Parts of the Fight in Meyer |
|
|
Evidence for re-evaluation of the view of the parts of the fight in Meyer.
Mike Cartier June 2007
The discourse and evidence presented below is meant to illustrate the interplay of the parts of the fight as described by Meyer. This interplay is understood correctly by most people in the modern HEMA German school as a sequential description of the fight by starting in Zufechten, going to Krieg and then withdrawing with Abzug (some leave out Abzug or only give it minimal mention). But this interplay is much more complex than a simple description of the fight from one end to another. The references to evidence within the Meyer book below are to show some supportive evidence that not only can the parts of the fight be used in the commonly understood sequential manner but also by moving around the sequence of these parts in reaction to the opponents actions. It is also supporting evidence for my theory that rather than focusing so intently on the Krieg we should perhaps, at least in the case of Meyer, be focusing as much on achieving all 3 parts of Meyers fight and that means focusing at least as intently on Abzug at the end of the fight as we do on Krieg in the middle. Indeed more so than any part of the fight Meyer describes this Abzug withdrawal and even outlines it in great detail in his chapter on it. He includes it in almost every single Longsword device.
Note: I do not suggest that we abandon the current view of the parts of the fight just extend that view to include what we all agree on today and add a greater depth to it than before by allowing for more interplay between the parts of the fight in different sequences than simply Zufechten - Krieg - Abzug in that order. This view of the fight becomes especially important when applying these parts of the fight to the other weapons.
First lets look at the range of options available to us in a longsword fight in order from best to worst case scenario facing the opponent.
Cutting Opponent down before he strikes
Cutting the opponent as he strikes
Voiding the opponent's action and countering
Displacing and cutting the opponent as he strikes
Parrying opponent's action and counter striking
Parrying opponent's action without preparation to counter
Then cycle back down the list with the opponent on the winning side of the equation back through all the possibilities to end in you Getting hit before you strike
Cutting the opponent before he strikes or moves
What Bruce Lee calls this the stop hit, winning it all in one blow before he is ready or fully prepared. Meyer calls this striking before he gets into a guard and its the best possible case scenario to strike down the opponent almost instantly before he does anything.
Cutting the opponent as he strikes
Cutting down the opponent as he attacks and before his attack comes to any fruition. Timing his intentions just right so that you bring your strike on to him as his attack strikes to where you were the moment he struck at you. Requires good timing and responsive footwork and usually requires that you be in the Before (Vor) to succeed well.
Several of the master strikes can include this principle.
Voiding the opponent's action and countering
This is allowing the opponent's blade to pass through the space between by using footwork and placement to make a safe zone for his sword to travel through. When followed with an after strike or chasing (Nachreissen) over or around the opponent's strike it can exploit the opponent's most vulnerable instance during an attack. Requires good timing, good extension and skillful use of the broken/stolen steps and the Abzug part of the fight. Meyer mentions this when he says if the opponent cuts left we cut right, if he cuts right we cut left.
Displacing and cutting the opponent as he strikes
This is the act of displacing your opponent's attack on the strong (sterck) of your sword while simultaneously striking him with the weak of your sword. Requires quick footwork and accurate displacement.
Most of the master strikes can include this principle.
Parrying opponent's action and counter striking
This is catching the opponent's attack with a parry such as a hanging Point or Pflug parry and immediately preparing a counter attack that flows freely off the parry in as quick a response as possible. Requires good traversing footwork, strong defensive structure and a well trained response.
Parrying opponent's action without preparation to counter
This is simply placing your blade in the way of the opponent's blade as it strikes to protect yourself. When done flat footed and without any preparation for a response to the attack it is a waste of energy and does little strategically to improve your position or opportunities in the fight. It is sometimes is necessary when an opponent presses you vigorously in the Before (vor) with successive strikes or if the opponent is very fast, in these cases it is our last defense against getting struck. A withdrawal action with a clearing strike is the action advocated by Meyer here as the preferred method of resetting the fight and guarding against being struck and so this is our goal to avoid static parrying.
It should be noted that the translation used for this is the Forgeng Meyer translation. In some cases if you use the Rasmussen (Schielhau.org) translation the wording is even more complementary and directly related to these points I am putting forth in this article.
- Introduction
Meyer lays out his general ideas of the fight here.
"Now combat with the sword is in essence a practice in which two opponents strive against each other with the swords with the intent that one will out manouver and overcome the other with intelligence and nimbleness, artfully, finely and manfully, with cuts and other handwork; so that if it were necessary in earnest cases, through such practice one may be more quick and skillfull, and more judicious for the protection of his body"
"The can well and properly be divided into three main parts, namely the beginning, the middle and the end.
The three parts must be held in mind in every single device that you undertake to execute; namely that you should know with what cuts you will lay on against your opponent from the guards; then when you have laid on against him, how you shall further work in the middle with the Handwork, flying readily to the openings to keep the initiative when you have rushed on him in the Onset; and finally, how you may well and properly withdraw from him, if not with harm to him, then at least without injury to yourself."
He goes on further to say.
"Now the beginning I call the Onset (Zufechten), when one lays on against the opponent he has before him."
"The middle I call the secondary work or Handwork (Handarbeit), when one stays against his opponent on the bind or further in his work and nimbly presses him"
"The end I call the Withdrawal (Abzug), which is howe the combatant may cut away from his opponent without harm"
"The Onset takes place in the beginning using the cuts from the postures. The postures are of two kinds, namely the chief postures and the secondary postures, which arise from the chief postures"
Meyer goes on to outline all three parts again but in a fashion thats seems to suggest most cuts are done in Zufechten, He says;
"Now there are two kinds of cuts with the sword, which are commonly called straight and reversed cuts. the first are called the chief or principle cuts, from which all other cuts have their origin, and there are four of these; High, Low, Middle, and Wrath cut. The others are called the secondary or derivative cuts, of which there are twelve, namely Squinting, crooked, Clashing, Rebound (single and double), Blind, Winding, Crown, Wrist, Plunge, Change Cut, etc. From both of these are selected the true master cuts, which are so named because all masterful and artful techniques with the sword are conceived, carried out, and completed with them, namely Wrath, Crooked, Thwart, Squinter, and Scalp cut. How all these shall be executed and carried out I will clearly set forth in their descriptions when I come to the Onset and speak of the cuts"
"The secondary work or Handwork in the middle embodies the greatest art and skill that can take place in combat. For it not only teaches how one shall use the sword to bind, wind , change, deceive, chase, slice, double, and run off, or in what way one shall strike around, , sling, slide, set off, pull, jerk, block, wrestle, run in, cast and crowd after, but it also includes the openings, which must be understood through the division of the combatant and the sword. Furthermore the correct standing and stepping is also pertinent to this, which I shall also discuss in its place."
"The Withdrawal at the end arises from the Middle and has great use in the practice, therefore at the end of every device, I shall explain in good order the withdrawal appropriate to it And all this shall be fully discussed in the first part of this treatise on combat with the sword."
(Page 30) Here he describes many of the cuts as belonging to the Zufechten part of the fight and if we look at some of the longsword strikes in Meyer we can see many that can be used without being or ending in krieg. He also expresses the great usefullness of the Withdrawal.
- Chapter 5 Handwork (page 61)
Meyer says, "Now that in the first part of combat I have sufficiently explained both postures and cuts, and they come to the point where they bring you under your opponents sword, now the true contest begins"
Meyer is describing not only the postures or guards as being part of Zufechten but also many of the cuts; this is the second mention by Meyer of cuts which are part of Zufechten part of the fight. Showing that Zufechten can be used alone if you succeed in the initial part (also described at the end of the Intro to Devices chapter), if not you must move onto Krieg and use Abzug. But you might well hit him soundly in Zufechten and then dance immediately to Abzug to protect. This is the basis for my treatment of Zufechten not as that which leads up to the fight but rather that Zufechten involves all long range cutting techniques which do not end in the bind with the opponent, that is leave your sword free of any direct influence by the opponent. The very same strike can end in Zufechten or Krieg depending on the reaction of the opponent and our follow up attack. If he parries deeply we will end in Krieg but if he uses Abzug we may well stay in Zufechten.
- Chapter 6 Abzug
Meyer in this chapter seems to clearly set up 3 different uses of the Abzug. Before, after and at the same time. In some of this he is chasing and in some he is stepping and then withdrawing quickly and counter cutting. Each being used at different times of the fight and some clearly intended to draw the opponent out into a lengthened attack that you can more easily counter.
- Devices
Not all devices could be said to go to Krieg (unless you count a strike as getting to Krieg), and yet almost all devices have Abzug explained. Meyer is much more methodical in his application of Abzug across all devices in longsword which by its nature stems from the Middle/Krieg.
- Chapter 7 Advice about Stepping Chapter
In this Meyer outlines something he calls the broken or stolen step, a fake or shallow step forward followed by a swift Abzug retreating step with a counter attack, used primarily in Rappier. A somewhat isolation of the Abzug part of the fight which could perhaps also be seen as Zufechten to Abzug (skipping Krieg)
- Chapter 9 Devices
here again he mentions Zufechten including cuts which again tells us that I can keep the entire fight in Zufechten if I hit you successfully in that part of the fight. With no need to go on to Krieg and Abzug if the job is done. And if we take our evidence from Dusack we can put together a Quick Zufechten attack with a quick Abzug for a quick in and out attack.
He also says this in his discussion of the elements of the fight.
"For if you wish to write a full proper word, you must hold in your mind and memory all the letters, and know thoroughly what the nature and property of each one, so that the useful and appropriate letters will fly into the pen one after another and in order, so likewise in combat you shall hold the previously explained elements in your mind, so that whenever you come to fight with an opponent, the one you need at the moment will come to you at once. But not all letters can be used in every device. Therefore you shall take heed what the situation requires, how your opponent conducts himself, also what kind of person he is, whether he is swift or slow, big or little, and you need to know how to use your work and confront him accordingly."(Page 70)
To me this seems a clear call to mismatch elements he is teaching and certainly elsewhere Meyer says to do so in other ways. So we can consider the many elements Meyer teaches us not to be written in stone, or held literally to the weapon, technique or device, he uses all these things to instruct the elements to be used but also tells us to use these elements where we see fit and how we see fit and to go and use these elements elsewhere.
Several times Meyer explains a technique and all its variants over several weapons. Thrusting for example is obviously still a valid part of the long sword style of Meyer despite his statement about its under use against Fellow Germans at the time. Never the less Meyers longsword provides us with all the keys to unlock the thrusting aspects of the longsword, he then also does most of his thrusting instruction in the polearms and Rappier section.
- Meyer seems to clearly teach some elements in one weapon with the intention that you use these elements in other weapons, thrusting for example. Also several strikes are not fully explained in one weapon but instead information is given for that strike in another weapon (Krumphau in longsword and Dusack for example)
- In the final prose he mentions that "if you do not parry too much it will be that much freer", Parrying if we see it as the Start of Krieg, that is swords crossed, then would not be seen as part of a voiding action for example. So if we seek to avoid a parrying, either the opponent's parrying or the act of parrying, ourselves then it seems we must avoid Krieg in this strategy of not parrying. It does not illustrate this as a superior technique but at least gives credence to it being considered a valid tactical choice in the strategy of the fight of the German school.
-Dusack is a strong right foot forward style of single hand sword as is the Rappier, and much of the movement is to the side of the opponent. This would make it difficult to make passing steps in that direction so it seems Dusack style is not necessarily designed to rush to krieg, indeed if we see a passing step as a prerequisite to a successful march to Krieg it becomes impossible from the descriptions unless we go the opposite direction being indicated or attempt a move to krieg using a more shallow non-passing step (gathering or simple). Indeed the Dusack contains very little Krieg in its devices and not much Abzug at the end of the other 2 parts of the fight. In Dusack abzug is used more directly without the other parts of the fight (constrainer cuts for example), but is also of course used in the traditional sequence as well. But Krieg seems rather minimally used in Dusack and Rappier.
- In the Dusack section at the very end he discusses grappling and says
"However if you find your opponent stronger than you, then do not come to near to him, and do not let him run in on you. Also, if he cuts in, see that you catch his cut up in the air and go through quickly under his weapon, so that you may hold and send away his cuts, which is better, and let him cut and miss, then you shall do it in a way as I have already taught in the counter cutting." And finally he says "However since I do not much approve of running in with the Dusack, I will let it be here for now." Both of these seem to indicate either a very brief Krieg or no krieg at all by voiding and counter cutting.
And finally some rather precise in Meyer the last two paragraphs in chapter 9 the Introduction to the devices.
Meyer says..
"Thus you now see how always one element after the other must be used and assembled according to the opportunity and necessity, until a full combat device is executed"
"And lastly note that full devices can also be completed with only two or three strokes, as when you rush upon him with the first stroke, and with the second cut away again, and in these strokes you hit either with the first or last, with whichever it may most conveniently take place. Or when you execute it with three cuts, then you lay on with the first, and pursue with the others. However, it is needless to talk here about when at due time this must take place. The marketplace will teach you this well enough, as the saying goes, if you study diligently all the other combat devices that re included in this treaty."
And most telling of all in the forward of the book where Meyer states..
"Here the cuts begin to arrange themselves according to everyone's character, nature, strength and ability, since the weak must seek a diferent advantage than the strong, and vice versa."
So to outline the meaning of these parts of the fight
Zufechten - Onset
the beginning and even sometimes the end of the fight if your Zufechten is quick and strikes true (you win)
Krieg - War/Handwork
The fight from the bind all the way to the grapple even on the ground, Meyer says this part requires the highest skill to master probably as it is also the most dangerous part of the fight. Krieg is the only part of the fight where you are always in range of your opponent to reach out and strike you. (Both Zufechten and Abzug require range from the opponent)
Abzug - Withdrawal
The art of covering your retreat from the attack, also the art of drawing in the opponent to over commit and counter strike him or chase him back on his blade.
When all 3 parts of the fight work properly together we should hit the opponent from 1 to 3 or 4 times. Once or twice on the way in with Zufechten, again as we wind/bind and again as we flank out to the side and slice away before us at the opponent in Abzug. When done to perfection it should all take just a few split seconds and we should have moved around on the opponents defense and guard (flank) and using this energy to fly in and out deftly striking in each part, striking freely in Zufechten, Krieg and in Abzug, sometimes hitting in a part, sometimes not but doing it all in one smooth flowing device.
Good use of Zufechten not only will hit the opponent and end the fight but if we do not hit and he parries it opens up handworks from Krieg we can do against his sword as well as the wind and bind on his sword. If two opponents choose to not go into Krieg, that is close the fight, then they would probably fight almost entirely in Zufechten with a little dash of Abzug to prevent the opponent moving to Krieg. Zufechten includes all cuts which do not end up in a bind but leave your sword free to move without interference from the opponent.
Abzug and Zufechten can then be seen as the tactical answer to the opponent who seeks to move to Krieg and put the fight in the bind. Each part of the fight can work together in unison or be used separately to counter another part of the fight (like countering Krieg with Abzug). This allows for a multiple strategy in the concept of the Longsword as a combat weapon. Each individual approaches combat differently with different strengths and weaknesses, this interplay of strategy works in concert with this individual's particular strengths and weaknesses. This can be seen in Meyer by his admonishment in the Dusack
"However if you find your opponent stronger than you, then do not come to near to him, and do not let him run in on you. Also, if he cuts in, see that you catch his cut up in the air and go through quickly under his weapon, so that you may hold and send away his cuts, which is better, and let him cut and miss, then you shall do it in a way as I have already taught in the counter cutting."
The application of this can be seen if we set up a fictional fight between a shorter man weighing 125 pounds against a taller man of 300 pounds. We have no knowledge of their skills or training but we do know who is stronger. If we were to attempt to give strategic advice to both of them and perhaps even a period of training what would we advise?
Certainly if the smaller man was fast on his feet I would suggest he use that to his advantage, to keep distance and counter strike the larger man and not give him the opportunity to get to Krieg thereby bringing his superior strength to bear directly on the smaller man. To achieve this I would instruct the smaller man to work his footwork skills and his ability to control the distance between the fighters. This could not be achieved by telling him to get to Krieg at all costs. Certainly however if I were instructing the larger man I would tell him to use his footwork to get to Krieg as that would be his best and quickest path to victory by applying his superior strength and size. But he could also be well advised if he has significant reach to keep the smaller man at bay using that superior reach to devastating effect at long range, if we look at how Meyer views Abzug it has many forms, Some direct withdrawal and some which start with us moving forward in attack trying to provoke a response from the opponent so that we can draw him out and use Abzug on him to counter his attempted counter attack.
So when contemplating this use of strategy in the longsword fight, we should perhaps not say that there is ONE strategy in the German fight school, the inexorable march to Krieg, but instead a variation of strategies that can be tailor made to suit the situation or individual depending on the situation at hand. As Meyer "says depending on if he is large or small, fast or slow and on his general temperament. Krieg is certainly still the preferred method of pushing the momentum of the fight after the initial Zufechten if it fails to finish the fight, just not the only method. After all what is the answer to a good push to Krieg by your opponent? Certainly not Krieg as that is already his desire and unless you feel you have superior skills in that part of the fight it is really the most dangerous place to be because you are well within range of being hit by the opponent. If your opponent is larger, stronger or more skillful at the bind he will desire to get to Krieg and it would be in your best interest not to do so. Granted a master of Fuhlen/Feeling at the bind can handle anyone of any size, but when skills are more even strength is directly applicable towards the opponent in the bind making Binding with a stronger or larger opponent unwise unless you have developed good skills at the bind.
We can win the fight in Zufechten, we can win the fight in Abzug and we can win the fight in Krieg. We can use Zufechten to get safely to Krieg and win the fight there, we can use Zufechten with Abzug to win the fight making little or no use of Krieg. We can even win the fight in Abzug alone but stepping out from the opponent and cutting over his attack. Each part of the fight has a particular relationship to the other parts, each has multiple uses and can assist in strategies which makes use of any of these parts of the fight or all parts together. We can use Zufechten and Abzug to keep us from being in Krieg, we can use Krieg to defeat an opponent staying in krieg or use Abzug to escape his attacks.
As with all views of the fight which are phase-like in nature the strategies are a put together of several options and range is not especially specific except in the context of the particular technique. Each part or phase of the fight uses different attributes of combat skill to achieve success. Zufechten uses swift footwork and timing, Krieg uses Feeling and winding or grappling skill, Abzug uses footwork angles and precision timing. Each can be trained in a microcosm but most successfully when trained in relation to the other parts and if you design a strategy for yourself which chooses a part of the fight you must also develop attributes in the other parts of the fight to assist your strategy.
The problem comes when we consider Zufechten to be a mere beginning to the fight with no real striking going on, this takes all the fight out of that part of the fight and after all if its a part of the fight there should be some fighting in it. Zufechten I think has been bound by its name for too long. Often called Pre-Fence, but I prefer the term Onset. If we see Zufechten as all striking actions which do not end in Krieg (Bind) or Abzug (withdraw) we can see it for the full scope of its capabilities. In other words all actions which leave the sword free of the opponents influence and 100% within our control. This leaves many strikes which can be successfully executed without ever leaving Zufechten.
Range too is an important element of the parts of the fight, but Range is not as specifically intended as we often take it. For example if we take the story of a simple Zornhau, I can strike Zornhau and win never leaving Zufechten by hitting him long range, i can strike Zornhau and end in Zufechten when he parries me and our blades do not bind but bounce off, I can strike Zornhau and end in Krieg when he parries me and we bind, I can strike Zornhau and win by using Abzug and stepping out from the opponents strike, I can use Zornhau and win by using Abzug to chase him as he withdraws from me , I can use a forward stepping Zornhau at the opponent in hopes he tries to counter and use Abzug with a backward stepping zornhau attack.
This view of the parts of the fight is similar to how modern MMA looks at combat, Phasic rather than range specific. Don't get me wrong range is important but often we cannot hold people at a specific range. A phase of combat includes areas of the combat within a generally identifiable area. Much of modern MMA looks at combat now as three phases, Free Movement, Clinch and Ground. In the same manner as the parts of the fight they all interrelate on many levels and a man seeking to dominate in one phase must master that phase but also be knowledgeable in the other phases in case he is forced into a phase he has less expertise in. Range specific views of combat are almost natural to the human, almost all martial arts use range as an identifying element on combat preparation. However many arts use it differently, some seek to enforce range on the opponent in a almost futile attempt to hold the opponent in our preferred range, this is achievable in grappling but not so much in stand up fighting because the opponent is free to frustrate our attempts to hold them at a specific range. Range is still of course important but only as part of the idea of a phase of the fight. We cannot build a fight strategy around a range based view but we can with a Phasic view which by its nature is less exact and more general in its parameters. So now that we can break the fight into Three parts we can look at how these parts feed into each other and find our best part and use the other parts to support our desire to fight in the that favored part or simply use each part one after another in its initial sequence.
"A true combtatant doesn't parry, but when the opponent cuts then he cuts too, when the opponent steps he steps too, when the opponent thrusts he thrusts too" - Joachim Meyer
leave any comments, criticisms, tarring or featherings here.
|
|
|
