Meyer's "Rose"

[Keith P. Myers]

Hello Everyone!

Joachim Meyer's "Rose" is one of those techniques that has generated some interest and controvery in the HEMA community. Jeff Tsay has worked on this and has presented it as a class at some of the bigger HEMA events. I attended his class on the topic at Fechtschule America in 2010. Stu Feil and I had some fun together going through it. Here is Jeff's interpretation of Meyer's Rose. The vids are from 2009, so I can't say whether he has updated any of it or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJaQsxr3 ... re=related

I have been going back over this lately and have come up with my own interpretation that is a little bit different than Jeff's. Here is what I've come up with and my reasoning behind it. Text from Meyer is paraphrased from Jeff Forgeng's translations from his book published by Palgrave. The numbers noted are the paragraph numbers from Meyer's original text.

To start with, Herr Meyer gives us a good clue when he says this in the dussack section:

2.9r: Some cuts receive their names from the shape they resemble in cutting, like the Rose Cut.

So, the Rose cut, and by implication the Rose motion, in some way actually traces the shape of a Rose. But what would have been the accepted shape of a Rose back then? I think it may have been the Rose used in Heraldry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_(heraldry)

We'll come back to this idea at the end.

So let's look at Meyer's devices involving the Rose for further clues:

Example 1 (1.40v.1): Meyer tells us that the Rose works best from middle guard, so from the right Mittelhut send your blade in a circle around his blade so that your blade comes almost back to your initial guard, from there swing the weak powerfully from outside over his arms at his head.

---This is the main example that I base my interpretation on, and is Meyer's initial explanation of the Rose. Nowhere does this device suggest that the motion happens from the bind. Paulus Hector Mair uses the Krumphau as one of his primary parries. He often swings the Krump over and onto the opponent's sword with the short edge and then immediately cuts through the face. To me, it looks like Meyer is doing something similar. From a right side Mittelhut, swing your blade around and below his blade in a circle than ends with the short edge on top of his blade in a classic Krump position, which just so happens to also be "almost" your original Mittelhut position, just as Meyer instructs. Then "swing the weak" or simply cut forward through his head.

Example 2 (1.41r.2): from the bind in Langenort/Long Point, break through below with the Rose between you and him and cast the short edge in at his head on the other side.

---This one is even simpler. From the bind, quickly circle under his blade and up to the other side to strike down at his head with the short edge. The strike is the equivalent of a Scheilhau and is the same motion as the Krump mentioned above. So it is exactly the same as above, just ending with a short edge strike to his head rather than a short edge Krump across his blade. This movement ends up being very similar to sport fencing's "disengage."

Example 3 (1.41r.3): This one is very similar to the first example: from the bind, break through below with the Rose, then wrench his sword sideways from the other side with the short edge, then, so that your hands cross over one another in the air, strike deep with the short edge over at his head.

---Now our "Krump" motion is a little more forceful so that we are sure the opponent's weapon is off-line before we flip our blade over to strike to his head, rather than cutting through the face as in Example 1.

Example 4 (1.41r.4): As soon as you connect in the bind, step towards his left side and go up with crossed hands and cut with the long edge through the Rose sideways from below behind his arm at his head.

---So here we are actually stepping away from or out of the bind into a right Ochs or Hanging Guard with crossed hands. We know this because Meyer tells us to step to the opponent's left, or our right, and that the cut is delivered "sideways" and from behind his arm. We then cut in a looping clockwise motion to strike with an Underhau at his head. While this one isn't a disengaging motion like we saw above, it still is a circular motion going downard and then upward and ending in a high Underhau that is essentially the same position as a Krump to the right or a right Mittelhut.

Example 5 (1.42r.2): Just before you would connect in the bind, push your pommel up and turn your blade up from below through the Rose, catching his stroke on your long edge as in Image N, upper right, pg. 117

---This is pretty much the same motion as the one immediately above, just from a little further out. We avoid the bind, step out with a Hanging Guard with crossed hands, then cut clockwise in a circle ending with catching his blade on our long edge near the schildt in a Hanger with uncrossed hands. The ending position is still "almost" a Mittelhut as Meyer initially recommended, just much higher! We can also check ourselves to make sure we are on the right track because Meyer provides an illustration of this ending position.

Here is what all this looks like on video. My videos aren't as polished as Jeff's, so please cut me a little slack in that regard!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0ufU28 ... AAAAAAAAAA

Herr Meyer tends to think and organize things conceptually. He often notes that techniques are performed on both sides, without bothering to describe both sides. So if we are on the right track with this interpretation of his "Rose", it should work just as well from the other side. And it does!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sowFkeJ ... AAAAAAAAAA

Now, continuing to think conceptually, if the concept of the Rose with the Longsword should also apply to the Dussack. So if we are doing things correctly, we should be able to do them with the Dussack as well as with the Longsword. And we can!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ThEeMoC ... AAAAAAAAAA

[Keith P. Myers]

Now let's look at some of Meyer's other weapons that use the Rose to make sure the interpretation matches:

2.35r.3: throw an Oberhau with Dussack and just before it would have connected, go below and toward his left right around his Dussack in a circle through the Rose so that your Dussack comes under his right arm and out toward your left up in the air.

---Sounds like what we were describing above, doesn't it? The Dussack ends in a left Stier, which has the short edge aimed downwards just as before.

2.64r.3: with the Rappier, thrust to his face from a right Ochs, but turn your thrust up from below through the Rose to thrust under his hilt up at this belly as you take a broad step forward.

---Fake a high thrust, but then drop the point down and circle under his hilt to thrust to his belly on the other side. And guess what? This requires you to turn your hand over in the final thrust so that the short edge is aimed down.

3.20v.1: This is titled "How you shall take him out upward with the long edge from your left, and thrust through the Rose back up from below from your right at his face." So, with the quarterstaff in a low guard, go up with both arms and strike out his thrust from your left toward your right with the long edge, so that in striking him out your staff comes right up through; then turn your staff back by your right side up from below and thrust from that side back up at his face.

---The last portion where you "turn your staff back by your right side up from below" is the Rose. This is similar to our Examples 4 & 5 above that had us stepping out of the bind.

Let's look at the Rose as a strike / Rosenhaw:

2.11r.2: Description of the Rose Cut with the Dussack: If you find an opponent waiting in the Bogen, act as if you intend to cut from below at his head, but don’t let it connect. Go outside his right arm and thru below so that you come around in a circle around his dussack. Let it run off again in the air beside his right, and cut at his face.

----So we circle under his weapon as before and will end in a left Stier (short edge directed downwards). The "run off" means we let the point drop down to our right into a position that would be analgous to a Krump, and then send it forward to cut at this face. So this is exactly the same motion we have described above. The only difference is it doesn't end with a "Krump" on the opponent's blade to stop him. It just pauses at a similar point before going directly into the strike.

2.45v.1: Here Meyer tells us that the Rose cuts go particularly well with a deceit from the Middle Guard: If you find a opponent in the Bogen who is smaller than you, send your outside flat from your right above his hilt toward his right, outside his right arm, and in a single motion under his dussack back up toward your right. Let it fly around above your head in the air and strike him with hanging dussack and inside flat in a flick outside to his right arm.

---So we start in a right Mittelhut, fake a high blow with the outside flat, then drop it down to circle under his weapon towards our left side which will naturally end in a left Stier, then let the momentum circle the point above our head to come around as a strike with the inside flat to his arm. This is the same as the technique immediately above. The only difference is the other pauses briefly in a "Krump" position and then cuts forward. This one passes thru that "Krump" position and swings around in a circle above your head to strike downward with the flat.

Let's see what this one looks like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwfGQ2Zc ... AAAAAAAEAA



So there you have my interpretation. The Rose does not happen as part of the bind. You do not maintain contact with the opponent's sword when doing the Rose. The Rose is a circular motion that begins by traveling downwards before going upwards. It ends in a position that is similar to a right Middle Guard, whether that position is used to parry the opponent off-line, to set up the follow on strike to the head, or is itself a strike. So then how does this fit with Meyer's note that this is called the "Rose" because it resembles the shape of a Rose? Take a look at that link to the heraldric rose again. It is essentially a circle with notches that go inward to separate the circle into petals. The circling motion of the Rose represents the round portion of the emblem, and the "Krump" motion at the end represents one of those notches. I know its not perfect, but that's the best I could do in making sense out of Meyer's comment.

Looking forward to any comments!

[Jeremiah Smith]

excellent.
seems like a reasonable interpretation to me.
I cant wait to try it this week

[Keith P. Myers]

excellent.
seems like a reasonable interpretation to me.
I cant wait to try it this week

Please do and let us know how it goes!

[Robert R.]

Great stuff!

I don't think Meyer mentions the Rose once in his rapier section, but what works with the dusack should work with the rapier (to an extent). So, as I work towards a better understanding of his rapier, I'd love to try this out.

[Keith P. Myers]

Great stuff!

I don't think Meyer mentions the Rose once in his rapier section, but what works with the dusack should work with the rapier (to an extent). So, as I work towards a better understanding of his rapier, I'd love to try this out.

He mentions it only once with the Rappier:

2.64r.3: with the Rappier, thrust to his face from a right Ochs, but turn your thrust up from below through the Rose to thrust under his hilt up at this belly as you take a broad step forward.

---Fake a high thrust, but then drop the point down and circle under his hilt to thrust to his belly on the other side. And guess what? This requires you to turn your hand over in the final thrust so that the short edge is aimed down.

[Francesco Lanza]

Keith asked me to copy this post from the Freyfechter forum. Here you go, Keith - notice I edited the text somewhat to further refine some interesting points.

My way of seeing it is pretty similar to mr. Tsay's as you have no doubt read elsewhere, and I'd say that this form of binding from below works surprisingly well, and fits all of the devices except from that brief devilish phrase about "ending up in a position which is almost like the starting mittelhut" -and is also pretty common in the images. I won't repeat myself too much, but I ended up interpreting it as "the sword does a complete 360° turn and ends up in the same position as it started" - not your arms and your arms and body, of course. I am the first to say it can be seen as a bit strained, but it fits so perfectly with the wording and what you do that I still find it very, very compelling. And also, pretty efficient too in what Meyer defines as the advantage of learning the Rose from the Mittelhut: it can't be taught in a better way from any other guard. The way you overturn the sword from a left mittelhut over the enemy blade makes you develop a great fuhlen for it.

Also, it feels strange to consider a mittelhut on the right: the text in the dusack section and the table in the drawings all speak pretty loudly of a left side mittelhut. I read there is a right side mittelhut in the dusack section somewhere, but I never went hunting for it. Whatever it is, it looks like the right side mittelhut is not much considered by Meyer, and he himself speaks about going in the dusack section and do it exactly as described with two hands instead of one alone. It seems to me a bit strange to go fishing for such a limit case. Also, why do you feel that this way "it can't be fittingly taught from any other guard"? Why would it be different from a Tag or Ochs or Wechsel? Meyer felt forced to explain the Rosen in this guard for some reason.

That said, I like what you do, for all I have just written - it is not so vastly different from the binding version, you end up hitting the opponent in the exact same way, and also defending from the enemy's counter-strike in the same manner - and finally it is familiar from other portions of the book: All in all your way is pretty similar both to a [durch]wechsel or to a running off/ablauffen. Have you considered leaving the bind or circling the sword short edge down, in a corkscrew clockwise motion?

As you say, this is not very different from a cavazione or other disengage in later swordmanship, and as such it allows the langort-toting opponent a tempo to hit you in. Why do you feel that Meyer would not address the issue more? Doing the bind version keeps you better protected, I think -at least in my experience, the binding version is pretty safe.

[Keith P. Myers]

Hey Francesco!

---Thanks for moving things over!

My way of seeing it is pretty similar to mr. Tsay's as you have no doubt read elsewhere, and I'd say that this form of binding from below works surprisingly well, and fits all of the devices

---I think the Rose is the circular motion that goes under the opponent's weapon. So if you start in the bind and keep that circle as tight as possible, you will remain in the bind as Jeff shows in his videos. That is a perfectly valid variation on Example 3 and maybe Example 2. But what about Example 1? Meyer has us starting from the Mittelhut, not from the bind. And what about Examples 4 & 5? Meyer has us stepping out of the bind completely.

except from that brief devilish phrase about "ending up in a position which is almost like the starting mittelhut" -and is also pretty common in the images. I won't repeat myself too much, but I ended up interpreting it as "the sword does a complete 360° turn and ends up in the same position as it started" - not your arms and your arms and body, of course.

---Meyer first describes the Rose as an action from Mittelhut, and says to "send your blade in a circle around his blade so that your blade comes almost back to your initial guard." The initial guard being the Mittelhut. That sounds pretty straight forward to me.

Also, why do you feel that this way "it can't be fittingly taught from any other guard"? Why would it be different from a Tag or Ochs or Wechsel? Meyer felt forced to explain the Rosen in this guard for some reason.

---I don't think it matters what guard you start in. What matters is the position at the end. This is what defines the motion as the Rose, from what I can tell. Meyer starts his instruction in the Mittelhut because the ending position he wants us to obtain is so similar to the MIttelhut position. So starting from the Mittelhut position is the most straight-forward way to teach it.


Also, it feels strange to consider a mittelhut on the right: the text in the dusack section and the table in the drawings all speak pretty loudly of a left side mittelhut. I read there is a right side mittelhut in the dusack section somewhere, but I never went hunting for it. Whatever it is, it looks like the right side mittelhut is not much considered by Meyer, and he himself speaks about going in the dusack section and do it exactly as described with two hands instead of one alone. It seems to me a bit strange to go fishing for such a limit case.

---I agree. The Mittelhut on the other side is somewhat awkward and Meyer doesn't really use it. I just showed it that way so everything would be consistent and people could clearly see that my interpretation works for either side.

Have you considered leaving the bind or circling the sword short edge down, in a corkscrew clockwise motion?

---I'm not sure what you mean?

As you say, this is not very different from a cavazione or other disengage in later swordmanship, and as such it allows the langort-toting opponent a tempo to hit you in. Why do you feel that Meyer would not address the issue more? Doing the bind version keeps you better protected, I think -at least in my experience, the binding version is pretty safe.

---Of course, if your opponent is about to thrust anyway and your timing is off, you may be in trouble! But timed properly, I think the motion is fast enough and you are stepping off the line of his point. By the time he registers what is happening and responds with a thrust, you should already be to the other side and past his point. Example 1 would defnitely be the riskiest of the 5 to pull off. You wouldn't do it while the opponent is standing prepared and just waiting for your next move. There would have to be some kind of set up.

[Jeffrey Hull]

I would honestly like to know this:

Do Rose / Rosen ever get more broadly applied to some sort of segno-like roundabout striking of the foe's bodily targets, i.e. applying some kind of pentangle thus rose pattern to a series of sword-strikes?

[Keith P. Myers]

Hi Jeffrey!

I would honestly like to know this:

Do Rose / Rosen ever get more broadly applied to some sort of segno-like roundabout striking of the foe's bodily targets, i.e. applying some kind of pentangle thus rose pattern to a series of sword-strikes?

Doesn't Example 2, and its variation from the other side, come close to that?