So, does shaytel breaks alber?

Open to public view.

Postby Bill Grandy » 24 Nov 2007 06:42

Anders Linnard wrote:First of VD is not Ringeck, so lets not mix them.


The original question wasn't about Ringeck, though, it was about the strike breaking alber. Either way, I still don't see it that way: I think Ringeck, based on the text, is saying the exact same thing. *shrug* But hey, until that time machine gets invented, I guess we won't know.

I believe he does this because he was aware of the fact that your opponent has an open line.


I disagree. It'd be an open line if my hands are low... but with them high, the distance negates this. Just as you don't have an open line to the torso if you are out of distance, you don't have an open line to the arms if they are held high. And if your opponent is attempting to clear that much distance, it is not too hard to use the follow ups that the masters gave us.

And a technique that is not closing a line, but simply relies on out timing the opponent, is not safe.


It isn't about merely out-timing an opponent. See above.

As a matter of fact I see very little reason whatsoever to skip half of the original text, mainly because that is how it is done in other manuscripts, or even worse, how some interpreters think the technique should be done.


Who said anything about skipping half the text? If you hit the guy, you don't have to do the rest. If you don't, then proceed to the next part. I haven't seen anyone on this thread saying anything else.

Anyhoo, at the end, we all seem to do sheitel in fairly the same way to start with, it's just that we end up differently.


I don't think that's true. I think we're just putting the emphasis in a different place. In my opinion it'd be pointless to do the scheitel if it weren't intended to hit in the vorschlag, but I also agree that if it doesn't, then you simply modify the original technique (aka following the rest of the techniques).

in the end disagree more in theory than in practise.


I tend to agree.

Claus Sørensen wrote:And that could just as easily be an example of überlaufen. Meaning that it could be the moving into alber / breaking alber interpretation. Do you have som text to go with it?


Afraid I don't.
[url=http://www.vafinc.com/programs/hist.htm]Virginia Academy of Fencing Historical Swordsmanship
--German Longsword & Italian Rapier in the DC Area--[/url]
Bill Grandy
Corporal
 
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Oct 2007 04:34
Location: Alexandria, VA USA

Postby Anders Linnard » 24 Nov 2007 11:59

"The original question wasn't about Ringeck, though, it was about the strike breaking alber. Either way, I still don't see it that way: I think Ringeck, based on the text, is saying the exact same thing. *shrug* But hey, until that time machine gets invented, I guess we won't know."

Actually, we do know the texts aren't the same. So if people "think" they are the same is of little consequence. Now if you interpret them the same way, that's fine. But the fact remains that Ringeck's text has been translated wrongly and saying that they are the same, you need to have something more to back that up rather than just an opinion.

The reason this discussion came up was based on a question relating back to previous discussions. And I remain you should not mix manuscripts and treat them as one.

"I disagree. It'd be an open line if my hands are low... but with them high, the distance negates this."

Actually the distance negates absolutely nothing. The line is not closed, since there is nothing between the opponents sword and your body. It is open. And a very simple field test can show anyone that the distance is not negated at all and that the hands a very much viable targets.

"It isn't about merely out-timing an opponent. See above."

Well, yes it is. Since distance equals time. You do not close the line and you make it sound like you have plenty of time. Well, even in the best of circumstances you do not. The time it takes to fall backwards and raise you hands is, even from your point of view, cannot be all _that_much different from stepping forward and lowering them?

As a matter of fact I see very little reason whatsoever to skip half of the original text, mainly because that is how it is done in other manuscripts, or even worse, how some interpreters think the technique should be done.


"Who said anything about skipping half the text? If you hit the guy, you don't have to do the rest. If you don't, then proceed to the next part. I haven't seen anyone on this thread saying anything else."

I was talking about the translations and the reasons for the misconceptions regarding the breaking of Alber. Ringeck does not separate the text in two, like he does with the follow ups. This is one sequence of text, describing how to break the Alber. Nowhere does it say that you hit with the first strike. It doesn't follow the usual pattern in those cases, where Ringeck states: If he breaks this, then do this. Because that comes later. If you fail with the thrust. THen he says how to do the follow up. So sequencing the text after your own heart proves absolutely nothing.

Anyhoo, at the end, we all seem to do sheitel in fairly the same way to start with, it's just that we end up differently.


"I don't think that's true. I think we're just putting the emphasis in a different place. In my opinion it'd be pointless to do the scheitel if it weren't intended to hit in the vorschlag, but I also agree that if it doesn't, then you simply modify the original technique (aka following the rest of the techniques)."

I try to hit the opponent with the first strike as well, that is what threatening means. But that is beside the point.

/Anders
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

Postby Bill Grandy » 25 Nov 2007 05:14

Anders Linnard wrote:Actually, we do know the texts aren't the same. So if people "think" they are the same is of little consequence. Now if you interpret them the same way, that's fine. But the fact remains that Ringeck's text has been translated wrongly and saying that they are the same, you need to have something more to back that up rather than just an opinion.


I don't know if I'm reading your intent wrongly or not, but you sound pretty touchy about this. All I said is that I think Ringeck is describing the technique the same as von Danzig, not that the text is exactly the same. In other words, I interprate them to mean the same thing. It has nothing to do with an implied "other people", whatever that's about. If I tell you to go to the store to pick up some milk, or I tell you to drive to the store, I'm still telling you to do the same thing, even though "go" and "drive" aren't the same word, nor do they mean the same thing in every context.

The reason this discussion came up was based on a question relating back to previous discussions. And I remain you should not mix manuscripts and treat them as one.


First, I don't know anything about previous discussions. The question was about the scheitelhau breaking alber. I addressed that with my original post, and you started responding to my post about Ringeck. I never even mentioned Ringeck before that: You did. You were also the one who made the point about separating Ringeck and von Danzig, even though you were the one talking about Ringeck. I may disagree with the idea that Ringeck and von Danzig are completely different, but I never made a big deal about it. It sounds like you're reading things into my posts that aren't there.

Actually the distance negates absolutely nothing. The line is not closed, since there is nothing between the opponents sword and your body. It is open. And a very simple field test can show anyone that the distance is not negated at all and that the hands a very much viable targets.


*shrug* Well, based on your experiences, you think this interpretation is invalid. Based on mine, I find it quite valid. Discussing it via the internet doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.

The time it takes to fall backwards and raise you hands is, even from your point of view, cannot be all _that_much different from stepping forward and lowering them?


And if you step back and lift the arms, I'll change my initial strike... just as I do when a person does this against *any* of my attacks. If I don't, I'll lose. Why is this such a surprise? That's the same with EVERYTHING, not just the scheitelhau.

I was talking about the translations and the reasons for the misconceptions regarding the breaking of Alber. Ringeck does not separate the text in two, like he does with the follow ups. This is one sequence of text, describing how to break the Alber. Nowhere does it say that you hit with the first strike. It doesn't follow the usual pattern in those cases, where Ringeck states: If he breaks this, then do this. Because that comes later. If you fail with the thrust. THen he says how to do the follow up. So sequencing the text after your own heart proves absolutely nothing.


Well, based on my translation (which I'll confess, I'm not so great at translating), and based on discussions with native German speakers, I personally think you're making something simple into something complicated. But hey, once again, we'll never know without asking the masters themselves.

I try to hit the opponent with the first strike as well, that is what threatening means. But that is beside the point.


Actually, I thought that was the point. ;) Isn't that what this thread is about?
[url=http://www.vafinc.com/programs/hist.htm]Virginia Academy of Fencing Historical Swordsmanship
--German Longsword & Italian Rapier in the DC Area--[/url]
Bill Grandy
Corporal
 
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Oct 2007 04:34
Location: Alexandria, VA USA

Postby Anders Linnard » 25 Nov 2007 11:09

Bill, I am not touchy, so you are reading me wrong. But this is going nowhere.

I discuss Ringeck, because that is what I study. If you're discussing something else, then don't transfer that material to other sources. That's my point.

The reason I may sound harsh is that some things are not even debatable, simply because they are facts. So please refrain from using unnamed native German speakers as a reference. It seems like that is something extraordinary in the US, but to be honest, they live just next door to us.

What I am trying to say is that it is not a matter of opinion that the text says what it says. But if you feel like it, please post your translation of this segment here. Then you can actually defend your work with more than just references.

Kind regards,
Anders
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

Postby Bill Grandy » 25 Nov 2007 18:46

Anders Linnard wrote:Bill, I am not touchy, so you are reading me wrong.


Then I apologize. Internet isn't the best medium for this type of discussion.

I discuss Ringeck, because that is what I study. If you're discussing something else, then don't transfer that material to other sources.


Anders, I never even brought up Ringeck until you did. The original post never did, either. You brought him up. And when I discussed the scheitelhau, you brought up Ringeck. And when I brought up von Danzig, you're the one who said I shouldn't mix sources, even though I wasn't: I was talking about von Danzig. Whether I interpret the sources to say similar things or not has nothing to do with it: I just answered the original question about the scheitelhau, and I happened to use von Danzig... because the schietelhau is in von Danzig. Why do you keep going on about this? You are the only one who is.

The reason I may sound harsh is that some things are not even debatable, simply because they are facts.


I'm sorry you feel that way.

So please refrain from using unnamed native German speakers as a reference. It seems like that is something extraordinary in the US, but to be honest, they live just next door to us.


1. I didn't make a big deal of German researchers, you did. I'm just saying not everyone agrees with you. Such is life, not everyone agrees with me either. I'm not about to start listing people who aren't part of this discussion just to say, "My sources are better than yours."

2. I don't know what the country where I currently reside has to do with anything on this thread. If you've got some issues with people who happen to live in the same country as me (and it's a big country), then take it out with them. I'm just some guy with an internet connection.

What I am trying to say is that it is not a matter of opinion that the text says what it says. But if you feel like it, please post your translation of this segment here. Then you can actually defend your work with more than just references.


Defend my work? More than just references? Jeeze. Now I REALLY think you're reading into more than what I'm actually saying. I feel like you think I have some sort of agenda here other than talking about the scheitelhau. I didn't realize I needed citations just to discuss something that I didn't even seen a big disagreement about. I don't even know who you are, so I have no reason to have some sort of agenda against you and your teachings. I just responded to the original post, and you started responding to me. So I replied back. I even said that physically we are doing similar things, but that our emphasis was quite different. But if it's that big of a deal to you, then here's my [admittedly poor] translation:

"If he is in the guard of the fool, strike with the long edge vertically downward, and with the strike keep the arms up high and hang the point to his face."
[url=http://www.vafinc.com/programs/hist.htm]Virginia Academy of Fencing Historical Swordsmanship
--German Longsword & Italian Rapier in the DC Area--[/url]
Bill Grandy
Corporal
 
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Oct 2007 04:34
Location: Alexandria, VA USA

Postby Lord_Nelle » 25 Nov 2007 19:22

If it breaks or not is not so much a question of blow versus a guard, as of fighter vs a fighter.

I often use alber to lure my opponent to strike an sheitler, I then close and grapple or somethiing like that. That works because I leave an opening as a lure..

I would never attack with a shetiel vs an opponent that stands in alber. If he has done some reading he knows that the sheitel is coming and is prepared for it.

To effectivly use sheitel vs alber it should be used when the opponent changes guard. When he steps into alber, then the sheitel explodes out. The extra speed and reach gained by the sheitler is what brings the prize.
Anders "Nelle" Nilsson, Instructor Angermanna Mnhfs
I don´t get mad, I get stabby
User avatar
Lord_Nelle
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 277
Joined: 10 May 2007 12:06
Location: The north of Sweden

Postby Jose SP » 25 Nov 2007 19:51

Lord_Nelle wrote:To effectivly use sheitel vs alber it should be used when the opponent changes guard. When he steps into alber, then the sheitel explodes out. The extra speed and reach gained by the sheitler is what brings the prize.


While I mostly agree on this and it totally makes sence, it's not really what the sources are saying. It is not supported anywhere, afaik. What is supported by some manuscripts, is that it does breaks alber from a stationary position.
And, after all: What do you do if your opponent is waiting for you in alber, if not a shaytel?
KHFS Sweden
User avatar
Jose SP
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 538
Joined: 09 Nov 2007 01:16

Postby Lord_Nelle » 25 Nov 2007 20:09

While I mostly agree on this and it totally makes sence, it's not really what the sources are saying. It is not supported anywhere, afaik. What is supported by some manuscripts, is that it does breaks alber from a stationary position.
And, after all: What do you do if your opponent is waiting for you in alber, if not a shaytel?


Döbringer talks about it.
"On Motion/Movement!
Motion/movement [Motus], note that word well, it is to the fencing a heart and a crown, it is the very matter of fencing. All that it contains and all the fundamentals will be mentioned by name and made well understood hereafter. When you fence with another, then in this you are well taught, and remain fast in movement, and do not tarry when he starts to fence with you. Then make without limit and end that which is skillfull. Be quick and steady without faltering, at once so that he cannot strike. That is fortunate and he will be hurt, when he cannot strike away, as the other cannot part without being beaten. And after the teaching that is here described, I say truly, that the other cannot defend without danger. If you have understood this he will not come to strikes. Here note that constant motion [Frequens motus] holds the beginning, middle and the end of all fencing according to this art and teaching. That is you should quickly do the beginning, the middle and the end without delay and without any hindrances from the opponent and not letting him strike at you. That concept comes from the two words before [Vor] and after [Nach], that is the first strike [Vorschlag] and the after strike [Nachschlag], in the middle"

He talks about constant motion. It would be quite strange if he first says that constant motion is important an then starts with static guards. Movemant has and will always be a key in all fighting. If you stand still you´re a target.

If my opponent is waiting in alber, I don´t even have to attack him. I can stand a bit away and make faces or something like that, forcing him to move. If he want´s to play the waiting game, I can also wait. When he moves, I strike.
Anders "Nelle" Nilsson, Instructor Angermanna Mnhfs
I don´t get mad, I get stabby
User avatar
Lord_Nelle
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 277
Joined: 10 May 2007 12:06
Location: The north of Sweden

Postby Anders Linnard » 25 Nov 2007 20:27

Bill,
I am sorry to have to be brief. Simply too little time. Which at times might make me cut to the chase without the politeness that online discussions require if you intend to not insult people.

I am talking about Ringeck, but the reference was regarding the view that the technique is the same as, without explaining how you can come to that conclusion. You can interpret whatever master you like, any way you like. But I don't accept an argument simply because you say that it is your opinion (that it is the same in RIngeck as in VD). I need you to show me evidence. And those were the facts I talked about.

I brought Ringeck in because I feel it is important to say what you are interpreting, otherwise we will be using one interpretation for a fencing tradition that was alive, including many different masters and fencers.

"1. I didn't make a big deal of German researchers, you did. I'm just saying not everyone agrees with you. Such is life, not everyone agrees with me either. I'm not about to start listing people who aren't part of this discussion just to say, "My sources are better than yours.""

Good that you feel that way. Since that is my position as well, I felt the comment lacked substance and called it. Simple as that.

"Defend my work? More than just references?"
"If he is in the guard of the fool, strike with the long edge vertically downward, and with the strike keep the arms up high and hang the point to his face."[/quote]

Good, thank you. That was all that I wanted, defended might have been the wrong choice of words.

If you would have made a literal translation, would it look similar? Since you have missed the "_von_ der langesschayttlen", oben nyder.

I do not understand why you would skip those parts. They do not fit your interpretation, so it is obviously convenient. But it makes little sense from a translation point of view.

Hie merck: der schaytler ist dem antlytz vnd der brust gefaerlich. Den tryb also: wen er gen dir stat jn der hut aulber, so haw mit der langen schnyde von der langeschayttlen oben nyder; vnd belyb mit dem haw hoch mit den armen, vnd heng jm mit dem ort ein zu dem gesychte.

As I see it you are doing an interpretation because you think the text shows a cut. But the text isn't saying that. It is telling you how to break Alber. So you may well be right about what the sheitel looks like, and if you are, I would be thrilled, because we probably perform Sheitel the same way. But I do not believe you are right regarding how to break Alber, because in that specific case the text goes a bit further.

/ANders
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

Postby Bill Grandy » 25 Nov 2007 20:58

Anders Linnard wrote:Bill,
I am sorry to have to be brief. Simply too little time. Which at times might make me cut to the chase without the politeness that online discussions require if you intend to not insult people.


Fair enough. Perhaps it's me who's reading into things, then. :)


If you would have made a literal translation, would it look similar? Since you have missed the "_von_ der langesschayttlen", oben nyder.


Hmmm... strange... the transcription I have doesn't have that part in there... :shock: I just looked at the transcription on the Die Freifechter page to double check that my transcription is missing this part. Perhaps this is why many people skip this? I'm bothered by this. I have to thank you for pointing this out to me.

As I see it you are doing an interpretation because you think the text shows a cut. But the text isn't saying that. It is telling you how to break Alber. So you may well be right about what the sheitel looks like, and if you are, I would be thrilled, because we probably perform Sheitel the same way. But I do not believe you are right regarding how to break Alber, because in that specific case the text goes a bit further.


I'm still not convinced that these extra words imply much more than what we've talked about already. I still hold that you're not intending to change the initial strike... you're intending to hit on the initial alber (and it doesn't have to be a cut, it can easily be a thrust to the face, or chest if the person backs up) in Ringeck (regardless of what other masters say). And you change based on whether your opponent reacts. Again, I don't think we're worlds apart in how we physically perform the action, I just think we place our emphasis differently.
[url=http://www.vafinc.com/programs/hist.htm]Virginia Academy of Fencing Historical Swordsmanship
--German Longsword & Italian Rapier in the DC Area--[/url]
Bill Grandy
Corporal
 
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Oct 2007 04:34
Location: Alexandria, VA USA

Postby Jose SP » 25 Nov 2007 21:54

Lord_Nelle wrote:
While I mostly agree on this and it totally makes sence, it's not really what the sources are saying. It is not supported anywhere, afaik. What is supported by some manuscripts, is that it does breaks alber from a stationary position.
And, after all: What do you do if your opponent is waiting for you in alber, if not a shaytel?


Döbringer talks about it.
"On Motion/Movement!
Motion/movement [Motus], note that word well, it is to the fencing a heart and a crown, it is the very matter of fencing. All that it contains and all the fundamentals will be mentioned by name and made well understood hereafter. When you fence with another, then in this you are well taught, and remain fast in movement, and do not tarry when he starts to fence with you. Then make without limit and end that which is skillfull. Be quick and steady without faltering, at once so that he cannot strike. That is fortunate and he will be hurt, when he cannot strike away, as the other cannot part without being beaten. And after the teaching that is here described, I say truly, that the other cannot defend without danger. If you have understood this he will not come to strikes. Here note that constant motion [Frequens motus] holds the beginning, middle and the end of all fencing according to this art and teaching. That is you should quickly do the beginning, the middle and the end without delay and without any hindrances from the opponent and not letting him strike at you. That concept comes from the two words before [Vor] and after [Nach], that is the first strike [Vorschlag] and the after strike [Nachschlag], in the middle"

He talks about constant motion. It would be quite strange if he first says that constant motion is important an then starts with static guards. Movemant has and will always be a key in all fighting. If you stand still you´re a target.

If my opponent is waiting in alber, I don´t even have to attack him. I can stand a bit away and make faces or something like that, forcing him to move. If he want´s to play the waiting game, I can also wait. When he moves, I strike.


Yeah, well, what if the other guy isn't a Liechtenauer fencer? Maybe he's an evil italian or something *cough* :lol:. And if you are attacking him? If you are supposed to attack, as in a duel? Or an assault or whatever. Do you really think that Leichtenauers advice is to just wait him out? It doesn't makes any sence to me. In sparring maybe.
Specially as I'm reading that what you should do is to strike a shaytel, that's from another source (Goliath). So yeah, you should always move and that's a wise advice, since if you stand in i.e. alber and waits, the opponent does a shaytelhau. And I do think that's very possible, even if the other guy is waiting for it.
So, I think what you says is the ideal, but I also think that in a real (medieval) situation, you need to have solutions for all possibilities.

On a different issue. The upwards cut we are talking about, from alber. It's a shit cut, at least when I look at one of my swords (Albion Talhoffer). The tip is simply not sharp so it wouldn't hurt much (if anything). It can thust, sure. I have a sword with a wide tip that could be hurt the hands with a raising cut, but it's too slow to be relied upon to do that. Have anyone tried to test cut from alber with the false edge tip?
KHFS Sweden
User avatar
Jose SP
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 538
Joined: 09 Nov 2007 01:16

Postby Lord_Nelle » 25 Nov 2007 22:18

Jose SP wrote:Yeah, well, what if the other guy isn't a Liechtenauer fencer? Maybe he's an evil italian or something *cough* :lol:. And if you are attacking him? If you are supposed to attack, as in a duel? Or an assault or whatever. Do you really think that Leichtenauers advice is to just wait him out? It doesn't makes any sence to me. In sparring maybe.
Specially as I'm reading that what you should do is to strike a shaytel, that's from another source (Goliath). So yeah, you should always move and that's a wise advice, since if you stand in i.e. alber and waits, the opponent does a shaytelhau. And I do think that's very possible, even if the other guy is waiting for it.
So, I think what you says is the ideal, but I also think that in a real (medieval) situation, you need to have solutions for all possibilities.

On a different issue. The upwards cut we are talking about, from alber. It's a shit cut, at least when I look at one of my swords (Albion Talhoffer). The tip is simply not sharp so it wouldn't hurt much (if anything). It can thust, sure. I have a sword with a wide tip that could be hurt the hands with a raising cut, but it's too slow to be relied upon to do that. Have anyone tried to test cut from alber with the false edge tip?



Döbringer has an answer to that also.
"Do not strike at the sword, but always to the openings, to the head, the body if you whish to remain unharmed. If you hit or miss, always search for the openings, in all teachings turn the point to the openings. He who strikes widely around, he will often become seriously shamed. Always strike and thrust at the closest openings. "

Always strike at the closest opening. If he is in Alber and doesn´t move, I´ll go for the hands.
If I´m in Alber and he is closing, I´ll go for his hands.
I havn´t tried the rising cut with sharps. I have though got some with blunts on my hands. I´ve got a severed nerve in my right thumb from such a hit, so with a sharp, I´ll think it works.
Anders "Nelle" Nilsson, Instructor Angermanna Mnhfs
I don´t get mad, I get stabby
User avatar
Lord_Nelle
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 277
Joined: 10 May 2007 12:06
Location: The north of Sweden

Postby Jose SP » 25 Nov 2007 22:40

Isn't that the whole point, that the head is the closest opening?
The hands are certainly not closer, if he's in alber and you in vom tag. Your sword tip is closer to his head, I mean.

According to swords, I guess there are different kind of swords. But, to get hit hard doesn't mean it'll cut. With the sword I mentioned, I could easily hit the fingers with the tip, bruise them, or even break "lille vicke vire" with it, even through gloves, but I doubt it'll cut. I would just be annoying if I hitted the wrists with it. Anyway, my point, that i forgot to mention :roll: was that maybe such I cut wasn't considered a real threat, and thereby they ignored it? I wish I had some tamami mats lying around...
KHFS Sweden
User avatar
Jose SP
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 538
Joined: 09 Nov 2007 01:16

Postby Lord_Nelle » 25 Nov 2007 23:29

Jose SP wrote:Isn't that the whole point, that the head is the closest opening?
The hands are certainly not closer, if he's in alber and you in vom tag. Your sword tip is closer to his head, I mean.

According to swords, I guess there are different kind of swords. But, to get hit hard doesn't mean it'll cut. With the sword I mentioned, I could easily hit the fingers with the tip, bruise them, or even break "lille vicke vire" with it, even through gloves, but I doubt it'll cut. I would just be annoying if I hitted the wrists with it. Anyway, my point, that i forgot to mention :roll: was that maybe such I cut wasn't considered a real threat, and thereby they ignored it? I wish I had some tamami mats lying around...


If the opponent is standing in Alber and waiting for the shaytel, I´ll go for the hands, about the same distance and safer. If he is changing guard to Alber, I´ll go for the shaytel. You need that split second to make the schaytel work. At least thats my interpretation, based on Döbringer and Ringeck.

As to attack the hands. There are lots of plates both with longsword, messer, singlehanded, halfsword etc that shows attacks to the hands. I would say that they are a valid target. Even if your sword doesn´t cut, you still hurt him and gain the time you need to kill him.
Anders "Nelle" Nilsson, Instructor Angermanna Mnhfs
I don´t get mad, I get stabby
User avatar
Lord_Nelle
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 277
Joined: 10 May 2007 12:06
Location: The north of Sweden

Postby Jose SP » 26 Nov 2007 00:01

The head and hands are (roughly) at the same distance, if you draw a straight line. But, from vom tag, the sword is not going move ike that, it's moving in an arc. No matter how you put it, you will reach the head faster than the hands, as your point have to pass the angle the head is at before you reach the hands.
I don't see how Döbringer and Ringeck says anywhere that you should attack the hands if he's waiting in alber. They do say that you should go for the upper openings rather than the lower ones.
While the hands is indeed a safer target, it's also slower and easier for him to deflect by just moving his hands into a lower hengen. It's harder (slower) for the opponent to move into cron from alber (or to cut the hands).
About hand cuts, I meant the specific cut from alber by raising your hands as you take a step back and hit the opponent with you false edge tip. I don't think it' much of a threat.
KHFS Sweden
User avatar
Jose SP
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 538
Joined: 09 Nov 2007 01:16

Postby Fab » 26 Nov 2007 00:31

Jose SP wrote:About hand cuts, I meant the specific cut from alber by raising your hands as you take a step back and hit the opponent with you false edge tip. I don't think it' much of a threat.


I think it might do enough damage. Don't forget the opponent's hands are moving too.

One of our group members owns an albion Talhoffer, I'll ask him to test-cut in a similar situation - the results will arrive next week maybe, if we can find time to work that out..
User avatar
Fab
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 7915
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 14:54
Location: Under the Hat of Awesomeness.

Postby Martin Wallgren » 26 Nov 2007 00:41

@Jose

By some cheap meat and test some different striks and cuts on it with your Talhoffer. Then judge how well a unterhaw from the Alber would work.

As for the Sheitelhaw against an Alber, it has worked for me both from the moving version as Nelle is talking about (and I fully suport him in his interpretation) and in a static Alber if one is fast enough. I think the trick is to keep the hands in roughly Face height at impact in the head of the opponent. This will mean that your hands are not on a colliding course with his sword and his time to react and reach your hands will be longer that your striking time. Then you have to follow up with a nachshlag or a versetzen and a trust/cut/strike because the sheitelhaw will probally not kill, but more confuse and hurt. Just like ti first part of a krumphaw is advisabel followed with a cut or strike to the upper left opening.

The reason I go for the interpretation Nelle has with the movement and non static Leger thing I base on two things. Döbringer says that Liechtenauer knew them and taought them but put stronger emphasis on the movement. The other thing is that Leger or Hut should not be translated int Guard because it is slightly misdirectional. As I interpret Guard it has a tone of defence and inmobility to it (could be my bad grasp of English leading me astray here), but Leger is close to modern Swedish Läge witch means Possition or moment thus not indicating a static stands. The word Hut (pronounsed Hoot) icould mean shack or small dwelling or something like that but it is also very close to medern Swedish Hot translated into English as Threat. Again not indicationg as static possitioning as Guard.

Also I don´t remeber ether Döbringer or Ringeck is saying anywhare that one should be static in the Leger or Hut, but I can be wrong.

Just my thought though!!
User avatar
Martin Wallgren
Major
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 12 May 2006 10:37
Location: Bjästa, Ö-vik, Sweden

Postby Fab » 26 Nov 2007 01:48

Martin Wallgren wrote:Leger is close to modern Swedish Läge witch means Possition


Oh. A bit like Posta, you mean ? ;)
User avatar
Fab
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 7915
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 14:54
Location: Under the Hat of Awesomeness.

Postby Jose SP » 26 Nov 2007 01:53

Fab: Thanks, it'll be interesting :)

Martin: I do agree on Nelles take on sheitel, it works to cut after, I just don't think it's the only scenario to strike a sheitelhau from, there's more. I also don't think that's what they meant with "breaking a guard / Hut / Leger.
Although I also agree on that waiting in alber isn't "Liechtenauerish", there's nothing saying that your opponent has studied Leichtenauer, as I wrote earlier, he could just as well be an, italian, or something else. In fact I think that, back then, there was a rather large chance that your opponent wasn't scholed in Liechtenauers teachings, specially around the time he was around. So one cannot dismiss static positions just like that, considering that other manuscripts did have static positions.
So, my idea is that the sheitel must come very quickly (the hands are fully outstreched around the moment you are halfway through with your right-foot step. You stop your cut in lang ort, and continue forward. You also must try to get as close as possible (as he is in such an inferior attack position, you should be able to get a lot closer than normal). If he changes guards / whatever, he's not in alber anymore and you have to do something else.

Arghh Internet sucks in all aspects for this kind of discussions (except it's always there..)
KHFS Sweden
User avatar
Jose SP
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 538
Joined: 09 Nov 2007 01:16

Postby Anders Linnard » 26 Nov 2007 08:40

Bill,
interesting that the transcriptions are different. I use two different ones and they both say "von".

I don't think we will get further in this discussion until we have a chance to meet and show eachother what we mean.

To Nelle, Martin, Jose etc:
Regarding the movement into the guards.

If it is easier and preferable to out time someone when he is moving into alber, why would Döbringer tell you to always keep moving? There is obviously need for breaking a static guard, which is what I believe the versetzen are according to RIngeck (but not necessarily all masters). Now, the question that is relevant here is just that. Explaining a passage by simply adding prerequisites like movement into it may turn the theory upside down. So although I agree that it is a good thing to travel after the opponent when he is moving into alber, I am unconvinced this is what RIngeck says.
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

PreviousNext

Return to Johannes Liechtenauer Lineage

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron