Doebringer

[Jake_Norwood]

So I've been reading Doebringer. And there's some stuff in there that has me scratching my head. I know it's the "oldest" of the Liechtenauer books (even though it contains a whole section that isn't his), but it seems to contradict later sources in a few significant ways. I don't want to get into all of them right now, so I'll start with just one.

Pflug.

The first guard, the plough, is when you hold the point in front of you pointing at the ground or to the side. After a displacement it is called the “schranckhut” (Barrier guard) or “pforte” (The gate).
The second guard is the Ox (ochs), the upper hanging from the shoulder
The Fool breaks what (your opponent) strikes or thrusts
With Hengen strike, simultaneously attack after

The third guard The Fool (alber), is the lower hanging, and with it you break all strikes and thrusts when it is done correctly.
The fourth guard is From the roof (vom tag), is the long point. He who does it well with outstretched arms, he is not easy to hit with strikes or thrusts. It can also be called the hanging above the head.

Whoa!!!

Ideas?

Jake

[David Kite]

Could the translation be wrong? What's your source? Is it Lindholm's translation (which I haven't looked at too much yet)?

David Kite
ARMA in IN

[Jake_Norwood]

Yeah, it is Lindholm's.

What I need is a copy of the original text to compare. I hate getting translations without a transcription of the original (not that I'm complaining about something free, mark you).

Jake

[Jon Pellett]

Jake:

Voila.

"Dy erste hute / pflug is dy / wen eyner den ort vor sich of dy erde leczt ader czu der seiten / noch dem abesetzen / das heyssen anders / dy schranckhute / ader dy pforte /
Dy ander hute ochse ist das oberhengen von der achsel
Alber io bricht / was man hewt ader sticht mit hengen streiche / nochreizen setze gleiche
Dy dritte hute alber / ist das undenhengen / mit der man alle hewe und stiche / bricht / wer dy recht fueret
Dy vierde hute / vom tage / ist der lange ort / wer den wol furet mit gestragten armen / den mag nicht man mit hewen noch mit stichen wol treffen / Is mag auch wol treffen / das henge ober dem hawpte"

I think your translation is correct.

Cheers.

[Casper Bradak]

I don't think it's a contradiction, it makes sense. I think he either mixed them up when writing, or (more likely) used the names for the different guards.
He explains alber and pflug clearly enough despite the names.

[Craig Peters]

Isn't John working on a book with Grzegorz on Liechtenauer? Perhaps he might be able to clear things up.

[Mike Chidester]

Stu likes to believe that Liechtehauer was drunk when he wrote that, and confused the two names, but no one wanted to contradict him (since he was the grand master).

[Brian Hunt]

Hmmm,

interesting theory,

would that give us the "drunken master" german style? <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Brian.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Guy's

I was thinking that the fool and Pflug just got confused in the ordering like was stated earlier the descriptionof pflug as i understand it is under the name of the fool gaurd.

Jeff

[Jon Pellett]

This was briefly discussed in this SFI thread (scroll down to where Matt Galas posts.) It is an intriguing question.

Cheers

[Aaron Pynenberg]

I have often wondered about that as I always thought that alber looked more like a plowman at the plow than pflug.

I am at a loss for this one though maybe the scribe just got it worng, (ha) or maybe just made it a shortcut or confused the two. It seems like whoever was copying the material or taking notes just didn't get it right, this is pretty common and appears like it happened in this case.

[Jake_Norwood]

Isn't John working on a book with Grzegorz on Liechtenauer? Perhaps he might be able to clear things up.

He was. Now it's me (I took over the project).

I was thinking that the fool and Pflug just got confused in the ordering like was stated earlier the descriptionof pflug as i understand it is under the name of the fool gaurd.

Could be. Typos happen, "even" when dealing with hand-written texts. But it's still vexing.

I have often wondered about that as I always thought that alber looked more like a plowman at the plow than pflug.

I agree. If not for the absense of similar comments in all the later treatises I'd be getting nervous. Instead, I'm confused.

Also, thanks for the transcription.

Finally, that post by Matt Galas (and the response by Tobler) are very interesting. They don't help much, except to confirm that we're all confused. Awesome.

Now, since we're discussing weird things in Doebringer, let's move on...

Doebringer says:

Know also that a good fencer should before all things know his sword and be able to grip it well with both hands, between the cross guard and the pommel since you will then be safer than if you did grip it with one hand on the pommel. And you will also strike harder and truer, with the pommel swinging itself and turning in the strike you will strike harder then if you were holding the pommel. When you pull the pommel in the strike you will not come as perfect or as strongly.

Now, this appears to be not only a contradiction of what little I know about physics, but unless I'm interpreting what he says over-literally (which I find unlikely, given the clarity of the text), but it's also a contradiction of what I practice and what I generally see illustrated in the manuals. The only notable exceptions off-hand being those drawings of the guards from Von Danzig (which look like D. describes) and the illustrations in Meyer (which have a "ball" pommel that is not meant to be gripped like the scent-stopper pommel that is usually found in the manuals is).

I'm tempted to say that this is either a fault stylistic preference (dangerous ground to assume such), or that it's really pommel-dependent. When did the scent-stopper pommel appear? Obviously this seems to be good advice if you're using a wheel pommel or a ball pommel...but much less so with a scent-stopper.

Thoughts?

[Jeffrey Hull]

I would agree that the simplest explanation was some really bad scribal error, assuming that Doebringer had a subordinate do the actual writing who then got it totally confused. Or maybe it was his own that he overlooked in later editing.

This a total conjecture on my part. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

JH

[Craig Peters]

Now, this appears to be not only a contradiction of what little I know about physics, but unless I'm interpreting what he says over-literally (which I find unlikely, given the clarity of the text), but it's also a contradiction of what I practice and what I generally see illustrated in the manuals. The only notable exceptions off-hand being those drawings of the guards from Von Danzig (which look like D. describes) and the illustrations in Meyer (which have a "ball" pommel that is not meant to be gripped like the scent-stopper pommel that is usually found in the manuals is).

I'm tempted to say that this is either a fault stylistic preference (dangerous ground to assume such), or that it's really pommel-dependent. When did the scent-stopper pommel appear? Obviously this seems to be good advice if you're using a wheel pommel or a ball pommel...but much less so with a scent-stopper.

Jake,

Take this interpretation with a grain of salt, since I'm really not sure. However, even with a scent stopper pommel, I don't think you can hold the pommel quite as well as you can the grip. If you think about it, pommels have a distinctive shape which is never exactly the same dimensions as the grip itself. So, I would think that holding the pommel with one hand would limit, to a degree, how effectively one could deliver a strike, since the two hands do not have an identical grip on the sword. As for the pommel swinging itself, I wouldn't know.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

I also like gripping the pommel with my lft hand I feel like it gives me more leverage and control of my point. I 1/2 sword no problem with this tech, executing strikes with the pommel w/o hitting my hand, but I would also argue this sounds stylistic but since I am a humble 2 year student of the sword would never dream of saying I know for sure.

I have noticed that during hard repetitious exercising that my hand ends up there anyway quite a bit-so maybe this counters my own argument and it should be in that position anyway from the start--interesting I will have to work with it for awhile.