 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
Moderators: Webmaster, Stacy Clifford
The system is based on the concept that when one person assumes a ward the other person is to assume the counter or opposing ward. If ones opponent fails to assume an opposition then the person in the ward will be able to freely attack him, if one's opponent takes up a valid counter or opposition and the person in the ward hesitates, then the person using the opposition will be able to freely attack.
With these basics in mind, we can now talk about the video, keeping in mind that this is a difference of opinion in interpretation and isn't meant to denigrate or refute the work that is shown in it. Their interpretation does fit the instructions of the I.33.
1st part "1st Ward vs. Half-Shield: Falling under the Sword"
I like the way that they do a couple of repetitions of a technique before moving into the next sequence of events. This allows one to easily see the motion, if I actually get my hands on a video camera I intend to "borrow" this style of showing techniques.
The person in half-shield hesitates instead of attacking to the head as directed by the I.33, this allows the person in 1st to perform a technique called "falling under the sword and shield", according to Jeffery Forgeng's translation - I prefer "falling from below with the sword and the shield” in order to establish the 1st over bind on the right (plate #3 on the bottom) of the I.33 and immediately follows up with a thrust-strike (stichslac) to his opponents face as spoken of in the text.
I do not like that the person in 1st enters fairly straight in against half-shield, I think that can be as suicidal as heading straight in against phlug in longsword. I prefer to step off farther on a diagonal to the left with a passing step of my left foot instead of almost straight in with a crossing movement of the right foot then a passing step, this helps move me farther out of the way of his point as I enter to establish the 1st bind, and creates a larger opening for my attack.
Also, I find a sword movement that rotates up and around from behind and then "falls" down with the true edge to deliver a stronger bind than one that goes straight out and as horizontal as the one being performed in the video.
I have found in my own experiments that it is a very easy and quick response for the person in half-shield to drop his point down and under his opponents sword to push him to the left and then be able to step-through or shield strike his opponent when he receives this type of a attack.
2nd part "Counterbind and step."
The rebind and step of this video is pretty close to the one Stewart Feil and myself use […]
Interestingly enough the person in black uses a false edge strike during his schiltslac, I also believe that the final cut can be a false edge cut due to the position of the right hand of the Scholar in the illustration on the bottom of plate #4, however the one I use is a descending one not a rising one, I will use either one depending upon my current position. This completes the 1st play.
3rd part "Thrust in mezzo tempo: see sequence from I.33: 59U-61U"
While there are some similarities, as you would expect since we work from the same manual, there are a lot of differences between my version of play #38 and theirs, suffice it to say that I disagree with their position of the opposition known as the special longpoint of the priest. […] That alone creates too many changes too comment further.
4th part " 41U and 44L ("High Longpoint"), & 49L through 51U ("rare opposition")
41U and 44L are part of play #25, interestingly enough in the video they are passing through the two starting positions of upper (high) longpoint and the unknown action of the Scholar that could be either a cut or a thrust, from 1st ward moving to upper langort to stop a cut from 2nd position. I guess that means they view the unknown action of the Scholar as a cut.
5th part "Mutacio Gladii: 'Change of Swords' Carta 3U through 6L"
This is the 2nd play of the I.33, and from their entry title, I believe this is the main technique they wished to present.
This involves the "change of the sword." An action to counter the rebind and step used by the scholar in the 1st play. The 2nd play is identical to the 1st play until we reach the bottom of plate #6 where the priest (the one who starts in 1st) counters the "rebind and step" by changing the sword then does his own sheildstrike. This video shows a change of the sword that reminds of an enveloping bind from sport fencing.
There is no disengage of weapons during their version, the one I use drops the tip of my sword and disengages underneath the "rebind and step" rotates around to the other side of the sword and my right wrist crosses over my left wrist to establish an over bind on the left to my opponents sword. I have played with a similar type of change of the sword as the one in this video, but I find someone with a strong quick wrist can counter this type of a “change of the sword”. This is a difference of opinion, one interpretation may be as valid as the other (of course I like mine and Stewarts better), but only time, practice, and bouting will tell for sure.
My belief is that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and that I.33 also instructs the scholar in principles that can more generally applied. In other words, forming the wards and counters shown is good, but if you don’t form the “ideal” counters shown in the text (for reasons of time or whatever), you still have the core principles of the system and the techniques or plays that derive from the principles to fall back on. Not every principle can be applied equally well from every position, and it will undoubtedly take a significant effort in training for the fighter to be able to respond well from a less-than-ideal situation. But this is really a universal truth of swordsmanship and martial arts, and nothing new to anyone here.
that’s my hope, anyway. I feel that the basic technique shown is sound, but there remains work and experimentation, weapons in hand, to refine it. Footwork, measure, and time all need to be reviewed and tested under a variety of conditions, ranging from the relatively safe scenarios shown in the video to the far more variable conditions of combat. This is just a part of the process.
It also helps to capture any potential variations of action, although 3 reps is a pretty small number. Still, in one instance you can catch me (on the right) not committing to an action and messing the other fellow up.
Could you tell me what other translation you are using? I’ve seen references to another but haven’t found it.
For those who haven’t seen the video or didn’t notice, as Brian did, I take a step to the left with my lead (right) foot to gain an advantage of line as I “fall under” (bind) the man in HalfShield. This allows a quick command of his blade and a strong follow-up thrust right between his eyes with the pass of the left foot, a move which incidentally rotates me further off the original line. The resulting attack on his blade and thrust to his face are very strong and quick. If he cuts down on my head during the action (“When HalfShield is adopted, fall under the sword and shield/If he is ordinary he will go for your head; you should use a ThrustStrike”, MS I.33, MS page 3, Forgeng Translation), the position of my buckler over my sword hand protects both it and my head, and the sword itself is held with the cross horizontal, as an additional protection or backup in case the buckler position is somehow weak. It might not be clear in the video, but my combined weapon position is on the right side of my body, not the center of it, and thus further protects me. If he ThrustStrikes me in return the position is equally strong and I am well-protected, although he may possibly throw my thrust off-course.
This is interesting and I will have to try it. I assume that you wheel the blow directly out of 1st Ward, without drawing your hand back behind you and giving your opponent the additional time?
This sounds essentially like a circular action that sweeps 1st Ward’s blade to the left? If I read you right, this couldn’t be done until 1st Ward’s blade is very nearly in contact with my own: if I drop too quickly he could read it and react, and if I move too late I might simply drag it into my face. Still, it’s easy to fight from an armchair; I will have to take it to the floor and see how it works.
I’m on the right, in black. I see four possibilities for the final blow here, only one of which seems to be shown in I.33:
1 & 2: True Edge Blow, shown in the MS. We don’t know how he gets there: wheeled or direct. At this range, a direct blow is more of a punch with the strong of the blade (and one might consider using the pommel or the cross, as well). A wheeled blow is perhaps stronger but is also longer in time, and he’s not going to just stand there, as he does in the video. (The video is part of a technical discussion that must inevitably lead to work at speed and in time, with an opponent rather than a compliant partner.)
3: False Edge Blow, not shown. I like this blow. It has the advantage of being fast, and of covering the line against his sword should it not be secured by the knock or if he should free it in some fashion. It’s not necessarily a strong fight-stopping blow, but it should serve to divide his attention and allow you another move to finish the fight.
4: Thrust, not shown. Not at all my favorite, as one has to draw the hand back to offer the point, and thus abandon the line covering his sword.
I’m curious about the mechanics of your descending false-edge strike in this position – could you detail them for me?
’m not actually using Priest’s Special Longpoint: there’s a note at time signature 3:18 explaining that I’m using 1st Ward and that 49U shows PSL. I do this play from both positions – this is one point where I believe the principles support use of the technique from either 1st or PSL, even though use from 1st is not shown. By the way, to have a look at a position close to my PSL, go to:
http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/meyeroutside1.jpg
Add a buckler and you just about have it.
I need to make several clarifications to my intent here. First, I think the unknown action can be either a cut or a thrust, to be opposed by High Longpoint. I chose a cut for the video but think a thrust is perfectly possible.
My interpretation of the play that begins at 41U is that the Priest is not teaching the scholar to cut into the static position that is shown. Here’s my chain of reasoning:
High Longpoint at 41U is “adopted by the priest as an example to his students. He directs his student to execute this action, namely to set to him as is illustrated here.” On the face of it this seems bizarre: the priest holds his blade in the air, false edge to the right, and directs the student to somehow strike into the cross. It’s not a bind: there is no mechanical advantage. Given the priest’s position of both sword and buckler (buckler is faced to the front), I see the sword as being either high in the middle or completely on the priest’s right. The next action at 41L shows the priest binding the student above on the right, and says that “you have all this above in material that has been presented already,” which I take to mean the binds discussed in the first ward material. So if the bind is successful, the priest should ShieldStrike and nucken. (The next page shows the counter to this bind, and is arguably a tread-through).
So why would the priest teach the student to strike into the strong of an adversary’s blade, right at the cross, when it would clearly be easier to Thrust-Strike into the obvious opening?
In the play at 49U, the scholar has released his sword from his own bind on 48L and gets struck for his error (and that strike is either a false-edge strike to the arm, or a thrust to the face, or possibly both). In 49L, the scholar adopts a “rare opposition” that resembles High Longpoint (my words, not I.33’s) and the position in the play at 49U and binds down at 51L against the priest’s thrust.
This leads me back to 41U: we have a high position which binds down. At 41U the scholar strikes into the position; at 50U the attack (priest) strikes not at the position, but at the opening in the position, to which the scholar counters by binding down at 50L. So by 50L the scholar has learned to apply dynamically the static action (“adopted here by the priest as an example for his students”) shown at 41U.
The lesson I draw from this is that what is introduced as “High Longpoint” is intended to be employed in a wider variety of situations than might at first appear.
Just so. It wasn’t my intention to cover every branching possibility in the video, but I did need to illustrate my chain of reasoning that led up to it.
can’t answer for sport fencing, since it’s not something I do and isn’t remotely applicable to this kind of work anyway, but this action isn’t like the transporting actions used in classical dueling sword or sabre (nor in foil, the basic training weapon).
However, the action does exist in Fiore, where at the sword in one hand he covers (in one possible cover and following play) false edge out against thrust or strike with cross parallel to the ground, and with a step of the right foot to the left he binds down. (This cover can be seen clearly in the mounted combat section; he also has true edge covers from the same guard, but they operate as fast defelctions and do nice things like leave the point squarely in the adversary’s face as his blow passes harmlessly aside.) It looks very much like the actions at 41U in MS I.33. Fiore does it similarly at the sword in two hands, where from the boar’s tooth he covers false edge out and binds down. There are a number of similar precedents in the European medieval sword.
The analysis that I covered in regard to the fourth part (above) becomes part of my interpretation of the mutacio gladii at 6U (where the student has the priest bound) & 6L (where the priest has the student bound). What happened in between those two positions is not explained, but we have a few words on 7L: “Let the priest beware not to make any delay here with his sword, lest there should arise from that delay the action called wrestling; but at once he must reestablish the bind for the sake of caution.” One issue I have always had with a change of swords that frees the bound blade from the binding blade is that it creates a tempo for the binder to respond. In any effort to do this type of action at anything near combat speed, it has a high failure rate: the binder either closes and grapples (and is at an advantage if I am occupied with my change instead of meeting him to wrestle), or he strikes me upside the head with the middle of his blade, or if the distance is long he can simply perform the play at 59U-61U, where the Priest (in HalfShield) binds the scholar’s action of falling under; if the scholar wheels the out of the bind as at 61U, he is struck in the face with either a thruststrike or cut (I like the thruststrike; as you see in the video it nicely covers the line should he manage to bring his blow around). It’s painfully easy for the binder if he keeps the distance correct (if it’s not correct, wrestling is the best option: a face-punch with the buckler against the man binding from 1st Ward does admirably well).
Which leads me back to mutacio gladii: I believe that the man in 1st Ward can “at once reestablish the bind” by shifting the strong of sword back against the weak of the binder, while raising his hand above his face, false-edge to the right, and passing it to his right, binding down on the true edge with a passing step, as shown in the video. It a combination of the above elements, and employing the binding action out of High Longpoint.
I think you’re exactly right about the time, practice, and bouting. I am happy with the core mechanics of my version, and don’t find it vulnerable as you describe above, and I feel it fits the MS quite well (I was at pains to draw as much from I.33 as I could, and as little from elsewhere as possible). I have little doubt that it will be refined over time. I’m playing with variations on footwork and measure, and still resolving the final buckler position (I think I have something but want to run it through its paces for a while). But it’s conversations like this, and like those I have had on Swordforum and as well as privately, that really drive the interpretive process.
interesting, I prefer to just do a passing step, traversing to my left as I fall from 1st ward, because of this I will be more likely to go to a schiltslac than a stichslac. However, if I cut his right wrist I will immediatly follow it up with a thrust to his upper chest, throat, or face. Because I cut down to the 1st bind, if I want to thrust, I will wind my true edge against his flat as I thrust, therefore we are doing a similar action to control his blade in the bind, but from different starting positions (the action of falling being different) and I also maintain my blade on the right side to close off that opening.
I'm on the right, in black. I see four possibilities for the final blow here, only one of which seems to be shown in I.33:
1 & 2: True Edge Blow, shown in the MS. We don't know how he gets there: wheeled or direct. At this range, a direct blow is more of a punch with the strong of the blade (and one might consider using the pommel or the cross, as well). A wheeled blow is perhaps stronger but is also longer in time, and he's not going to just stand there, as he does in the video. (The video is part of a technical discussion that must inevitably lead to work at speed and in time, with an opponent rather than a compliant partner.)
3: False Edge Blow, not shown. I like this blow. It has the advantage of being fast, and of covering the line against his sword should it not be secured by the knock or if he should free it in some fashion. It's not necessarily a strong fight-stopping blow, but it should serve to divide his attention and allow you another move to finish the fight.
4: Thrust, not shown. Not at all my favorite, as one has to draw the hand back to offer the point, and thus abandon the line covering his sword.
I believe that the manual advises the stichschlac before the schiltschlac because the former is to be preferred over the latter. Both actions redirect the attacker's sword so that it passes to the right of the defender, but the stichschlac is more economical of motion. The only reason the scholar goes to the counterbind in the first play is because the priest has responded to his Half-Shield by falling under in preparation for a stichschlac. The point of the priest's blade menaces the scholar so he reacts by pushing the blade off-line. The schiltschlac seems almost to be a continuation (the stronger but slower cousin) of the basic stichschlac.
I am also curious about the lack of number 4 given that: a) 6th Ward seems tailor made for this circumstance and b) we see this option as a mainstay in other sword and buckler and arming sword traditions (such as Fiore and Talhoffer).
I just finished an analysis of Talhoffer (1467) and went back to I.33 with some new perspective. I'm writing it up at the moment and hope to get it on SwordForum later this week.
Return to “Research and Training Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 46 guests
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
