Regarding the Thesis that Siber’s Fight-Lore of 1491 AD is for Sword & Buckler.
An explication by Jeffrey Hull
Hello!
I have been given to understand that my thesis has made some sort of splash in Europe – though I would not know, as sadly no one of the Old World has reached me to this regard. Thus said, I reach out to you, Europe! I invite you to read this explication, and more importantly, my full thesis. Indeed, I thank this good lady continent for her swordsmanship which is my birthright. All those who consider it theirs as well are welcome to consider what I have written.
JH
Well, of course I realised that many would not agree with the premise of my Siber thesis – unsurprising. Some of my good fellows warned me of such, and did so with severe critique. At first I thought the Siber fight-lore to be for longsword myself, just as everyone else tended to think, yet eventually felt compelled to think it for sword & buckler. So I stand by my conclusion. All I can say is that someone should read the totality of my work to reach his own conclusion, rather than relying lazily upon a short smug dismissive to give him his opinion.
Thus, I do not accept that a later alternate “text appears to resolve with certainty the question of whether [Siber] concerns the longsword or not” There is no “bottom line” which “certainly sinks it” to support this in the actual original text wherefrom I drew my work. How do I support this? The best answer is to read my whole thesis so that one may make up his own mind.
However, if one desires summary, which deals with all recently raised concerns, this is what it comes down to:
I dealt with an excellent colour facsimile of the Siber manuscript – Handschrift M I 29 now residing at Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg, what we may call Codex Speyer – which is dated to 1491 AD, and thus predates the manuscript residing at the Scott Collection in Glasgow of 1508 AD by 17 years, it seems. A presumably accurate transcription of a section (from 24v) of the later unillustrated non-publicly-available Glasgow-MS states:
Hernach geschriben ist ain newe zetl des langen schwerts und ein ausszug aus der voringen zetl / und vil ander guetter stuck von manches maisters handt / die hat zu samen gesetzt maister Martein Syber und ist getailt in segs geng /
The earlier and, unfortunately, unillustrated Salzburg-MS – facsimile-copy whereof may be seen on the Web – is represented within my thesis:
Martin Siber’s Fight-Lore of 1491 AD...A sword and buckler thesis on the Fechtlehre from Handschrift M I 29 (Codex Speyer) at the University of Salzburg, Austria
At the ARMA Web-site:
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Martin_Siber/SiberWeb.htm
And states the following as per my transcription:
(1r) Item dÿ hernach geschriebenn nüwe zettell
hat gemacht und gesetz meinster Mertin
Siber und ist ein zuck auß mangerley meinster ge..
fechtenn und ist geteiltt und gesetz In sechs geng
und in der zittell ist der ochß und der pflug und
scheyttell hauw nicht also als in der ersten zettell
des puchs Sunder eyn ander uß legüng Nu hebt
sich an dy vor rede und lere der zettell dar noch
die sechß genng
Wer ere will erwerbenn vor furstenn
und vor hereim Im vechtenn mit dem
Swertt dz ist gutt und gerecht der volge mÿ..
ner lere der gesiget ymermere dy sechß genng
halt in huott die sintt gar prißlich gutt in
den woll begriffen ist vil manges gutte mein..
sters...
Now, my translations into Deutsch and English are as follows:
Also Meister Martin Siber hat die hernache geschriebene neue Zedel gemacht und gesetzt. Es ist ein Zug aus mancherleien Meisters Gefechten. Es ist geteilt und gesetzt in sechs Gänge. Und in der Zedel sind der Ochs und der Pflug und der Schädelhau, aber nicht also als in der ersten Zedel des Buches, sondern einander Auslegung. Nun heb sich an die Vorrede und Lehre der Zedel, und danach, die sechs Gänge.
Werauchimmer will Ehre vor Fürsten und vor Herren in dem Fechten mit dem Schwert erweben, der ist gut und gerecht, wer folgt meiner Lehre, der ist gesegnet immermehr. Die sechs Gänge halten Hut, die sind gar preislich gut, in den ist wohles Begreifen der List viel manches guttes Meisters...
*****
Thusly Master Martin Siber has made and set the new summary written hereafter. It is a teaming of manifold masterly skirmishes. It is dealt and set into six goings. And in the summary are the ox, the plough, and the skull-hew – not thus as in the first summary of the book, rather together in explanation. Now heave yourself at the foreword and the lore of the summary, and thereafter, the six goings.
Whosoever will earn honour before princes and before lords in fighting with the sword, he is good and rightful, who follows my lore, he is blessed evermore. The six goings hold wards which are quite preciously good, wherein is wealful comprehension of the cunning of quite many goodly masters...
*****
Now, to quote my Interpretation:
Thusly Master Martin Siber has made and set the new summary written hereafter.
It seems that Master Martin Siber (`ma:r-ti:n `zi:-ber) was a master (meinster) of fighting or fencing. Hardly anything is known of Martin Siber beyond his fight-lore. If his surname means “sifter”, thus some sort of flour-miller, then perhaps he came from a humble working family. It is unknown whether he was the free-fighter over his own fight-school, or the master-of-arms for the army of some atheling. Or maybe Siber was simply some nameless backcountry fighter. However, a comparison of Siber’s work to the aforesaid works of other masters finds them in much agreement about principles of fighting. Also, note that the title of Master or Meister in Europe of this time held weight of living unbroken martial tradition – unlike the relatively meaningless and over-bandied modern sporting title of maestro.
Now the new summary (dÿ...nüwe zettel) implies concise or condensed “lessons or teaching” presented in revised fashion – in other words, Siber’s fight-lore. The zettel or zedel of JLSR and other KdF share with Siber this sense of summary – for a given master can write down only so much of his lore, hence at best a briefing of his greater knowledge no matter how big the work. Also, Siber has made and set this new summary, implying personally putting it forth the way he wanted.
It is a teaming of manifold masterly skirmishes.
It seems the summary is a teaming (zuck) of masterly skirmishes (meinster gefechtenn) fought by many unnamed masters. Maybe this lore is based upon specific fights that Siber himself had fought and/or witnessed. Note here that zuck (like NHD Zug) implies meaning of “draught-animals”, indicating the harnessing together of powerful ideas that work. Siber’s summary seems a distillation of advanced or esoteric sword & shield fighting.
It is dealt and set into six goings.
The summary is based closely upon the skirmishes which are dealt and set into and thus described by six goings. Each of the goings (geng) is a set of moves or play of conflict, in active attack-versus-counter between fighter and foe, which are meant for practice of useful techniques and tactics in order to teach the fighter how to control sparring and thus win a fight. A going implies a struggle in motion, not in stasis, also understood as “play; bout; set; match; scenario”. It is basically the same as stück (play) of other KdF sources. The six goings are set in verse which must have helped the fighter achieve memorising, as was commonly done at that time with a great deal of various lore. During this time such often was not just poetry but song. The couplets in each going are always of related techniques or concepts. Even if all couplets in each going are not necessarily contiguous, they seem at least somewhat related. The couplets of the goings and later poem more or less rhyme auf Deutsch, if not in English, which generally gives some reference to which lines belong together.
Siber’s goings for sword & shield try to help one resolve specific conflicts but also to dispel general misconceptions – being not indecisive fencing tic-tac-to, but rather decisive fighting know-how. Realise that any given going means to describe but one likely or desired course from amongst manifold undescribed possibilities. These goings are like JLSR’s six stücke and HT’s eleven bilder (pictures), as opposed to a presentation of a whole system like WP, although WP does call sections thereof frustus in the sense of “going”.
And in the summary are the ox, the plough, and the skull-hew – not thus as in the first summary of the book, rather together in explanation. Now heave yourself at the foreword and the lore of the summary, and thereafter, the six goings.
So in the summary are both ox and plough – which are each wards (dwl) or stances of swordsmanship. The ox (ochß) is a ward whereby you stand left-leg forward and hold the sword with the hilt high and back, such that the point is aimed at the foe’s face like a bovine horn, with the long-edge (dwl) horizontally upward, the shield held forth about chest-height facing the foe. WP shows ox as sexta; it is seen in JS; and something like it upon the left-side is described by JLSR as one takes up zwayen schilten (twin-shields).
The plough (pflug) is a ward whereby you stand with right-leg forward, hilt at waist-height, sword angled forward and point aimed upwards at the foe’s face, shield slanted forth at the side of the hilt – the fighter and his sword looking like the tillman at the plowshare. WP shows plough as halbschilt (half-shield); it is seen in HT & JS and is described by GS.
The skull-hew (scheyttell hauw) or skuller is a basic yet deadly strike. It is the apex-vertical overhew (dwl), whereby the fighter brings the sword aloft above his own skull, and hews down with the long-edge into the top of the foe’s skull. This term is akin to NHD Schädel (skull). Hence, the origin and the aim of the deed lead to this translation – physiology and philology united. Perhaps Siber groups these three techniques together as the bare minimum needed to fight by swordsmanship.
The phrase not thus as in the first summary (ersten zettell) seems to tell of an earlier summary which was part of the book, some unknown and unnamed work, not the Codex Speyer itself in which this new summary (nüwe zettel) appears. However, together in explanation is clear enough – Siber wants to present the aforesaid three techniques (ox, plough, skull-hew) here in unity, and not isolated as apparently they were in that earlier book, to help the fighter learn them as united techniques of changing tactics in the fight. Hence it seems that Siber considers this new summary in the Codex Speyer better than the first summary. Was the book an earlier version of Codex Speyer, one that also dealt with Siber’s teachings? It is presently impossible to say.
Siber speaks directly to the fighter, by imperative second-person familiar voice (now lost to modern English – thou & ye), as to student or friend, telling you to heave yourself (hebt sich) at the foreword and the lore...and thereafter, the six goings, perhaps as pun: heave your mind into the summary, as you would your weapon into the fight. He may also be suggesting that technique follows tactics, that is, learn the foreword & poem first (the “lore” per se) and then the goings afterwards.
Whosoever will earn honour before princes and before lords in fighting with the sword, he is good and rightful, who follows my lore, he is blessed evermore.
Whosoever will earn honour is simple yet deep. It seems rather inclusive, especially for its time, speaking to whatever man (wer) is willing to undertake swordsmanship, be he high or low. The word will (will), whether as modal verb or as noun, with its related meanings of “want to; intend to; desire to; would”, is the cogency of erstwhile philosophy. Though now ignored or belittled by the modernist, to Medieval man it was meaningful. It explains, for example, why Cheyenne outdid Americans with their own weaponry at sabre-fighting during warfare of 1865-80 AD – he who has the will to fight when he must do so, whether with specific weapon or generally, shall more likely win. Will may not be the only thing a fighter should have for winning a fight, yet there is truth to what one of my older brothers said when we wrestled: You have got to want it.
That honour (ere) had great meaning during Siber’s time is beyond doubt, arguably more so than in modern popular culture, and needs no ruminating in this present essay, other than that a fight-master dealt with it daily more so than most of his contemporaries. Siber tells the fighter that he may earn (erwerbenn) his honour, without some need to be born with it, even before princes and before lords in fighting with the sword (vor furstenn und vor hereim Im vechtenn mit dem Swertt) by learning his fencing lore (lere), as perhaps most men had hitherto been forbidden to do. This is the idea of a man of lower class earning honour, which actually would have been part of renewed thinking of the early Renaissance, whereby a lower-born man need not stay locked in fealty or thralldom, yet could now better his lot in life with the implicit right to defend himself. Even the lowest born man, bereft though he be of aristocratic lineage, could advance himself if by bravery, talent, need or chance he had proven himself a real fighter, whether in homeland’s militia or as a freebooting mercenary. Indeed, by the 15th CentAD, noble knights and peasant levies were giving way to mercenary soldiery as the preferred sort of army fielded by European princes & lords.
Perhaps a picture of Irish fighters by Dürer, from 1521 AD, treats of this idea of the armed common man, as its caption tells:
...Dy Krigermen in Irlandia hinde England [sehen so aus]...also gend dy Armen in Irlandia...
...The warriors in Ireland, beyond England, [look as such]...thus go the poor in Ireland...
And so regarding sword & buckler vis-à-vis the common man, perhaps Shakespeare gives us an idea of their mutuality by his time, if not far sooner (recall Yeoman), when in Henry IV, Pt 1 (about 1598 AD), Hotspur arrogantly mocks Hal as:
...that same sword-and-buckler Prince of Wales,
...I would have him poisoned with a pot of ale.
Which was as much as saying:
...may that low-born fighter die,
...by a poisoned low-class drink.
What Siber meant by sword (Swertt) was likely any of the shorter permutations of Oakeshott-Type XIV, XV, XVI, or XVIII. Such shorter single-handed well-tapering double-edged swords were generally of 20-30 inches (50-75 cm) blade-length, of 2.0-3.5 pounds (0.9-1.6 kg) weight, and were fine for hew, slash, or thrust, whether fullered, diamond, or mixed-section. In the Bavarian work Liber Chronicarum (1493 AD) we can see woodcut-prints of coeval German arms & armour, notably here, swords or shortswords of OT-XV or XVIII – for example, that whereby Lucretia thirls herself. A famous historical example of the sort of weapon meant would be the sword of Henry V of England, an OT-XVIII. It should be noted that shorter swords of earlier OT-IX, X, or XII could just as well be plied in the manner of the fight-lore, especially as some of these undoubtedly survived rehilted in later fashion into later times. Such “shortswords” are illustrated rather clearly in WP and HT. It is of note that PK and Libr.Pict.A.83 (about 1500 AD – after WP) each show small “bastard-swords”.
To go along with this sword, one needs a shield – which I deal with now though the thing actually appears later in the text. What Siber meant by shield (schilt or redlin) was likely a “buckler”. Contextually this makes sense for the era and the techniques – for honestly, the larger board-shield of Viking, the kite-shield of Norman, and the heater-shield of Crusader prove clumsy if not impossible with the teachings here. Really two kinds of smaller shield prove wieldy – either the buckler or the targe. The buckler, called buckeller or bucklier by HT and bückler by JLSR, was more or less a metal dome with a handle spanning inside it, not really different than a boss or umbo, succinctly equated by HT with a kleiner schild. The targe which was basically a wooden disc – though Italian versions called rondella were metal – with straps for the arm. In turn, the buckler proves better than the targe for Siber’s method...
Now for the use of “shield”, I refer to my Interpretation. From the first going:
Overwind his shield strongly
Thrust-strike from bow swiftly
Yet if the foe avoids these and retreats to ward again in plough, then you flow into bow (bogenn), which is a ward whereby you stand left-leg forward & hold the shield high and somewhat to your right yet facing the foe, the sword held with hilt high and blade sloping downward and crossed over shield-arm just behind the shield, with the long-edge toward the foe – looking sort of like archery bow & arrow. The “bowward” is akin to the “hanging-ward” (dwl). This sort of left-side bow is shown unnamed in HT (dwl). WP seems to have a related wardcalled vidilpoge (fiddlebow) which differs from Siber’s bogenn in that WP’s blade points upwards and the shield is lower. However, one can shift easily enough from WP’s vidilpoge into Siber’s bogenn and back again.
From bow you tread forth right and overwind (verwindt) or “get over” the foe’s advanced shield strongly with your sword by thrust-strike (stos schlag) downward over his shield into his body – as a “diving-thrust” or “pounce-hew” (dwl) – as your shield either knocks away Foe’s shield or runs cover below. Hence, “overwinding” is simply either “through-faring” (dwl) – closing & entering – and getting over the foe’s shield with your sword (whereupon you strike); or through-faring and getting over the foe’s sword with your shield (whereupon you grapple & strike) (dwl in sixth going). WP shows overwinding as circumdatis. WP shows “thrust-striking” as stichslach (stab-strike).
And from the third going:
Threaten the hew against him
Strongly advance the shield at him
Overcome him with overloping
This is the remaining triplet. Instead, if you would threaten the hew (droe den hauw) from tresses against the foe in plough, while you strongly advance (verdring) the shield at him, then by your open-stance you coax him to thrust low with hop-step as he withdraws his shield to aid extension, and so by overloping his attack by wrath-hew to his extended arm as you withdraw shield to forset his point as you tread back or switch, and thus overcome (bezwing) him. This same sequence in shown quite clearly by HT. This overloping can be done also against the foe who would underhew the fighter. This sequence exemplifies the use of weaponry apart, as well as misleading (like the second going). Just how one advances the shield is not said, yet I urge the fighter refrain from use of PK’s overextended arm, as it is infirm & intractable – rather try HT’s outreaching arm, as it is flexible & winding-ready.
And from the poem:
Hit with shield-hew
Wing goes above
Waker will stand
If you hit with (mit trifft) shield-hew (Schilt hauw), then you simply strike the foe, his sword and/or shield with your shield (smiting with dome or punching/hacking with rim), to attack him in a somewhat unexpected way. Shield-hew can let you strike him directly, knock away his shield, make an opening to strike, or set up overwinding. This is seen in WP as schiltslach (shield-strike), HT as an elbow-shove; is clearly seen in PK & JS; and it is advocated by GS. You may next quickly drive from the ward of “boar” (eber of KdF), as gleaned by backtracing, to make the wing (Flÿgell). The wing is either bent arm and shield together flipped upwards, or is shield-arm wound into crossed-twained – whichever, it goes above (oben gist) to forset any strike therefrom or to flank, and lets a thrust follow through at foe as you tread forth. Note that I determined oren to be in error, thinking oben (above) was intended. The “boar-ward” is not named by Siber, but is something I found suited to this specific part and elsewhere in Siber’s lessons – so I include it here as salutary to the fighter. The “boar” is a ward whereby you stand left-leg forward and hold sword low, waist-height at hip, pointing at the foe – ready to strike like swinish tusk. It is the inverting of ox, but can be thought of as a cocked-back plough, though differing legs are forward. Indeed, Andreas states that plough for sword is the same as boar for falchion – and as such, Dürer shows it once for falchion & shield. The boar is a vicious ward from which to fight, and again is a natural to fall into after sword-drawing, and one can sort of hide the sword behind it. This ward is like one in WP, and can be back-traced in HT & PK.
So anyway, from this boar you can drive your sword straight into foe as let by the lofting of your wing. Realise that if you move not your shield in proper timing, you could stab your shield-arm with your own sword. Such use of wing not only lets through your waiting thrust, yet covers against a skull-hew, and lets you follow with a second and downward shield-hew (smiting with its rim), if you must. It should be said that shield-hew can be utilised in this sort of fighting quite often and from any angle; and it reminds us that the shield can be a weapon itself – and of course combined technique is the way to go.
Despite the appeal of such complex gambits, forget not basic gambits like the waker (Wecker), which is simply the crumpler, and is so called by Andreas – for it awakens the foe to the side of his head as he least expects it – as it will let you stand (stan) your ground simply and decisively.
And more specifically to that word redlin used in the MS and quoted here from my Interpretation:
Serve roses inside the roundling
I guess at roses (rosen): it may mean “dagger & buckler held in twain”, especially if, perhaps, there were bucklers that were faceted to look like roses, combined with the “thorn” of the dagger. Now you serve (din) the foe this metaphorically ironic bouquet by forsetting & striking inside his roundling (redlin), which seems simply to mean “buckler” – thus you attack some opening behind his own shield, a tactic familiar to KdF, or perhaps you dig with the “thorn” or your dagger just inside his buckler to its hand. Naturally, if roses is such, then along with his sword the fighter makes a triple threat of weaponry against his foe. Such unnamed gripping of both dagger & buckler is seen in HT, where it forsets. If redlin hence Rädelin are the same as Rodeln, which Egenolph (1529 AD) equates with Bucklier in his six stücke for sword & buckler (which virtually copy those of JLSR), any of these words implying “little-wheel”, then we have something of a match. Obviously, the dagger was the most common side-arm of Europe for centuries, either side of Siber, a weapon that anyone could own...
Thus said, one can read that this earlier Salzburg-MS, the Codex Speyer, presents crucial wording right away: that of Swertt – not langen Swertt but simply Swertt. Furthermore, it deals with the word schilt. Thus to quote from early in my Interpretation, once again:
Siber introduces his method, gives encouragement, and some techniques & tactics in the foreword; he provides technical scenarios or matches in the goings, with reference to tactics; and he gives tactical advice in the poem, with reference to technique. Siber’s fight-lore has to do with Medieval & Renaissance European sword and shield wielded in deadly pair. Siber uses the term Swertt (sword or shortsword) once; and the term schilt or schiltt (shield or buckler) thrice; and the term redlin (roundling or buckler) once. I think that my essay shall show how – in context, by cross-reference, and in active interpretation – these amount to weaponry for sword and buckler fencing.
This is just what I think I did – and to find out its accuracy, one could spend the time to actually read and practice all of what I presented. However, I would not refute someone could find the lore to be for longsword. It is possible that I got it wrong, or that I got it right. It seems the later Glasgow-MS author thought so, and perhaps he thought rightly. Or perhaps he thought wrongly. He may have presumed and/or transcribed in error. Considering this difference of the Glasgow-MS from the earlier Salzburg-MS, and the general tendency of later manuscripts to fall prey to faulty transference (much like the children’s game of Rumour), one should demand a thesis in support of Siber for longsword if one would maintain such to be the case.
But ohh...It seems no one has bothered to do that.
Yet, I have bothered to make an entire thesis in support of Siber for sword & buckler.
If one does not read my thesis and does not try the goings as interpreted, especially if one refuses to do so from lack of experience with Medieval & Renaissance weaponry or from outright laziness, then all I have to offer him is this lyric from the song Join Together by The Who:
It is the singer not the song
That makes the music move along
Perhaps Siber meant his fight-lore to be interchangeable. Arguably Siber’s fight-lore could be applied to either longsword fighting or to sword & buckler fighting, as indeed the differing weaponry do have congruence, with similar yet differing execution of moves. I was thorough in my constant comparison of the longsword and sword & buckler throughout the thesis – yet also of Siber as sword & buckler to six other Medieval & Renaissance sword & buckler sources, namely Walpurgis (WP) (about 1300 AD), Johannes Liechtenauer and Sigmund Ringeck (JLSR) (1389 & 1440 AD), Hans Talhoffer (HT) (1459 & 1467 AD), Paul Kal (PK) (1462-82 AD), Jörg Sorg (JS) (1523 AD), and George Silver (GS) (1598 AD). Indeed, the text was so cryptic, that I had to finally choose what I found to be the most likely path.
That said, it seems to me that sword & buckler is the truth regarding Siber’s fight-lore, and thus I maintain the truth of my thesis.
Earnestly,
Jeffrey Hull
Kansas
15 November 2004
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
