Footwork in the Liechtenauer tradition

[KeithFarrell]

I saw this in the "COT-Playbook" thread:

Mike,

I think Chris is focusing on Leichtenauer traditional techniques, I didn't see any later period techniques being used in his videos, which is why I didn't mention Myer and I doubt PHM is appropriate for what he's doing. But if he's looking alternative interpretations of the foot work, I think your right, Myer would be a good place to look. Although, I feel the need to warn anyone who attempts to incorporate Myer foot work into interpretations of Leichtenauer that it can go awry and lead to ill conceived technique that, if trained long enough will take even more time to train out of. I had this experience from training with ARMA years ago. Myer footwork used with Leichtenauer techniques practiced without restraint and consideration of the differences lead to a lot of wasted time. After leaving ARMA I had to totally retrain my footwork. Some of Myer's footwork is really useful and I still use it on occasion, but it can't be used exclusively the way ARMA was, or maybe still is. I have seen some of their new videos and it looks to me like they are still using it though they might be leaning more to PHM rather than Myer, but it isn't consistent with early Leichtenauer systems.

I'm interested in what people think "Meyer's footwork" is, what "Mair footwork" is and what "normal Liechtenauer footwork" would be. I have to put up my hand and admit that I haven't had access to any translation of Meyer other than Mike Rasmusson's on schielhau.org, I haven't had access to Jeffrey Forgeng's translation at all, so I have no clue what Meyer has to say on the subject. Also, I haven't read through Mair's stuff in detail yet, simply haven't had time since the Wiktenauer article went up and translations started appearing. I'm interested in seeing how people view those styles of footwork and how people think they are different from "normal" footwork that should be used when studying, for example, Ringeck's gloss.

So what do people think? Sorry to pick on you Jesse, but what you wrote made me very curious! It would be good to see what you think the difference would be between these different styles.

[Jesse Eaton]

Keith,

Jason Taylor, also from Kron, had his translation of Mair on wiktenauer just today: http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Paulus_H ... #Longsword

I've been looking at the instructional videos from Arme Antica and comparing those with the manuals. My primary focus, as of late has been early Leichtenauer works, and what I see as the primary difference is widening of the base. The stances are broader and the angle between the front and rear foot tends to be greater. My experience with Mayer, and ARMA, is that that difference is even greater with Mayer. The base gets broader and the angle trends higher. The other difference comes from the first two changes. The other difference is the angle and direction of the steps. Moves such as "If he then strikes you from above to an opening, step outward with your right foot and give him a Krump to his right side and strike him at the nearest opening.", are unless I'm mistaken, virtually non existent. I can't think of a play where makes a cross step with the right foot to the right side of one's opponent, except in later works like Mair and Meyer. The Dobringer is rather explicit in the idea that you are stepping in at your opponent from his left side by stepping to your right. The Krumphau, though it can be done as described by Mair, is only described as a step to the right with a strike to the left in early works. Further, that long of a step is discouraged in place of shorter steps.

As a quick, overly generalized but still fair, description of the difference between later and earlier works is that later foot work is longer step and wider angle and earlier is shorter step and shallower angle. Not an exact characterization, both prescribe a leaping action that is a long step and both use short steps, but in general, I think this the trend.

And Kieth, no worries about picking on me, I don't get offended easily. Go ahead and pick away

[Jake Norwood]

This looks to be a really interesting discussion.

As a guy who used to spend lots of time in Meyer, and who was "brought up" in the ARMA camp, but who later became almost totally dedicated to the earlier Liechtenauer stuff, on a gut level I'd say there's some merit to what you're proposing...but maybe not as much as you think.

If you look at the illustrated texts from the earlier part of the tradition (e.g., Paulus Kal, Talhoffer, Leckuchner, and perhaps Wallerstein, if you're willing to view that as at least tangential to the system, etc.), we see wide stances, "open stances" (i.e., stances with the feet at greater than 90 degree divergence), and especially "cross-stepping" with your own right to the "outside" of your opponent's right foot. That last one is so prevalent, in fact, it's often caused me to re-evaluate whole sections of the "General Teaching" on footwork.

What I don't see too much of is the exaggerated stance that PHM might have called the "lower balances," which we often see in Meyer and Mair's plates, and which is a fundamental part of the way that most ARMA fighters (at least in my day) learned to move.

Take a look at the stances even in Peter von Danzig, though--they're narrower than Meyer, but not as narrow as Kal, and not as narrow as a lot of the Arme Antigua stuff that we're looking at.

There is also a passage in Meyer which says:

He who steps after striking
deserves less joy in his art.

That is that every strike must have its own step which shall occur at the same time as the strike, if you would do otherwise with the elements which you resort to, then step too early or too late, thus it happens around your play, and you thus bring yourself around your strike, thus learn to make the steps right so that your opponent cannot work as he really wants, bringing on a stop, particularly so that you upset his grounding or place as it were. In attacking now let yourself mark this, and position yourself as if you would make large and far steps, but actually stay closer with your feet correct, and attack him. So much is then built on from here. Since all of this must be learned and used in fencing, this must be known.

It's also true that Meyer advocates wides stances in many places, so I don't mean to say that it isn't so...it is...but I'm not sure that there's as wide of a division between "Liechtenauer footwork" and later footwork at perhaps I'm reading into what you're saying.

Jake

[Mike Ruhala]

I've spent most of the last year focused on learning how to move the weapon and figuring out what to do with my arms, my legs and footwork weren't given much attention until fairly recently so I haven't fully developed a theory on how it is all supposed to fit together but I'm working on it. The interesting thing to me is how shockingly modern Meyer's footwork is, while I find his brief instruction on stepping to be of only limited use I can easily recognize many steps from my classical training in his illustrations and text. While Meyer does make extensive use of medium and low balance the illustrations can make the style appear even lower than it really is because many of his fencers are depicted at the end of their movement in lunges. Contrariwise Talhoffer appears more biased towards small steps and a high balance than he really is because many of his illustrations show fencers in the middle of movement. Talhoffer commonly uses a lunge very similar to what's seen in Meyer but he also frequently shows a wide step that serves much the same purpose but looks different. Meyer implies this step but most of what we see in his illustrations are lunges. Meyer's dagger looks old school compared to his other weapons. The high/low balance thing isn't really a matter of era, it's a philosophical difference that can be found in any era with a variety of Western martial arts. In general low stances afford greater reach and high stances are more agile, both Meyer and Talhoffer seem to prefer higher balance at close quarters and it feels pretty natural to me too. The tricky thing is I don't think the OG's moved anything like what modern HEMA practitioners do, I don't have a fully developed theory on that yet either but I do have a sense of it that will hopefully grow into something actionable someday.

[Bill Carew]

I'm interested in what people think "Meyer's footwork" is, what "Mair footwork" is and what "normal Liechtenauer footwork" would be.

I think Meyer’s footwork is entirely compatible with earlier Liechtenauer methods. I don’t like ARMA’s footwork in practice. IMHO there is an overemphasis on the ‘low balance’ as well as long steps (when all the sources from 3227a to Meyer talk about using short as well as large steps as required) and they seem to bob up and down and leap into each step rather than smoothly stepping through with absolute control and a steady centre of gravity (this is important, especially if some armour is worn, as bouncing in your steps in not appropriate for fighting in harness).

I would like to make it clear, however, that ARMA’s way is not the only way and there are alternate interpretations and physical possibilities for applying Meyer’s footwork to earlier longsword work.

For some years now I have used Meyer’s three basic forms of longsword step perfectly well with all the earlier stücke. We have:

1) simple steps forward and backward (that correspond to advances, retreats, passing steps and cross steps)
2) steps around the side (sloping steps/triangle steps that typically involve a pivot or some kind and which move us to the side, changing the line of defence relative to the opponent); and
3) deceptive steps (stolen and broken steps that look like full steps but which are not).

Each of these steps works seamlessly with the earlier sources. The advantage of this model, when combined with an understanding of the three balances concept, is that it provides a simple, internally consistent and historically documentable model from within the same general tradition as the earlier Liechtenauer sources. There is nothing missing and no early play or technique that can’t be accomplished smoothly and effectively with a combination of the above steps.

Now, footwork is more than just the type of steps used, and here we run into issues of balance. Mair describes three balances, high, middle and low, and as other posters have noted, ARMA seems to focus almost exclusively on the low balance. But I think all three can be utilised within the entire German tradition and over the last year or two I have incorporated Mair’s concept of the three balances with Meyer’s three steps to flesh out my generic ‘German longsword’ footwork model.

I don’t think each master or period focussed on one preferred balance. Rather, I now think each balance has always had its place in the overall system, for e.g. when far away and out of distance, a high balance is useful for mobility, during zufechten and initial krieg, the middle balance is a nice compromise between stability and mobility and right up close, at grappling and throwing distance, the low balance is especially useful for keeping your centre of gravity underneath that of your opponent. The transition from one balance to another should be tightly controlled, smooth and fluid rather than the aforementioned bobbing or bouncing during the steps.

My 2c FWIW.

[Jesse Eaton]

Bill,

A single system of foot work would be awesome. And yes, bobbing up and down is not only bad technique, it is a waste of energy and it telegraphs all your movements, including when you can and can't change direction. It is a pet peeve of mine and my primary criticism of ARMA.

Jake,

I don't recall that part of Meyer, but it does change my perspective a bit. Not all, but a lot of my interpretation of Meyer came from ARMA, I'll leave it at that. Apparently there is a Meyer group in L. A., I'll have to look them up.

[Shay Roberts]

I now think each balance has always had its place in the overall system, for e.g. when far away and out of distance, a high balance is useful for mobility, during zufechten and initial krieg, the middle balance is a nice compromise between stability and mobility and right up close, at grappling and throwing distance, the low balance is especially useful for keeping your centre of gravity underneath that of your opponent.

Bill, I like this way of looking at it!

[Michael Chidester]

I don’t think each master or period focussed on one preferred balance. Rather, I now think each balance has always had its place in the overall system, for e.g. when far away and out of distance, a high balance is useful for mobility, during zufechten and initial krieg, the middle balance is a nice compromise between stability and mobility and right up close, at grappling and throwing distance, the low balance is especially useful for keeping your centre of gravity underneath that of your opponent. The transition from one balance to another should be tightly controlled, smooth and fluid rather than the aforementioned bobbing or bouncing during the steps.

I agree completely. This is what I've been teaching for the last three or four years.

[Bill Carew]

I agree completely. This is what I've been teaching for the last three or four years.

Good to know Michael.

Another 'three' that I like to increasingly work in for an even more well rounded footwork model is Fiore's three turns. The stable (stabile), half (mezza) and full (tutta) turns (volte) compliment the other concepts nicely, and there is a certain felicity in 3 x 3 (3 turns + 3 steps + 3 balances).

[Jeffrey Hull]

I offer the following as a plausible & basic interpretation.

Footworks

There are three distinct and elementary “footworks” in Ritterlich Kunst; thus the fighters pedestrian mobility while fighting; which tend to be as follows:

Schreiten = Stepping: You pace forwards, backwards or sideways; via either foot or both feet; within any radius of your circumference; to cover short distance.

Treten = Treading: You stride forwards, backwards or sideways; via either foot or both feet; within any diameter of your circumference; to cover medium distance.

Springen = Springing: You leap/jump forwards, backwards or sideways; via either foot or both feet; across & beyond your circumference; to cover long distance.

The advantages of this triad interpretation are accordingly threefold:

1. All three footworks are named and known foot & leg movements in German Tradition Ringen (wrestling) and Fechten (fencing) of the Liechtenauer, Gladiatoria & Nürnberg Lineages; which help to forcefully animate main moves of wrestling e.g. Greifen, Zwirch, Werfen (clinching, thwarting, throwing) and fencing e.g. Stichen, Hauen, Schneiden (thrusting, hewing, slashing); which work naturally with the universal principle/kinetics of Waage (balance/scales); which cover the ranges of Zufechten, Krieg, Abzug (encounter, engagement, disengagement); and moreover, they are congruent with the True Time of Silver Lineage of English Tradition Fencing.

2. All three footworks are readily & easily understood by the beginner; and provide him/her, quite literally, the proper foundation upon which to build any variety of motion while either wrestling or fencing zu Fusz (afoot); whether Blosz (bare) or Harnisch (harness); and of course as dictated by tactics, targets and terrain.

3. All three footworks are basic to the totality of footworks; and thus any specialty is merely some permutation of one of those basic three: i.e. cockstepping, gathering & switching are simply Schreiten; i.e. compassing, crossing, passing, traversing & triangulating are simply Treten; i.e. leaping, lunging & jumping are simply Springen. Understanding their differences are most helpful to understanding the proper dimension/measure at which to engage, thus how to get close to or away from foe to make your attacks work. ~

Copyright 2011 of Jeffrey Hull.