Article: The Agile Krumphau

[Ben Smith]

My contention on the Krumphau is that it was used in a wide variety of ways and that the description in the text commonly used in the Liechtenauer tradition is only the first way you learn to use a Krumphau.

First, the illustrations of the technique show considerable diversity. From oldest to newest Talhoffer, 1467 shows it here, with crossed hands and the left leg forward and the sword aimed to the left against a the sword of an opponent who seems to be striking or thrusting against you. It is noteworthy that he seems to be striking with the flat or short edge. It's on tafel 19 shown here: http://www.schielhau.org/talpoint.html.

Second, Goliath which is from the early 1500s, has an image which is shown here: http://www.schielhau.org/images/43.jpg. Again to point out, right foot forward, sword on the right side, opponent in left ochs, left foot back and behind, sword on a very high angle from the feet and facing of the striker, hands not crossed and the blow is aimed at the hands.

The third major illustration, found in Meyer which was published a couple of times in the mid 16th c. seems to fit the Liechtenauer text the best. Right foot forward, sword on the left at a strong angle from the line of the feet and the facing of the striker, the opponent, again, is in left ochs. It is shown here with the back figures on the right: http://www.schielhau.org/Meyer.p8.html.

We therefore see the krumphau illustrated on both sides with the right foot forward, on the left with the left foot forward, and possibly with both edges. Now Talhoffer's connection to the Liechtenauer tradition can be disputed, but he certainly seems to have picked up the technique from them. I've employed it as described in Ringeck, and depicted in Talhoffer and see no particular advantage to either one, they both seem to work very well.

As for the Goliath, which is what the OP was asking about. I believe it is wise policy not to assume error on the part of ancient texts lightly. One valid way to view this is that there was a publishing error and they got the wrong picture. This matches the surface evidence but ignores some important points. First, the situation which led up to this sort of major mistake is extremely unlikely. If the subjects had been posing in the position of the text everything about the picture would have been extremely different. It's not the sort of thing where an illustrator would have simply gone home with a pile of half drawn pictures, mixed them up and said "I forgot what that technique looked like so I'll finish the drawing this way cause that's what I think it was". This certainly wouldn't have been the case if the master himself was also his own illustrator, which is very possible. Manuscripts were expensive and produced with far more care than that. An illustrator in that position would simply have asked the author where that particular illustration was supposed to go. Second, the quality of the Goliath illustrator is very good, accurately depicting human proportions, consistently depicting sword length vis-a-vis humans in the book, and adding many non-essential details throughout. Drawing basic body positions is one of the first lessons artists learn, and if they had been posing in the "correct" position he would not have gotten it wrong. Third, there are no marks on that page that indicate obvious errors that an illustrator or later reader might have tried to correct, cover up, or add commentary too as we see in a very few other books from the time. Fourth, there is no other possible technique in the text that this picture might be depicting.

I therefore offer the following hypothesis: the authors intentionally posed as shown for the illustration on the Krumphau page. The implications of this idea are these: The Goliath, by design, depicts a krumphau which does not match the text. Their definition of what a Krumphau was, and how it could be executed, was rather wider than a surface reading of the text might lead us to believe. After all, how else would you interpret "learn to strike blows equally well from both sides" with a krumphau without the kind of variation that we see in the previous three illustrations. I believe that the Goliath illustration is depicting an alternative form of the krumphau which is also designed to hit the hands of an opponent in left ochs. This variation offers a way to strike from your right (strong side for us right handers) effectively if your opponent is strongly covering the upper left quarter, while at the same time covering your upper right quarter, the one normally exposed when executing the krumpahau in the text and the one most easy to hit with a nachreissen or other counter. In my training I have found it effective.

[Dustin Reagan]

I therefore offer the following hypothesis: the authors intentionally posed as shown for the illustration on the Krumphau page.

Well reasoned; I agree with no reservation that I can currently think of.

[Michael Chidester]

My contention on the Krumphau is that it was used in a wide variety of ways and that the description in the text commonly used in the Liechtenauer tradition is only the first way you learn to use a Krumphau.

First, the illustrations of the technique show considerable diversity. From oldest to newest Talhoffer, 1467 shows it here, with crossed hands and the left leg forward and the sword aimed to the left against a the sword of an opponent who seems to be striking or thrusting against you. It is noteworthy that he seems to be striking with the flat or short edge. It's on tafel 19 shown here: http://www.schielhau.org/talpoint.html.

Second, Goliath which is from the early 1500s, has an image which is shown here: http://www.schielhau.org/images/43.jpg. Again to point out, right foot forward, sword on the right side, opponent in left ochs, left foot back and behind, sword on a very high angle from the feet and facing of the striker, hands not crossed and the blow is aimed at the hands.

The third major illustration, found in Meyer which was published a couple of times in the mid 16th c. seems to fit the Liechtenauer text the best. Right foot forward, sword on the left at a strong angle from the line of the feet and the facing of the striker, the opponent, again, is in left ochs. It is shown here with the back figures on the right: http://www.schielhau.org/Meyer.p8.html.

Let's inject a little clarity here:

• Talhoffer
• Goliath
• Meyer

To these I'll add:

• Paulus Kal
• Peter Falkner
• Jörg Wilhalm Hutter
• Hans Medel (and again)

Mair and Sutor don't give us good pictures of it, but this selection should suffice.

We therefore see the krumphau illustrated on both sides with the right foot forward, on the left with the left foot forward, and possibly with both edges. Now Talhoffer's connection to the Liechtenauer tradition can be disputed, but he certainly seems to have picked up the technique from them. I've employed it as described in Ringeck, and depicted in Talhoffer and see no particular advantage to either one, they both seem to work very well.

What I see here is that the Goliath image is an outlier (which doesn't bother me, since I maintain that the image on the previous page is the Krumphau illustration based on its similarity to the others and the fact that images in Goliath sometimes precede the device they're describing). While there's some variation in which foot is forward, the hand position and bind are fairly consistent across all the other manuscripts. The other outlier is Paulus Kal, but this may be because his opponent is standing in Pflug and not Ochs.

And for the record, Talhoffer's connection to Liechtenauer is pretty certain, since he mentions Liechtenauer and quotes his Epitome in its entirety.

As for the Goliath, which is what the OP was asking about. I believe it is wise policy not to assume error on the part of ancient texts lightly. One valid way to view this is that there was a publishing error and they got the wrong picture. This matches the surface evidence but ignores some important points. First, the situation which led up to this sort of major mistake is extremely unlikely. If the subjects had been posing in the position of the text everything about the picture would have been extremely different. It's not the sort of thing where an illustrator would have simply gone home with a pile of half drawn pictures, mixed them up and said "I forgot what that technique looked like so I'll finish the drawing this way cause that's what I think it was". This certainly wouldn't have been the case if the master himself was also his own illustrator, which is very possible. Manuscripts were expensive and produced with far more care than that. An illustrator in that position would simply have asked the author where that particular illustration was supposed to go.

There are several false assumptions in play here. First, we know that Goliath was written first and illustrated by an entirely different crew some time later. Second, the master who wrote the text (anonymous, but possibly Jud Lew or even Johannes Liechtenauer himself) was a hundred years dead when the manuscript was created. Third, given that the scribe was probably as ignorant of fencing as the artist, small errors in the art are possible and even probable--untrained eyes don't see what we see, and are likely to dwell on details that don't matter and miss others that are key.

Second, the quality of the Goliath illustrator is very good, accurately depicting human proportions, consistently depicting sword length vis-a-vis humans in the book, and adding many non-essential details throughout. Drawing basic body positions is one of the first lessons artists learn, and if they had been posing in the "correct" position he would not have gotten it wrong. Third, there are no marks on that page that indicate obvious errors that an illustrator or later reader might have tried to correct, cover up, or add commentary too as we see in a very few other books from the time. Fourth, there is no other possible technique in the text that this picture might be depicting.

This is a better argument.

I therefore offer the following hypothesis: the authors intentionally posed as shown for the illustration on the Krumphau page. The implications of this idea are these: The Goliath, by design, depicts a krumphau which does not match the text. Their definition of what a Krumphau was, and how it could be executed, was rather wider than a surface reading of the text might lead us to believe. After all, how else would you interpret "learn to strike blows equally well from both sides" with a krumphau without the kind of variation that we see in the previous three illustrations. I believe that the Goliath illustration is depicting an alternative form of the krumphau which is also designed to hit the hands of an opponent in left ochs. This variation offers a way to strike from your right (strong side for us right handers) effectively if your opponent is strongly covering the upper left quarter, while at the same time covering your upper right quarter, the one normally exposed when executing the krumpahau in the text and the one most easy to hit with a nachreissen or other counter. In my training I have found it effective.

The problem with this hypothesis is that that position can only be arrived at from the right shoulder (effectively) by using a Schielhau. Now, Meyer does discuss a Shielhau that is also a Krumphau, but I don't think this is the cut he was describing since it lacks a Krump-like component. It may very well be an illustration intended for the Schielhau section, of course (see my comment above about artist error, and remember that the text does indeed describe the Schiller against Ochs), but I find it very unlikely that it was intended as the primary example of the Krumphau.

[Mike Edelson]

Third, given that the scribe was probably as ignorant of fencing as the artist, small errors in the art are possible and even probable--untrained eyes don't see what we see, and are likely to dwell on details that don't matter and miss others that are key.

I'm so glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this. Especially when that other person is Mike C.

[Michael Chidester]

Third, given that the scribe was probably as ignorant of fencing as the artist, small errors in the art are possible and even probable--untrained eyes don't see what we see, and are likely to dwell on details that don't matter and miss others that are key.

I'm so glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this. Especially when that other person is Mike C.

Yes, you've sold me on this idea more or less. I still think that manual art is more reliable than you do, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that while the art is basically trustworthy, we shouldn't be surprised to find details that are wrong and certainly shouldn't treat them like instructional photographs. The same is true of the manual text itself, but we can compensate for this by analyzing multiple versions of each treatise; identifying errors in the art is more difficult.

[Joey Nitti]

my 2 cents:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the text was written by the master, the images were usually not. If the two contradict, I will tend to assume that the text is correct, and the artist made a mistake (if this contradiction can be confirmed to exist). On the other hand, we can't be too quick to assume mistakes in historical documents. I've heard it said (and I agree) that we should always give the benefit of doubt to a historical document since the document and author aren't around to defend themselves. The burden of (dis)proof is on us.


re: the krumphau - Michael C. I'm intrigued by the idea of the previous page's image being the picture that corresponds to the krumphau, and not the image on the same page as the text. If other illustrations in the manuscript occasionally precede the corresponding text, it seems like that could be a likely explanation. Are there any other indications that this is the explanation? If this is the case, what technique is the image on the same page as the text referencing? I say it looks a little like a scheitelhau, just looking at the position of the guy's hands.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Mike C. and Mike E.:

Who are you to judge that the scribe and the artist were both "ignorant" - did Amberger inform you?

Have each of you guys produced your own fight-books?

Please tell us all, here and without interference from Brandon or Casper or Kevin or anybody else, just what your basis for comparison happens to be?

[Michael Chidester]

Who are you to judge that the scribe and the artist were both "ignorant"

Research into the historical context within which these manuscripts were created allows me to make certain generalizations about scribes and artists in this period. Were there exceptions? Yes, certainly. But generalizations are useful as a baseline, and exceptions by their very nature must be demonstrated, not disproven. I actually think that the artists in Goliath were much more credible and therefore reliable than, for example, those of the Glasgow Fechtbuch. Their art is stunning and careful examination of their work has raised several interesting questions--for example, the way the swordsmen withdraw their lead hand slightly at the apex of a cut has proven very effective at protecting the hand during binding while giving a slight boost to striking power. The reversed left hand in one of the devices of the Zornhau (also seen in Codex Wallerstein in a similar context, but less clearly) highlighted a key element of the technique that was not described in the text. The artwork can be a great teacher. All of that said, in the particular image being discussed here the text is clear as the setup, the footwork, and the trajectory of the cut. The illustration bears no similarity to this description. Thus, in this case we must rely on the text and question if the image relates to it at all.

[Mike Edelson]

Who are you to judge that the scribe and the artist were both "ignorant" - did Amberger inform you?

If you change were to could be, then the only qualification we need is a human brain combined with the understanding that people always make mistakes.

Have each of you guys produced your own fight-books?

Not fight books, but I have produced a bunch of written and illustrated material, and all of it had (and still has) a ton of mistakes in it despite my best efforst and modern editing and error checking software.

Please tell us all, here and without interference from Brandon or Casper or Kevin or anybody else, just what your basis for comparison happens to be?

Mike C gave you that information already. Also, from my point of view, I only see mistakes in art, I am not qualified to see mistakes in the texts, though Mike C is. There are really obvious mistakes in the art, like the pretezel arm in Kal, and then there are subtle ones, where the images aren't showing what the text is describing (or it's subtle to some people, not to me). You can make of that what you want, though I doubt you'll be breaking your arm in three places to stand in that famous Kal pose that is anatomically impossible otherwise. Then again, I could be wrong.

[Michael Chidester]

My favorite is an image in the Getty version of Fiore, lower left on 16v. Instead of showing a standard figure-4 armlock, the artist connected the arms to the wrong body and so the fighter on the left is trying desperately to fend off his own rogue right arm (using both his left arm and the third arm growing out of his chest) and thereby avoid stabbing himself in the face.