Fundamentals of swordsmanship

[Michael Chidester]

On the Masters thread, I made a comment a few weeks ago about the lack of basic technique in the manuals. In short, considering the complexity of the longsword techniques presented in the manuals, and remembering that the techniques presented for two other weapons which have direct analogues to living arts are considered advanced in those arts, it seems reasonable to conclude that the longsword teachings we study also represent techniques intended for advanced practitioners. (My full comment is included at the end of this post.) This leaves me with an important question: what are the basic techniques that a master would expect his pupils to know before he rolled out the good stuff? What would the first so many months (or years) of training consist of before moving into mastercuts and winding and so forth?

I've got a few thoughts, but I'd like to hear your thoughts as well. For starters, there's obviously:

• Proper stance - Der waag, or even the Drei Waage; knowing them and knowing when to use them. These are never explained in the vast majority of manuals, so presumably they come before.
• Proper footwork - Stepping, Passing, and so forth. These are likewise never explained in the manuals, merely mentioned as appropriate.
• Basic Guards - The Vier Leger aren't explained until half-way through Liechtenauer's verse, even though they're mentioned a lot before that, so students must have had some understanding going in.
• The Father Strikes (or the eight lines, depending on your school of thought) - It is from these common strikes that the five Hidden Strikes arise, so it's probable that students would learn these first.
• The Drei Wunder - The three strikes of the sword are quite basic, and knowing to put them in their proper place is an important skill requisite to winding
• Timing and Distance - The three times, three ranges, and three phases of the fight must be understood before most techniques can be applied.
• Basic grappling skills (which ties into stance and footwork, obviously)

The irony of me bringing this up when I'm set to teach a class on this very topic in a few weeks isn't lost on me. The curriculum for that class has already been hashed out by me and Stew, but I'm no longer certain that what we're going to teach is actually "fundamental" and not merely elemental. Unfortunately, I doubt there's time for this discussion to progress far enough to change that structure before the event.

Yes, it's interesting how the content of the manuals has shaped our concept of the Art. When the Ringbuecher ignore the basics and jump directly into advanced grappling concepts and techniques, we write it off as being because Scholars would have learned wrestling as children and didn't need it. And I've heard many practitioners state that the difference between the use of the European short staff and Asian bo staff is that Asian styles prefer the half staff ("kayak fighting"") and Europeans the quarter staff--but I've heard a different story from some Asian practitioners, that the half-staff is the basic technique and quarter-staffing is more advanced and only taught at higher levels.

And yet, with swords we assume that what we see is everything we need. Unfortunately, most manuals don't cover any of the basics. In 150 years of German and Italian longsword lore (1389 to 1520), discussion of footwork is limited to perhaps a paragraph in a book of a hundred pages. Proper fighting stance is portrayed in a few rough sketches. There is no talk of the proper method of cutting outside of late-period English sources (hence the long debates that still seem to rage in some quarters) and precious little discussion of the basic strikes of the sword. But you could spend a year working on nothing but these basics and still not be expert in them--and coupled with the rudimentary system of guards the manuals present, mastering these skills alone would make you a competent swordsman.

What we see instead in the manuals is a single plate devoted to each mastercut, but only to create appropriate binds in which to present complex sequences of Winden and Ringen am Schwert. (Liberi and Vadi skip the setup completely and just jump straight into the bind.) Then we get into more exotic winding and wrestling plays that involve different timing or footwork or hand position (or that are simply bind-agnostic). We get long and detailed treatises on the nature of combat and the theory of fence, offering content that many experienced martial artists I've conversed with understand only in part after so many years of training. These are not basics. These are not things that every beginning Scholar needs to know. In point of fact, they're things that people find confusing for the first several months (or years).

What HEMA considers to be the basic syllabus of techniques is, I think, really the Master's playbook. And I've lately been considering whether training models that focus on these techniques above all else aren't hurting our long-term progression as fighters. HEMA practitioners tend to spend a lot of time working through these techniques, which are really quite advanced (and the coolest, let's be honest), but in so doing we forget to firm up our fundamentals of balance and perception, movement and body control. And unfortunately, these fundamentals are often what separates the masters from those who are merely experts.

[Jake Norwood]

Hi Mike.

This is a can of worms for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being that many of us (myself certainly) change our minds and positions on the topic almost seasonally. That also makes it a great potential thread.

I'm not sure that I concur with your "Master's Playbook" view of the Zetl/Haupstucke/etc. and their equivalents. However, I'm more than happy to entertain the idea for this thread, since I'm somewhat undecided on the matter anyway.

Your proposed Fundamentals:

• Proper stance - Der waag, or even the Drei Waage; knowing them and knowing when to use them. These are never explained in the vast majority of manuals, so presumably they come before.
• Proper footwork - Stepping, Passing, and so forth. These are likewise never explained in the manuals, merely mentioned as appropriate.
• Basic Guards - The Vier Leger aren't explained until half-way through Liechtenauer's verse, even though they're mentioned a lot before that, so students must have had some understanding going in.
• The Father Strikes (or the eight lines, depending on your school of thought) - It is from these common strikes that the five Hidden Strikes arise, so it's probable that students would learn these first.
• The Drei Wunder - The three strikes of the sword are quite basic, and knowing to put them in their proper place is an important skill requisite to winding
• Timing and Distance - The three times, three ranges, and three phases of the fight must be understood before most techniques can be applied.
• Basic grappling skills (which ties into stance and footwork, obviously)

First, we'll overlook the fact that some of these items can still be hotly debated, because that won't serve the discussion at hand. The question isn't whether or not a given interpretation is correct, but whether or not the thing that we're trying to interpret is fundamental. Right?

If we follow Meyer's model (and I think it's a good one), he lays out some basic philosophy, the divisions of the opponent (which is missing in your list), then guards, then cuts, then principles of parrying (etc.), then footwork, and then he gets into the technical stuff. It's not that different from yours, with the biggest differences probably being the exposition of the targets and the order in which the fundamentals are presented.

Meyer's book, it appears to me, was meant for someone without significant background in fencing or fighting. He spends a lot of time on the basics in the sword section particularly.

I agree that the things listed in your quote above are fundamental. My question is whether or not something's status as a fundamental means that it needs to be taught first, or separately. For example, should I teach the principle of Hart und Weich before or after teaching Mutieren? Or should I use Mutieren to teach Hart und Weich instead. This is where my hesitation with the Master's playbook theory comes in, since it's pretty clear that concepts such as Vor, Nach, the 4 openings, and so forth are introduced to the unititiated, not rehashed, nor built on top of something previous. The JLT masters use the techniques themselves to teach the principles. This is one of the reasons, IMO, that the section on the Zornhau is so long and includes more variety than any other section. It's not just because the Zornhau is the most fundamental cut, but rather because it get's described first, so it's used to teach the highest number of principles. Had the Zwerch shown up earlier in the Zetl, we would probably get Hart, Weich, Mutieren, etc., described in those passages.

To put it another way, when learning a language, how much time gets spent in the first week discussing the grammar, as opposed to diving right into the language and using the language (and the memorized phrases and dialogues) to teach the grammar?

So while this doesn't effect the list itself, it changes how we approach the fundamentals. I think.

Anyway, I started drafting my own list, but it ended up being a combination of yours and the 17 Hauptstucke. What's not overtly in the Hauptstucke that's in your list?

• Times/Phases
• 4 Openings
• Stepping and Stance
• 8 Lines

Of that list, the first two are well explained in the sources and are taught through some other aspect of the Hauptstucke. Stepping and stance is, too, but not clearly by any stretch of the imagination. The 8 lines gets into all kinds of theoretical mumbo-jumbo, but I can see a need to teach it as a fundamental skill for any weapon-fighting art (however, less so if the Openings are taught in its place).

So that's my long-winded reply.

Some questions for you:

• Why did you include the Drey Wunder but not winding or the openings? I ask not to criticize, but because it might highlight a significant difference in the way we view fundamental.
  
• Do you consider positions like Wechsel and Longpoint fundamental in the same way that the Vier Leger are? What about Neben?

Looking forward to your response,

Jake

[Mark W]

Hey guys,

In my admittedly small experience a living sword art, certain fundamentals stick out:

Proper stance
How to cut
How to thrust
How to step (in general)
How to get the heck off the line (a specific, important application of the above)
How to void
How to deflect
How to bind
How to generate power

For us, I'd add the close to Ringen as fundamental.

Just my $0.02.

Best regards,

-Mark

N.B.

So for German longsword, it could be condensed into:

Vier Leger
8 cuts (or even just oberhau if time is short)
Thrust from Pflug and Ochs, staying in guard or going to longpoint
Basic passing, stepping, etc
Voiding and offline could be demonstrated via Krump to the hands vs. Oberhau
Deflect: Hengetort
Bind: Zorn to Zorn or falling with long edge on a Zwerch
Power generation: showing how body mass helps power cut.
Ringen: entering from Hengetort or Zorn bind

How's that for a start?

[Michael Chidester]

This is a can of worms for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being that many of us (myself certainly) change our minds and positions on the topic almost seasonally. That also makes it a great potential thread.

I'm not sure that I concur with your "Master's Playbook" view of the Zetl/Haupstucke/etc. and their equivalents. However, I'm more than happy to entertain the idea for this thread, since I'm somewhat undecided on the matter anyway.

First, we'll overlook the fact that some of these items can still be hotly debated, because that won't serve the discussion at hand. The question isn't whether or not a given interpretation is correct, but whether or not the thing that we're trying to interpret is fundamental. Right?

Yes, I'm not particularly interested in specific interpretations right now, which is why I'm not going to try to define what I think the Drei Waage are or other things of that nature. I think we'll all be best served by broad strokes for now.

If we follow Meyer's model (and I think it's a good one), he lays out some basic philosophy, the divisions of the opponent (which is missing in your list), then guards, then cuts, then principles of parrying (etc.), then footwork, and then he gets into the technical stuff. It's not that different from yours, with the biggest differences probably being the exposition of the targets and the order in which the fundamentals are presented.

Meyer's book, it appears to me, was meant for someone without significant background in fencing or fighting. He spends a lot of time on the basics in the sword section particularly.

Oops. I generally teach four openings alongside guards, I should have mentioned that. (Cuts also have openings, yes, but they're the openings of whatever guard the cut happens to be passing through.)

I agree that the things listed in your quote above are fundamental. My question is whether or not something's status as a fundamental means that it needs to be taught first, or separately. For example, should I teach the principle of Hart und Weich before or after teaching Mutieren? Or should I use Mutieren to teach Hart und Weich instead. This is where my hesitation with the Master's playbook theory comes in, since it's pretty clear that concepts such as Vor, Nach, the 4 openings, and so forth are introduced to the unititiated, not rehashed, nor built on top of something previous. The JLT masters use the techniques themselves to teach the principles. This is one of the reasons, IMO, that the section on the Zornhau is so long and includes more variety than any other section. It's not just because the Zornhau is the most fundamental cut, but rather because it get's described first, so it's used to teach the highest number of principles. Had the Zwerch shown up earlier in the Zetl, we would probably get Hart, Weich, Mutieren, etc., described in those passages.

To put it another way, when learning a language, how much time gets spent in the first week discussing the grammar, as opposed to diving right into the language and using the language (and the memorized phrases and dialogues) to teach the grammar?

So while this doesn't effect the list itself, it changes how we approach the fundamentals. I think.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, please. If we're going to entertain the idea that the manuals are built on top of a foundation of something that is only alluded to, most of the Haupstucke are right out. We're talking about things that you need to know before you learn the Directives, in order to have them make sense to you. A foundation where you can then see Abschneiden or Durchwecseln and say "Oh, that's interesting." And then go use it.

Anyway, I started drafting my own list, but it ended up being a combination of yours and the 17 Hauptstucke. What's not overtly in the Hauptstucke that's in your list?

• Times/Phases
• 4 Openings
• Stepping and Stance
• 8 Lines

Of that list, the first two are well explained in the sources and are taught through some other aspect of the Hauptstucke. Stepping and stance is, too, but not clearly by any stretch of the imagination. The 8 lines gets into all kinds of theoretical mumbo-jumbo, but I can see a need to teach it as a fundamental skill for any weapon-fighting art (however, less so if the Openings are taught in its place).

I'd actually probably stick to the Father Strikes, since the eight lines are much later and not mentioned by Liechtenauer or his students. I'm pretty sure they're a diabolical Italianated contrivance meant to mislead German youths. The four basic strikes are pure Liechtenauer. The Drei Wunder are mentioned at times in the Haupstucke, but not in detail--there's no exposition of when to use each of them, their relative strengths and weaknesses, or even the fact that slices are generally performed at Krieg while thrusts have a longer reach than cuts. And basic grappling skills--essential for learning proper balance, leverage, and proprioception--are assumed, not taught. Unless you think that the best way to teach a novice to grapple is by running him through Durchlauffen and Schwertnemen Stucken.

So that's my long-winded reply.

Some questions for you:

Why did you include the Drey Wunder but not winding or the openings? I ask not to criticize, but because it might highlight a significant difference in the way we view fundamental.

The openings was an omission, as I said. Winding is the foundation and jewel of the art, but it's detailed in the manuals, not assumed before them. It's the single most complex and technical piece of the Art, and I don't think it's something that a novice fighter needs to know right off. Also, the fight doesn't begin with winding (yes, everything can be described as a winding, but I mean in a literal sense). Fighting in the approach and the withdrawal is just as important as fighting in the battle, and a more immediate concern (since you don't have to wind in a sword fight). That's the problem you and I both have with ARMA's approach, after all--that it ignores large pieces of the Art by seeking to begin the fight with winding.

Do you consider positions like Wechsel and Longpoint fundamental in the same way that the Vier Leger are? What about Neben?

I'm with my boy Liechtenauer. Alber is "when one puts the point in front of himself on the ground or at one’s side, after setting aside. This is called otherwise the 'fence guard' or the 'gate.'" If it's on the ground, it's all Alber. The long point is also an important guard, and I would teach Sprechfenster when I taught the other four. It's really necessary to complete the system.

[Michael Chidester]

Here's perhaps another perspective to consider this from: What would an introductory syllabus look like for a group of students, some of whom wanted to go on to study Liechtenauer and others to study Fiore, and a few others to study... say, Iberian Montante?

[Jake Norwood]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, please. If we're going to entertain the idea that the manuals are built on top of a foundation of something that is only alluded to, most of the Haupstucke are right out. We're talking about things that you need to know before you learn the Directives, in order to have them make sense to you. A foundation where you can then see Abschneiden or Durchwecseln and say "Oh, that's interesting." And then go use it.

Hrm. I'm happy to entertain the notion and try to identify stuff that you should know before you hit the stuff in the manuals, but that isn't your list, either…so putting most of the Hauptstucke right out seems pretty arbitrary.

What's in the Hauptstucke? From memory...

• 5 cuts
• 4 guards
• Displacing (Versetzen), parrying with a cut
• Setting Aside (Absetzen), parrying with a guard
• Over-running (Uberlauffen), the principle of reach and upper vs. lower openings
• Pulling (Zucken), striking to the four openings vs. hard or parries
• Changing through (Durchwechseln), thrusting to the four openings vs. parries
• Running through (Durchlauffen), basic Ringen am Schwert
• Travellng After (Nachraysen), basic application of Nach/After
• Slicing off (Abschneiden), the "four cuts."
• Pressing the Hands (Hende Trucken), a specific application of slicing
• Hangings/Windings (Hengen/Winden), how to fight am-schwert
• Hews, Slices, Thrusts (Drey Wunder, in some versions), the ways to hurt a guy

Your list has

• Cuts
• Guards
• Openings (no sweat on forgetting that one)
• Hews/slices/thrusts
• Basic grappling

…which adds up to 9 of the 17, depending on how you slice it.

So what constitutes a fundamental?

I propose that instead of saying "father strikes" or any specific set of strikes (as an example), perhaps we phrase it as how-to's, like Mark did:

• How to perform an attack (cut, thrust, or slice)
• How to stand (with and without a weapon)
• How to step (when performing a cut, thrust, slice, or not)
• How to time your attack or defense in relation to the opponent
• How to choose your target (where to attack - openings)
• How to not get hit (void, parry, etc.)
• How to deal with grappling as it applies to whatever art you're studying (okay, this is a hand-wave, I admit)

What I like about this approach is that it's very non-weapon, Martial Art, or tradition-specific. These are basic, fundamental questions that every beginner should be able to answer about his/her art (and perhaps fighting in general). It begins to cover your question...

Here's perhaps another perspective to consider this from: What would an introductory syllabus look like for a group of students, some of whom wanted to go on to study Liechtenauer and others to study Fiore, and a few others to study... say, Iberian Montante?

…because each of these arts/traditions/approaches/weapons/whatever *must* struggle with these questions.

Is this getting closer to what you're looing for? I think I missed the mark in my first opus three posts back.

Jake

[Michael Chidester]

I'ma think about this over lunch and come back.

Also, Stew said to remind you that you spent years training just the things on that list before you even knew what a Haupstucke was, same as him and Eli and others, and while y'all became Senior Free Scholars, most of the folks who focused on manual interpretation didn't.

[Michael-Forest]

I agree with many of your premises, Michael. As you know, I too have been working on figuring out what a complete curriculum for longsword would be.

I have not yet spent much time trying to sort out what a "basic" curriculum would be (as opposed to an "advanced" curriculum).

However, it is clear to me that not all the basics are in the manuals, and even Fiore, which I like for having a somewhat basic and fundamental approach to swordplay, still seems to be leaving certain things out.

The most evident three areas which might be considered "fundamental basics" but which also seem to me to be partially or wholly left out of the manuals would be:

Footwork
Cutting technique
How to use the guards

(And you could certainly add balance/basic grappling to the list, I suppose.)

[Dan Sellars]

...

• How to perform an attack (cut, thrust, or slice)
• How to stand (with and without a weapon)
• How to step (when performing a cut, thrust, slice, or not)
• How to time your attack or defense in relation to the opponent
• How to choose your target (where to attack - openings)
• How to not get hit (void, parry, etc.)
• How to deal with grappling as it applies to whatever art you're studying (okay, this is a hand-wave, I admit)

...
Jake

I don't want to sound too deep here, but is that list not both the beginning and the end of what you need to learn? Everything else is just 'technique' on achieving those how-to's. It is not really the fundamentals that you should know before you go in but the fundamentals you should be learning all the way through. If you already knew all of that why would you need to study?

I hope I am making some sense here...

[Jake Norwood]

I'ma think about this over lunch and come back.

Also, Stew said to remind you that you spent years training just the things on that list before you even knew what a Haupstucke was, same as him and Eli and others, and while y'all became Senior Free Scholars, most of the folks who focused on manual interpretation didn't.

I've now fought enough folks who *did* learn it this way, now, though, to say that it works. There are lots of reason single-manual folks never got far in the ARMA, and it isn't all invalidity of approach (or even a respectable fraction, IMO).

That being said, you're right that I had years to develop good (and some very bad) habits in my fundamentals. Now I'm trying to fix just as many as I'm glad to have "down." It's a two-edge sword, and probably starts to bleed into interpretational validity in a way we are trying to avoid in this thread. I think...

Jake