One-sentence Liechtenauer Meisterhau

[Dierk Hagedorn]

What are the main methods of countering hidden strikes?

All hidden strikes are coming from above? Would the natural answer to these strikes be strikes from below or the side (rising)?

Hi Colin,

yes, the five strikes come from above. No, I wouldn't counter them from below. Or rising from the side.
I do step off-line, however. Deeply off-line at times.
Why wouldn't I counter from below you might ask. Well, there's the principle of Überlaufen which roughly says that all attacks to the upper openings break those to the lower openings. So it would be a silly thing to answer an Oberhau with an Unterhau.

The counters as I would advise them, taking into consideration what was said earlier, that the hidden strikes are a follow-up technique already (this list is not complete):
Zornhau: I have to gain superior leverage and try to conquer my opponent with winden, duplieren etc.
Krumphau: Depends on where he aims. Rising the sword or winding up into an upper hanging might do the trick.
Twerhau: Strike a Twerhau to the other side myself or fall onto his sword with an immediate thrust. Or fall under his arms.
Schielhau: Tricky. Winding or retreating. Or advancing in order to wrestle.
Scheitelhau: Rise the hilt and wind to the opponent's face.

So all the counters are - more or less - Oberhaue again - or at least actions from above, but I have to use the "Fühlen am Schwert" (feeling on the sword) in order to be victorious.

All the best
Dierk

[Randall Pleasant]

All the hidden strikes are primarily used as defensive moves, counter strikes and therefore used in the Nach.

No, a master cut can both break a guard and counter what comes from that guard. For example, the Krump can in the Vor offensively break the Ochs guard and it can in the Nach defensively counter a thrust from Ochs. Also note that there are no conditions on when a guard can be broken, such as "when they are moving into the guard", "when they are moving out of the guard", etc.

[Colin Richards]

HI Dierk,

Thanks for your input, I am trying to see what the consensus is as I have other thoughts in this area.

I think of course that you can be in the vor with hidden strikes and of course a lot will be indes, but do people really believe that? Do I?

Just a point:
Your German seems to be so much better than mine.

Have you done it long? It will be great to see you at the instructors meeting!

All the best

Col

[Colin Richards]

Hi Dierk,

Cannot all oberhaus be beaten by a correctly timed unterhau?

If not why not?

Can we not answer a sheitelhau by a rising blow from alber?

I am asking questions to try and steer people to think of the hidden strike from another angle and to help my understanding and to see how Liberi would counter each one.

In that respect I am being a bit naughty.

All the best

Col

[Dierk Hagedorn]

In that respect I am being a bit naughty.

Oh yes, please be it. It is always a big asset to look at certain certainties [!] from another point of view. Helps a lot in re-evaluating, ascertaining or abandoning portions of one own's knowledge.

Well, a lot of the techniques depend - of course - on a number of things, timing for instance. Sure.

So: Yes. I can break a Scheitelhau with a rising blow from Alber. It happens. But it is not what I would teach as gospel truth. Precisely this example seems to lead to frequent "sniping" and might be considered as risky. For one's head. For one's blade.
Randall has put it very nicely when he stressed the importance of angles. So the important thing is not necessarily what might be a solution in a particular combat situation but what do I advise people to do - and to train. To remain with the example: I'd rather counter a Scheitelhau with a Twerhau than with an Unterhau. The first puts me (and my sword) in a favourable position: If done correctly I hit the flat of his blade with my edge, thus gaining superior leverage. Everything else is only secondary. I don't say it can't be done. But I do say there's a better way.

I think of course that you can be in the vor with hidden strikes

You can. But you don't need to be.

And yes, I'm overwhelmed with joy to participate in this year's instructors meeting.

All the best
Dierk

[Claus Sørensen]

Hello Dierk!

Why wouldn't I counter from below you might ask. Well, there's the principle of Überlaufen which roughly says that all attacks to the upper openings break those to the lower openings. So it would be a silly thing to answer an Oberhau with an Unterhau.

My view upon this is is a little different! If you want to attack someone striking an overhau against you with a unterhau(Strike from below) it is all right to do so! It is the target that is important here, not if you strike upwards or downwards! You choose a target that will not allow your opponent to use überlaufen on you, but this can be done with an upwards strike also:

Ringeck:

vnnd ainer hawet uff dich oben nider so streych von unden uff vast in sin schwert mitt der kurtzen schniden. Second comment on the "nebenhut"

Best wishes

Claus

[Og]

For what I know about the german school the master cuts or meisterhau where not supposed to be performed only with the sword but with the legs too, this means that the main trick of this is done by the steps we perform, mainly diagonal steps.

For the Zornhau - Step out diagonally and cut from an oberhau (descending cut), this cut is directed to cut/thrust the face, there is a variant for this named Zornört, that is that is the same but insteda a cut is a thrust.

Kurmphau, step out in diagonal but this step is larger than the one done in the zonrhau, the cut is not an overhau even when is a descendent cut, this one is perform from a superior guard as 'ochs' (pretty similar to the posta di fenestra but a little higher), the main thatget from this are the arms (that are atacking or defending from a high guard) or the head.

Sheitelhau, this one is one from the easiers, it's target is the top of the head, this one is used when the opponent uses an upper guard as 'kron' to protect his head,as the same as krumphau; comes form a high guard up the head and the point of the sword hits the others head, this cut is not really a big deal but when is done well the blood in the face it's too much to allow the opponents to see.

Schielhau, many friends and I have a lot of hours of discussion with this hew, since the description says "to cut the opposite shoulder with the short edge", accordling to Liechtenahuer, Ringek said the same but instead the shoulder is the face. Once the shords are crossed (if they're crossed) you just need to bind your swort and change it from your long edge to your short edge, that way the point of your sword will be pointing your opponent, after that, is only matter to thrust your sword... hehe.

Zwerchhau, this one is one of my favorites, specially using the 'german grip', this one it's one of the most characteristics hews from the german school, need to step a side and with the sword up to your head, hit the opponents head (head, eye, ear, neck, ribs, arm... all that is at the side you just moved) horizontally with your short wdge (if you moved to the right).

These may be used while indes, vor or nach, you decide when to use them accodling to your strategy, I'll try to upload some pictures of these hews to be more clear.

Regards.

[Andreas Engström]

@Og: Well, just about every single action in every fencing system devised relies at least in part on the correct footwork.. this is nothing that is unique to the verborgene hawe.

I agree with your description of the zornhaw.

There is really nothing that says that a krump must be made from a "superior" guard (I guess you mean an upper guard?). The krump kan be made from any guard. Many masters describe the extremely powerful krump that can be done from a low right schrankhut. And my personal opinion would be that ochs probably is one of the hardest guards to perform a powerful krump from. Also, I wonder why you would say that it's not an oberhau. An oberhau comes from above, the krump comes from above. It's perhaps not a typical oberhau, but surely it is an oberhau?

Schaytelhaw usually has the head as a target, true, but that is not part of the definition of it and the schaytler can be aimed at many other targets as well. I don't know what you mean by "when the opponent uses an upper guard as 'kron' to protect his head,as the same as krumphau".

I don't think? (counter-examples, anyone?) any master tells you to do the schiel with the long edge and then wind to the short after you bind. Yes, of course you can do this, but in that case you're doing a schielhaw from the bind, as a follow-up to a failed zorn or similar. That is, the first part of your action isn't part of the schielhaw. This is also a recommended followup to a krumphaw to the sword ("weaken the master").

But when you make a schiel from zufechten you usually strike immediately with the short edge, this is much faster. I would recommend using the thumb grip to give stability in the bind that follows.

-Andreas

[Harry]

Schielhau: Tricky. Winding or retreating. Or advancing in order to wrestle.

For me the best "counter" against the schiller = "verhängen" to the right, step to the left, oberhau from the left and maybe a duplieren if necassary

[The false edge]

All the hidden strikes are primarily used as defensive moves, counter strikes and therefore used in the Nach.

What do people think about this?
Colin

Hello Colin,

As above I'd agree that this is certainly not the case, I've recently got taught a good reason as to why/how..

The idea is to always enter into zufechten with the intention of performing a Zorn, and if the Zorn doesn't/wouldn't work, change to one of the hidden strikes indes. (or Vor/Nach, obviously depending on the situation and skill of your opponent)

This is one interpretation of the strikes, but I found it enlightening to see the 5 strikes as a related group that flow from the main Zornhauw.

Regards,
Jules

[Ran Pleasant]

Many people seem to see a sheitelhau as a break to the alber position, though surely it will only work if the opponents sword is travelling down at the time of the start of you attack. (as people are stating I think)

A sheitelhau is used to break the Alber guard in the same manner that the Seventh (Longpoint) guard is broken in I.33 (see 17v). Once you bind against their blade the guard is broken.

To quote my teacher, "Audaciously seek the bind".

Ran

[Ian Mac Pharlaine]

RE: Schaytelhaw

What do the common German sources have to say about this?

Anon Gloss:

Glosa Merck der schaitlär pricht die hu°t die da haist alber vnd ist dar zu° dem antlütz vnd der prust mit seiner ker gar gevardlich

Wenn dw mit dem zu° vechten zw° ÿm kumpst legt er sich denn gegen dir in die hu°t alber So setz den lincken fuess vor vnd halt dein swert an deiner rechten achsel Inn der hu°t vnd spring zw° Im vnd haw mit der langen schneid starck von oben nider Im zu° dem kopff



Trans:

Gloss: Mark the Scalper breaks the guard that is called Fool, and is very dangerous with its turn to the face and the breast.

When you come to him in the approach, if he then comes against you assuming the guard Fool, then set the left foot before and hold your sword on your right shoulder in the guard, and spring to him, and hew with the long edge strongly down from above to the head.

-----

Pretty straightforward if you ask me: "He lowers his sword to a Low-Open guard, go for the head immediately"

http://wiktenauer.com/images/5/5e/MS_Ge ... 0_043r.jpg

http://wiktenauer.com/images/9/94/MS_Lu ... 13_26r.jpg (bottom left)

http://wiktenauer.com/images/9/9a/Pisan ... _19v-a.jpg

---------------

In contrast, here is the play from I.33...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ol_17v.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ol_18r.jpg

Hic scolaris per religacionem resistit & defendit sacerdoti illam fixuram in proximo superius exemplo per ipsum facto

Postquam determinatum est de omnibus custodijs supradictis hic determinat de septima custodia que nuncupatur langort & notandum quod quatuor sunt ligaciones que respiciunt illam custodiam videlicet due liguntur de dextra parte relique vero due de sinistra parte sed loquimur hic primo de ligatura s super gladium quod habes totum in custodia prima vsque ad quartum exemplum vbi recipitur gladius & scutum


Here the pupil by binding resists and deflects this thrust of the priest's shown above and in the next example thusly.

After all the wards above have been treated, here the seventh ward is treated, which is called langort, and note that there are four binds, that answer to this ward, namely two from the right, and the other two from the left. But here we speak only of the first bind above the sword, which you have all in the first ward, up to the fourth example, where sword and shield are taken.

------------------

I wouldnt say the I.33 17v play is representative of a Schaytelhaw. The text and image seem to be more representative of an action similar to Fiore's Rompere di Punta, which itself is an alternative variant action similar to some German Krumphaw plays.

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8 ... 34.highres
http://wiktenauer.com/images/7/78/Pisan ... MS_21a.jpg (TR/BL)

(Notice that while Germans would wind against the sword after the initial Krump and thrust or strike freely from the beaten down blade, and the I.33 player will restrain the sword with his shield and attack freely with the sword, Fiore uses his foot to restrain his opponents blade to enable a free attack with the sword; a uniquely different solution to an otherwise very similar tactical approach.)

http://wiktenauer.com/images/a/a8/MS_Lu ... _26v-c.jpg
http://wiktenauer.com/images/5/52/MS_Lu ... _26v-d.jpg
http://wiktenauer.com/images/9/9b/MS_Lu ... _27r-a.jpg
(same play as above but from the other side)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 12_08r.jpg
(From Falkner)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... er_019.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... er_020.jpg
(From Talhoffer)

[Ran Pleasant]

I wouldnt say the I.33 17v play is representative of a Schaytelhaw. The text and image seem to be more representative of an action similar to Fiore's Rompere di Punta, which itself is an alternative variant action similar to some German Krumphaw plays.

A krump! WTF?

A longsword is held with two hands, thus a Schaytelhaw into Alber results in a strong bind. But in I.33 the sword is held with one hand, thus a vertical cut into the Seventh Guard results in an underbind because the cut pushes the other blade to the side causing your blade to move under the other blade, forming an underbind. This is clearly shown in I.33 on 19r and 19v. The underbind leaves the Priest open to a head strike which he has to counter, although the counter is not named it is a Change (mutation ) of the Sword (see 2v) that is shown. There is absolutely no way an action similar to the old windshield-wripper krump is involved.

Edit - I actually have to correct myself, the Change of the Sword from an underbind to an overbind is something of a windshield-wripper action.

Unless your adversary is asleep when you cut a Schaytelhaw to the head against Alber he will simply cut up into your hands. The only safe way to break Alber with a Schaytelhaw is to bind.

Ran

[Megalophias]

A longsword is held with two hands, thus a Schaytelhaw into Alber results in a strong bind. But in I.33 the sword is held with one hand, thus a vertical cut into the Seventh Guard results in an underbind because the cut pushes the other blade to the side causing your blade to move under the other blade, forming an underbind. This is clearly shown in I.33 on 19r and 19v.

The underbind is shown there, but the technique on 17v and 20v is the bind above and on the right, and that on 20r is the bind above and left. Both of these are analogous to a krump (an actual krump, not a crossed-uncrossed unter-oberhau krump).

Unless your adversary is asleep when you cut a Schaytelhaw to the head against Alber he will simply cut up into your hands. The only safe way to break Alber with a Schaytelhaw is to bind.

I seem to remember a big discussion about this a while back - I think Phillippe was arguing the same thing for Ringeck (as opposed to Von Danzig).

Von Danzig says clearly to strike to his head, nothing about binding with the Scheitler. On the other hand he does mention binding with the Krump: Oder ~ ligstu für ÿm Inn der hüt alber wil er dir denn mit dem swert krump dar auff vallen So ist sein swer aber vorkurtz. "Or if you lie before him in the Fool guard, then if he wants to fall onto it with his sword krump, then his sword is shortened again."

In the Nachreisen and Abschneiden sections he talks about the bind on top of Alber, but doesn't connect it to the Scheitelhau. He talks about using the Schnappen with the long edge when the enemy has bound above with his point out to your right, and with the short edge when his point is directed to your left, which would follow from a krumphau bind (and is reminiscent of the I.33's binds on the left and on the right).

[Ran Pleasant]

A longsword is held with two hands, thus a Schaytelhaw into Alber results in a strong bind. But in I.33 the sword is held with one hand, thus a vertical cut into the Seventh Guard results in an underbind because the cut pushes the other blade to the side causing your blade to move under the other blade, forming an underbind. This is clearly shown in I.33 on 19r and 19v.

The underbind is shown there, but the technique on 17v and 20v is the bind above and on the right, and that on 20r is the bind above and left. Both of these are analogous to a krump (an actual krump, not a crossed-uncrossed unter-oberhau krump).

I did indeed made a mistake. The actions of 17v are a continuation from 17r. It is 19r that shows Seventh guard being broken with a vertical cut similar to how Schaytelhaw breaks Abler. Having say that there is absolutely no old wind-shield wriper krump involved in 17v. In 17r the Priest performs a thrust at the Student and in 17v the Student has sit aside the thrust and established an overbind.

Ran

[Megalophias]

I did indeed made a mistake. The actions of 17v are a continuation from 17r. It is 19r that shows Seventh guard being broken with a vertical cut similar to how Schaytelhaw breaks Abler. Having say that there is absolutely no old wind-shield wriper krump involved in 17v. In 17r the Priest performs a thrust at the Student and in 17v the Student has sit aside the thrust and established an overbind.

It's *like* a krump (I mean bottom 17v), in that you are cutting down across the line of defence (if he has his sword pointed at you, you must necessarily cut a little crooked to bind it); but it isn't a proper krump - for one thing it's done with the long edge. I certainly wouldn't point it way off to the side like a full-on windshield wiper krump!

Anyway, to drag this back onto the topic of longsword, could you explain how you are doing your scheitelhau? It sounds interesting. How does your sword end up underneath?

[Ran Pleasant]

It's *like* a krump (I mean bottom 17v), in that you are cutting down across the line of defence (if he has his sword pointed at you, you must necessarily cut a little crooked to bind it); but it isn't a proper krump - for one thing it's done with the long edge. I certainly wouldn't point it way off to the side like a full-on windshield wiper krump!

Not even close to an old krump! Besides I don't do old krump at all.

Anyway, to drag this back onto the topic of longsword, could you explain how you are doing your scheitelhau? It sounds interesting. How does your sword end up underneath?

Page 19r shows a fast hard vertical cut into Seventh (Longpoint) guard. Since the swords are held by one hand the impact knocks the defending blade over to the attacker's left. As the blades move over to the left the attacking blade naturally moves under the defending blade. And as we see in 19v since the person in Longpoint is left in an overbind he can make a cut to the other's head.

But the main point is that at least in I.33 when someone is in Seventh guard you don't try to cut their head, rather you bind. Using a cut to bind is the safest way to break the guard.

Ran

[The false edge]

My one sentence Krump:
A oberhauw where the sword ends up at a large angle (often near 90º) to the line between the back and front foot.
I suspect this is why the cut is called crooked and there are so many versions of it.

[The false edge]

A question/remark about the Schilar/Schiller:
The high german dictionary I've found online doesn't have the word in it, but it is very close to (identical really) to the modern Dutch word schiller (as in aardappelschiller) which means peeler (potato peeler) The vertical false edge cut does seem to have a tendency to cut the side of the face like a potato..... Anybody know whether schiller is also a word for a small sharp knife used to peel vegetables? Squinter just doesn't make as much sense to me...

[Ian Mac Pharlaine]

I prefer to think of it as "glancing", since it goes to cover your opening like a shield (same basic root word; "schil") and his blow bounces/glances off your sword (or vice versa). Also makes sense in terms of the deflective glances you are to do with your eyes in some of these plays while you feint this strike at them. Which btw, I wonder why nobody has tried interpreting those plays? Is it because of masks that nobody can see each others faces and eyes anymore?