In a recent blog entry that I wrote about the Nuremberg Hausbuch (MS 3227a) I noted how, by piecing together several of the comments made in that book, we can get a pretty good idea of what the "common fencer" of this period looked like.
Understanding what the common fencer looked like and how they fought at this time is important to us if we are to have a more complete understanding of the historical context from which the Longsword art came. It also allows us to realize what the fencing actually looked like at this time, which then deepens our knowledge and appreciation for the art itself.
We have to remember that all of us in the modern era of HEMA (at least in reference to the Longsword component of it, which is my typical point of reference for what "HEMA" means) are studying the works of a handful of acknowledged Masters. These men were the very best available and as such taught specific concepts, moves, and overarching approaches that not everyone who fought with a sword would know. As such, there were plenty of these so-called "common fencers" about, and the Masters in many cases trained their elite students to easily defeat these less well-trained fencers.
(Parenthetically let me add that this makes perfect sense even in the context of the modern era. Most everyone knows how to drive these days, and most of us were taught by a parent or perhaps an older sibling. We know how to drive, but most of us do not excel at driving. We are not, so to speak, master drivers. However, you can get training from recognized masters for specific driving talents, whether it is the high-speed defensive maneuvers taught by the Secret Service or learning how to keep a race car going almost 200 miles an hour steady in a curve.)
One of the most important aspects of the Masters' teachings was related to geometry and the ways in which it relates to many techniques and concepts. This was a whole different level of understanding of how the sword and the body moves, and obviously an entirely different set of actual techniques. It was these techniques, coupled with the awareness of why it works, that fundamentally separated a common fencer from a Master-trained fencer.
Understanding this makes many of the techniques take on a new light, as well as help explain why things sometimes feel just a touch off when we fence. So you can see that knowing what a common fencer looked like is actually pretty important.
In my blog post I noted:
"A final bit about the Nuremberg I'm going to mention is that through the writer's various notes and exhortations to the reader, he paints a good picture of what the 'common fencer' looked like. By drawing on some of the things written above, we can surmise the common fencer was not very light on his feet, tended to attack clumsily, fearfully, and to immediately fall back everytime an attack was put aside. From other sections of the book not included in this post, we can assume he held the pommel while fighting and wasn't well acquainted with the Meisterhauen...we can add to the description of the common fencer as one who rushed directly in to make a basic overhead chop attack, making either an Absetzen or Versetzen with a step to the right an easy counter."
So picture a fighter who tends to rush in directly at you, closing the distance quickly but in a straight line and throwing an Uberhau that pinions around in a sweeping arc; it is this aspect of the common fencer that I want to focus on for today's entry.
As you imagine this fencer rushing directly in at you as his sword whistles above, coming directly down towards you -- or even perhaps at a bit of an angle -- now think of you throwing a Zorn at that fencer. As it is typically understood and taught, all of the Meisterhauen allow you to immediately capture the centerline in some powerful, undeniable, and obdurate way. Zorn is a perfect example of this, and an excellent choice given a quickly in-rushing opponent: a cut drawn across the body, your body turned and arms stiff to provide a strong structure, you now protected by a sword that's immovable while the point is positioned perfectly.
It is positioned especially perfect for this in-rushing fencer, particularly because he will most likely run himself through with your sword. How very convenient! You can imagine this exercise with a Schiel, or a Zwerch, or a textbook Absetzen. It doesn't really matter what you imagine; the point is you take a large step to your right, strongly put the sword between you and your opponent with the point threatening his face and catching his sword at the same time.
When looked at from this perspective, it puts many of the Hauptstucke techniques into a different light. I personally also think it clarifies the degree to which the Masters we know so well were indeed viewed as having stratospheric skills compared to the common fencers.
Of which, we have to recall, there were many. It is something of a historical myth to believe that only the noble-born knights had access to weapons and fought, either in self-defense or during war. There were many professional soldiers throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods who were neither noble nor knights, yet fought savagely and were quite skilled with a blade.
More to our point about common fencers, though, is that weapon ownership was not a rare thing. Swords -- perhaps of questionable quality, but swords nonetheless -- were available to most anyone at this time, and battlefields did offer good grounds for scavengers to find any number of treasures. And just as in the driving example I used above, it was not uncommon for a young boy to be taught by his father or an uncle or older brother how to use a sword.
Or, I should say, how to use a sword to the best of his knowledge. The Masters would have much to say about that level of training, which is why we now have the treasure that is the Meisterhauen and other such high-level techniques.
And while all of this is very interesting and illustrative in a historical context, here is the rub for us modern Longsword practitioners: We are all being trained, essentially, by the same Masters to the same overall level. What was once rare and almost arcane knowledge then is now commonly understood by everyone. Recall that in the entry about the Nuremberg text I point out that what we now refer to as the "Triangle Step" was specifically pointed out as being something the fencer needed to be aware of and practice. Note also that the Meisterhauen were esoteric in nature, whereas we get to the study them pretty quickly in our modern context.
What this means for us is that when a move was specifically designed to defeat an on-rushing opponent (not that the Meisterhauen were only used against common fencers, but the in rushing certainly helped) it becomes slightly less effective against fighters who are all taking Triangle Steps.
This is neither a good nor bad, it merely is. There were certainly instances in which two very well master-trained fighters went against eachother, and while their techniques would have worked better against a common fencer, they would still work against one well trained. But for we modern Longsword practitioners, everyone is essetially master-trained, and so we sometimes have to accept that the geometry of our lines might not always be what we want them to be.
I guess that's just the price we pay to have access to Master Leichtenauer's (or, I suppose, even Master dei Liberi's) teachings!
Have you ever found your geometry to sometimes be wrong? What do you do to correct it? Have you ever examined how things how might go against a common fencer?
Stay loose, everyone, and train hard!
-- Scott
Understanding what the common fencer looked like and how they fought at this time is important to us if we are to have a more complete understanding of the historical context from which the Longsword art came. It also allows us to realize what the fencing actually looked like at this time, which then deepens our knowledge and appreciation for the art itself.
We have to remember that all of us in the modern era of HEMA (at least in reference to the Longsword component of it, which is my typical point of reference for what "HEMA" means) are studying the works of a handful of acknowledged Masters. These men were the very best available and as such taught specific concepts, moves, and overarching approaches that not everyone who fought with a sword would know. As such, there were plenty of these so-called "common fencers" about, and the Masters in many cases trained their elite students to easily defeat these less well-trained fencers.
(Parenthetically let me add that this makes perfect sense even in the context of the modern era. Most everyone knows how to drive these days, and most of us were taught by a parent or perhaps an older sibling. We know how to drive, but most of us do not excel at driving. We are not, so to speak, master drivers. However, you can get training from recognized masters for specific driving talents, whether it is the high-speed defensive maneuvers taught by the Secret Service or learning how to keep a race car going almost 200 miles an hour steady in a curve.)
One of the most important aspects of the Masters' teachings was related to geometry and the ways in which it relates to many techniques and concepts. This was a whole different level of understanding of how the sword and the body moves, and obviously an entirely different set of actual techniques. It was these techniques, coupled with the awareness of why it works, that fundamentally separated a common fencer from a Master-trained fencer.
Understanding this makes many of the techniques take on a new light, as well as help explain why things sometimes feel just a touch off when we fence. So you can see that knowing what a common fencer looked like is actually pretty important.
In my blog post I noted:
"A final bit about the Nuremberg I'm going to mention is that through the writer's various notes and exhortations to the reader, he paints a good picture of what the 'common fencer' looked like. By drawing on some of the things written above, we can surmise the common fencer was not very light on his feet, tended to attack clumsily, fearfully, and to immediately fall back everytime an attack was put aside. From other sections of the book not included in this post, we can assume he held the pommel while fighting and wasn't well acquainted with the Meisterhauen...we can add to the description of the common fencer as one who rushed directly in to make a basic overhead chop attack, making either an Absetzen or Versetzen with a step to the right an easy counter."
So picture a fighter who tends to rush in directly at you, closing the distance quickly but in a straight line and throwing an Uberhau that pinions around in a sweeping arc; it is this aspect of the common fencer that I want to focus on for today's entry.
As you imagine this fencer rushing directly in at you as his sword whistles above, coming directly down towards you -- or even perhaps at a bit of an angle -- now think of you throwing a Zorn at that fencer. As it is typically understood and taught, all of the Meisterhauen allow you to immediately capture the centerline in some powerful, undeniable, and obdurate way. Zorn is a perfect example of this, and an excellent choice given a quickly in-rushing opponent: a cut drawn across the body, your body turned and arms stiff to provide a strong structure, you now protected by a sword that's immovable while the point is positioned perfectly.
It is positioned especially perfect for this in-rushing fencer, particularly because he will most likely run himself through with your sword. How very convenient! You can imagine this exercise with a Schiel, or a Zwerch, or a textbook Absetzen. It doesn't really matter what you imagine; the point is you take a large step to your right, strongly put the sword between you and your opponent with the point threatening his face and catching his sword at the same time.
When looked at from this perspective, it puts many of the Hauptstucke techniques into a different light. I personally also think it clarifies the degree to which the Masters we know so well were indeed viewed as having stratospheric skills compared to the common fencers.
Of which, we have to recall, there were many. It is something of a historical myth to believe that only the noble-born knights had access to weapons and fought, either in self-defense or during war. There were many professional soldiers throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods who were neither noble nor knights, yet fought savagely and were quite skilled with a blade.
More to our point about common fencers, though, is that weapon ownership was not a rare thing. Swords -- perhaps of questionable quality, but swords nonetheless -- were available to most anyone at this time, and battlefields did offer good grounds for scavengers to find any number of treasures. And just as in the driving example I used above, it was not uncommon for a young boy to be taught by his father or an uncle or older brother how to use a sword.
Or, I should say, how to use a sword to the best of his knowledge. The Masters would have much to say about that level of training, which is why we now have the treasure that is the Meisterhauen and other such high-level techniques.
And while all of this is very interesting and illustrative in a historical context, here is the rub for us modern Longsword practitioners: We are all being trained, essentially, by the same Masters to the same overall level. What was once rare and almost arcane knowledge then is now commonly understood by everyone. Recall that in the entry about the Nuremberg text I point out that what we now refer to as the "Triangle Step" was specifically pointed out as being something the fencer needed to be aware of and practice. Note also that the Meisterhauen were esoteric in nature, whereas we get to the study them pretty quickly in our modern context.
What this means for us is that when a move was specifically designed to defeat an on-rushing opponent (not that the Meisterhauen were only used against common fencers, but the in rushing certainly helped) it becomes slightly less effective against fighters who are all taking Triangle Steps.
This is neither a good nor bad, it merely is. There were certainly instances in which two very well master-trained fighters went against eachother, and while their techniques would have worked better against a common fencer, they would still work against one well trained. But for we modern Longsword practitioners, everyone is essetially master-trained, and so we sometimes have to accept that the geometry of our lines might not always be what we want them to be.
I guess that's just the price we pay to have access to Master Leichtenauer's (or, I suppose, even Master dei Liberi's) teachings!
Have you ever found your geometry to sometimes be wrong? What do you do to correct it? Have you ever examined how things how might go against a common fencer?
Stay loose, everyone, and train hard!
-- Scott
⚔
Postscript note on the illustrations: I know these illustrations show master circles from a later age and different weapons than what I'm writing about. I also am aware that one of these isn't a master circle at all but rather a magic circle. But since there are no historical illustrations showing the geometry of the Longsword (at least none of which I am aware) I took the next best thing; as for the magic circle...eh, I have a weird sense of humor!
Comments
Post a Comment