in that of the longsword.

[Shane Smith]

Likewise, if I believe myself to be the better fencer,I want to control the range and maintain a hint of distance.The closer a mediocre fencer can get to you,the better his chances of having you "walk" into a cut or thrust(not to mention the dreaded crotch-punt or pommel strike).Range allows me to react or act with confidence in such a way that I can control my opponent. If the range is to be closed,I want it done at my discretion.Now,if only I always got what I wanted all would be well <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Guys,

Err, what Shane said.

Casper,
I definitely believe our primary masters have alot to do with this but not the weapon unless you buy into the controversial theory that German systems are made for honkin' big swords and English for little bastard swords.

The German "Attack him until he falls over" couldn't be much different from "See to your defence whilst making attacks you can easily recover distance from" now could it?
Cheers,
Stu.

[Craig Peters]

I'd like to bring this thread back toward the original intended subject. Looking through the Novati manuscript, (from the Knights of the Wild Rose Translation), I can see a clear example of a Scheitelhau, which is the Meisterhau I'd expect him to include. To me, the Scheitelhau is a fundamentally different strike than the rest of the Meisterhau, as it relies on voiding and then attacking, rather than counterstriking.

I seem to recall that Fiore advises against using Fendente, which would rule out the use of a Zornhau. Again looking at the Novati images, it seems fairly clear that he does employ thrusts and cuts from the bind. In some instances, it looks as though he has countered a Zornhau/Fendente and exploited his foe. If this is the case, it would seem that he illustrates the Zornhau as a strike not to use.

In one image, the crowned master is pinning his adversary's sword to the ground with his foot and striking his foe on the arm near the waist. (The translated text that accompanies the image reads "I quickly kick your tip to the ground
And this way I'll hit you without any doubt.") It looks to me as though the strike the master is using here might be a Zwerchhau. What does everyone else think?

I don't see anything that looks like a Krumphau, nor can I find clear indication of a Schielhau.

[Casper Bradak]

I definitely don't buy into that theory, but like I said, I do think the use of a short sword lends itself more to a certain method and the longsword to another. I think we're losing each other again hehe....

"The German "Attack him until he falls over" couldn't be much different from "See to your defence whilst making attacks you can easily recover distance from" now could it?"

Based on that information, 2 people could very well turn out fighting very similarly or very differently, it's all how you go about doing it I suppose.
"Attacking him until he falls over" is seeing to your defense. As long as he's occupied, he's not attacking.
Anyway, people are associating agression, when I refer to it, with close in fighting, which was never my intention. I never made reference to closing past kreig or ideal cutting/thrusting range, from which your distance can easily be recovered. Only the difference between continuing the attack and strike tag from zuefechten, with very little difference in range, only method. Get it?

[Casper Bradak]

"In one image, the crowned master is pinning his adversary's sword to the ground with his foot and striking his foe on the arm near the waist. (The translated text that accompanies the image reads "I quickly kick your tip to the ground
And this way I'll hit you without any doubt.") It looks to me as though the strike the master is using here might be a Zwerchhau. What does everyone else think?"

Not a zwerchau, and definitely not in the context of a master cut. He's cutting upwards from a low bind. He may be cutting the guys arm or his cut may still be rising. See the next 2 pics.
He also illustrates techniques in which he uses fendente, though I haven't read whether he advises against them or not. As example there's a technique just a few pics down in which he uses a fendente after an elbow push.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Casper,

I am a little confused. Fendente is Fiore's favoured downward strike. He uses it to both defend and parry. The strike itself is a very steep one that passes through the top of the head and exits from the knee.

Interestingly this is the angle on which we cut Zornhau. A shallower angle and you are very vulnerable to being Krumped. Much steeper and not don't you close the line of counterattack but you allow the defender to easily mutiere in abscence of the blade.
Cheers,
Stu.
Cheers,
Stu.