Long-sword material translated from Christian Egen

[Guest]

I have recently started to study this manule. If anyone would like to study it with me let me know. I think this would be a good place to start for us begginers. scholars that have been around for a while are encouraged to help us newbys understand this manule.

[John_Clements]

Sure, sounds good, what are you working on so far?

JC

[Mike Cartier]

Oh this is the der Alten Fechter manual right?

I have been messing with it a little bit, I would surely like to get another opinion on the few technques I have gleaned from it.

My knowledge only extends shallowly into the book as i am a newbian here and still tottering on baby longsword legs <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I would love to compare your thoughts on the Kron, Flugel and Fehler. i feel fairly comfortable using these 3 techniques during sparring so (not saying i am hitting anyone with it yet) <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Whats curious is i poured over the first parts of the manual for a week or so and was stumped, then i went back sometime later and it just clicked. Now all 3 of those techniques seem deeply related to one another and even complement each other.

Still thats only 3 techniques in to the manual and I have miles to go yet.
I am going to try to get my interpretation of the Flugel, Fehler and Kron techniques onto a webcam in the coming weeks, perhaps that will help in our discussion.

I will post my interpretations later when i can reference the manual.

[Mike Cartier]

Let me start with my favorite technique, the "Fehler" (mistake/feint)

Here is what the manual says
"Take the mistake out of the high gaurd. Strike short to his left ear and step with your left foot to his right side. The other strike long to his right ear. Stay high with good displacement."

So I strike short to the opponents left ear and step to my left (striking to my right side while stepping to my left), this draws the opponents defenses to cover the short stike at his left ear. As soon as the response is felt I step to my left in a lively fashion switching directions on sword strike to strike at the opponents right ear. This will usually result in me stepping something like 45 degrees or more to the side of my opponent.
Sometimes when i really get moving it can be more than that, indeed it feels best the more i can traverse the opponent defenses.

The stay high with good displacement refers to the need to maintian safe displacment in case your attack is broken and the strike short and long refers to the need to striek short first to lure the opponent into a false safety range as they respond to the short first strike, then to step and strike to the other side in a long fashion. This makes the second strike all the more effective becasue he is unprepared for the extended range of the strike.

Of course I could be wrong, I am just a WMA newb but it sure feels good when it works.
Interestingly enough it can go back the opposite way, So i can then step to my right and strike to my left, responding to the opponents defense and step lively to the right, in effect going back the way i came the first time.

Even more interesting is the interplay possible between the Fehler and the Flugel and Kron techniques. All 3 seem to work well with energetic traverse stepping around the opponent.
More on that later....

[Jeffrey Hull]

Yeah, thanks for bringing this up - I should really like to add a query of my own:

From the admittedly cursory study I have made of the manual, and from the impression of the pictures, I got the idea that the techniques might be more tailored for the later "great-swords" (like 54 to 66 in. total-length), rather than the "standard" long-sword (46 to 50 in. total-length) - however similar all sword-techniques ultimately end up being. Is this mistaken, or on the right path? Thank you for your input guys! JH

[Guest]

First let me first start by saying WOW Mike that was impressive. I only have two diffrences to throw out there to see what you guys think.

what if the first strike and the step are made at the same time? Might get a little more power and confuse your opponant for just long enough for the second blow to be a killing one.

second, i thought fulgel ment wing? if it does thats the part i would be confused about . But i think i like mikes translation best it makes a lot of sence.

[Mike Cartier]

Yes I neglected to mention that step and strike at same time part of that, that does indeed seem the best way to use the technique.

And yes Flugel is a pain to comprehend.

One thing I should like some open discussion about is the meaning of
"strike backwards" I take this to mean a false edge or true edge high fanning or Zwerchau strike.
This term is used frequently and alot of our understanding of these techniques will depend on how we take its meaning.

As for this being a greatsword manual Jeff ? thats interesting, I wonder if anyone else has any input on this. I myself wouldn't know.

[Guest]

I allways thought that "striking back" was a false edge cut.

And i also have no idea weather or not it is true long sword manuel or if it is great sword manuel. I do see clearly what you refer to in the pictures and you may just be right. <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Mike Cartier]

Ok here is the Kron
Manual says
"Step and strike from above with your true edge to his left ear. The other stepo and strike from above with your short edge to his right ear. the third striek backwards with the true edge"

This is actually the easiest one to understand i think.
Striek to his left ear then send the blade backwards with a false edge strike to his right ear then come back again with the true edge.

[GaryGrzybek]

Yup, it makes sense if we are understanding it correctly.

I have played with simalar stuff with success. The follow up with the true edge seems quite natural as he retreats or displaces.

[Guest]

HI guys!

---I am not so sure this is a good manual for beginners. It does not lay a good groundwork in basics, and large portions are still untranslated on the website. But anyway....

Mike wrote:
Let me start with my favorite technique, the "Fehler" (mistake/feint)

Here is what the manual says
"Take the mistake out of the high gaurd. Strike short to his left ear and step with your left foot to his right side. The other strike long to his right ear. Stay high with good displacement."

So I strike short to the opponents left ear and step to my left (striking to my right side while stepping to my left), this draws the opponents defenses to cover the short stike at his left ear. As soon as the response is felt I step to my left in a lively fashion switching directions on sword strike to strike at the opponents right ear. This will usually result in me stepping something like 45 degrees or more to the side of my opponent.

---I agree with your interpretation. Except that the short strike to his left side and your step to the left should be at the same time. But I think you cleared this up in a later post. Also I don't think that the "fehler" is necessarily a specific technique. This may simply be one example of a "fehler."

Keith

[Guest]

Jeff wrote:
From the admittedly cursory study I have made of the manual, and from the impression of the pictures, I got the idea that the techniques might be more tailored for the later "great-swords"

---Its hard to say, but my feeling is that it is not. I think the overly large swords are just an artistic variation. The Messers shown in the same work are also quite large. The speed of the transitions needed in some of the descriptions....especially the "fehler" would be very difficult to manage with such a large sword. But I could be wrong. One of these days I will buy a greatsword and try to figure out exactly what will and will not work from the Longsword method.

Keith

[Guest]

Mike wrote:
And yes Flugel is a pain to comprehend.
One thing I should like some open discussion about is the meaning of "strike backwards" I take this to mean a false edge or true edge high fanning or Zwerchau strike.

---I think it is a "backcut." Strike with an oberhau from right to left and then reverse the blade to strike with an unterhau from left to right. Then simply drop the blade back along the path that is just traveled upward on to strike the left side of his head with the false edge. This would be very much like hitting with a Schillhaw from the right side.

Keith

[Guest]

Mike wrote:
Ok here is the Kron
Manual says
"Step and strike from above with your true edge to his left ear. The other stepo and strike from above with your short edge to his right ear. the third striek backwards with the true edge"

This is actually the easiest one to understand i think.
Striek to his left ear then send the blade backwards with a false edge strike to his right ear then come back again with the true edge.

---I don't think this one is so easy. First of all, the name. In the German tradition the word "Kron" is typically used to mean one of two things. In the earlier years it refers to a defensive position that is later called the "Brechfenster." In the later years the meaning of "Kron" was changed to refer to an upward half-sword block. This use of the word "Kron" is totally different than any another other source that I am aware of. This description sounds like the typical "Zwerchhau" combination, but done improperly. In the "standard" zwerch combo you strike with the false edge to his left ear, the true edge to his right, and then back again with the false edge. This is very smooth and fast and does not put undue strain on the wrists. But doing it as described here would require much more body movement and have less efficiency. The answer is to drop the hilt lower than is done with the zwerch. Then you are more or less using an oberhau on both sides. But this also requires a tightened arc, looses some power, and does not cover you well. I don't like this one. Something about it does not seem right. I need to go back and check the original German.

Keith

[Jeffrey Hull]

KM:

That is entirely possible, that the proportions are distorted by "style". The venerable author &amp; editor (we know who!) of the recent excellent "Codex Wallerstein" translation-interpretation, which was published this year, point out that with CW the illustrated long-swords and falchions vary in length and were drawn during a time and with a style that was less than careful regarding perspective. So this might well be, regarding Egenolph (sp?). It would be cool if some of those great-sword owning guys (you know who you are!) might give this stuff a try, and tell us what they think about whether it seems tailored to this weapon specifically. Thank for the input to all you guys. JH