Breaking Guards

[Michael Chidester]

I don't think we're going to agree about this one, Christian. I've considered your arguments here in the past and don't find them convincing, as you clearly aren't swayed by mine. Striking to the hands as you advocate is tantamount to handing the opponent control of your sword by offering to bind your weak against his strong. He needs not abandon his guard or otherwise move beyond retracting his blade slightly in order to defend himself, because you're striking to an opening that he has already closed. That's the reason why I've never been satisfied with my Krump interpretation in the past, which matched the one you're advocating. Striking along the line Bill has described with the intention of binding middle to strong, on the other hand, offers you a very dominant position as well as an immediate Mutieren to his opening.

Additionally, it seems to me that if the anonymous commentator had intended us to strike at the hands in that play, he would have said as much, the way he does in the play immediately thereafter. That's sometimes an absurd expectation in Medieval texts, but not always, and not demonstrably so in this case.

We may have to agree to disagree, unless you have another argument you haven't trotted out yet.

I'm also convinced the plates are, in some cases, just grossly wrong. Look at the one for cutting a Zwerch under his to his neck. The Glasgow illustration makes sense; the one in Goliath doesn't even show a Zwerch and is a great way to achieve a double-kill!

To which image are you referring? There are a few different Zwerch plays that target the neck.

And speaking of the Zwerch, that's another discussion I've been meaning to have, in keeping with my current trend of questioning everything I thought I knew.

[Bill Grandy]

Striking to the hands as you advocate is tantamount to handing the opponent control of your sword by offering to bind your weak against his strong. He needs not abandon his guard or otherwise move beyond retracting his blade slightly in order to defend himself, because you're striking to an opening that he has already closed.

That isn't quite true... the line to the hands is not only open with the krump, but even if you strike the strong of the blade, you are creating a superiour angle. To paraphrase Fabris here, the sword is always strongest to the side it points, and creating this angle causes one's sword to naturally move to the weak of the opponent's (assuming you are using a nice strong krump).

That's the reason why I've never been satisfied with my Krump interpretation in the past, which matched the one you're advocating. Striking along the line Bill has described with the intention of binding middle to strong, on the other hand, offers you a very dominant position as well as an immediate Mutieren to his opening.

I apparently am doing the same krump as Bill (or at least something very similar), and have no problems hitting the hands in most cases.

Additionally, it seems to me that if the anonymous commentator had intended us to strike at the hands in that play, he would have said as much, the way he does in the play immediately thereafter.

*shrug* To me it seems clear that the text says to strike the hands.

[Christian H. Tobler]

Hi Michael,

I don't think we're going to agree about this one, Christian. I've considered your arguments here in the past and don't find them convincing, as you clearly aren't swayed by mine. Striking to the hands as you advocate is tantamount to handing the opponent control of your sword by offering to bind your weak against his strong. He needs not abandon his guard or otherwise move beyond retracting his blade slightly in order to defend himself, because you're striking to an opening that he has already closed. That's the reason why I've never been satisfied with my Krump interpretation in the past, which matched the one you're advocating. Striking along the line Bill has described with the intention of binding middle to strong, on the other hand, offers you a very dominant position as well as an immediate Mutieren to his opening.

This is likely to be my last post on this subject. And, indeed, we needn't agree on this.

It's not attacking a closed opening - it's quite the opposite. You're attacking what seems to be a closed opening by changing the angle of attack, thereby making the opponent open.

If I hit your hands, we're done. If you retract - excellent!! That brings me to the changing through play - I drop my point (which is the only part of the sword invested: "throw the Point on the hands") under your sword and thrust. There's a reason both plays for breaking Ochs are included. Your only safe response is to retract the hands, thereby harmlessly moving your sword away from me, rather than toward, and this sets up the changing through beneath.

It seems to me that you're trying to bend the text to your will because you're having trouble making a technique work. The text clearly says to hit the hands, no matter what we'd like it to say. The texts simply don't say to bind, which would be a straightforward enough thing for them to say, were this the intent. If you can find the word 'bind' in the texts for breaking Ochs, save for the messer work, I'll be swayed. Until then, it just seems to me that you're "rolling your own" because of some problem in execution of the what the text advocates.

As with all science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This isn't *my* interpretation: it's the one that 95% of researchers have reached, including native-speaking Germans. Since your scepticism is based on questioning fundamental interpretions of German words meaning "on", "over", and "above", I really think you need to re-think this. I do not say this condescendingly - I just don't know how to approach the question any further with you at this point...though I'm sure I could make the point clearer in person, rather than with online words.

All the best,

Christian

[Christian H. Tobler]

Additionally, it seems to me that if the anonymous commentator had intended us to strike at the hands in that play, he would have said as much, the way he does in the play immediately thereafter. That's sometimes an absurd expectation in Medieval texts, but not always, and not demonstrably so in this case.

Oops! Missed something...

I've already demonstrated that your argument about 'over the hands' implying some ambiguity is a non-sequitor. The text is saying to hit the hands, just as "hitting over the head" is not open for argument where that is used.

I'm sure that if I tell just about anyone to "hit someone over the head" or "hit them over the hands" that they're just not going to be confused by that.

Cheers!

CHT