HEMA interpretations can make your fencing WORSE 

I agree with the general idea - yes, you shouldn't try to force the described techniques exactly as they are described, even less so how they are illustrated. But a Zwerch absolutely works in the way it's described in the play - just the timing is much tighter. The play is an illustrative "perfect Zwerch". A lot of treatises have a tendency to give an exemplar which is relatively low-percentage as the "pure" example of it.

Good video!

Zwerch as a counterattack against a first intention oberhaw works well when both fencers are moving forward, at least in my humble experience as a tournament fencer. The structure works by getting your strong into their weak.

Overall agree with your points; main takeaway for me is context matters. The value of manuscripts is that their techniques were presumably were effective and combated tested. So when a play as ineffectual as this comes up you wonder why it was created. As a Lichentauer commentary, I think this specific play was supposed to be a procedural instructive on the zwerchhaus strengths on a fundamental level, that being parrying high/high cover and response in the same stroke. Like you said if they instinctively oberhau out of bind zwerch is a great response. On a realistic level you’re not likely to hit an opponent with this play unless they are throwing the oberhau with no thought behind it; but I think that’s part of the point, this is supposed be first level/ground zero explanation on what lichtenauer’s zwerch can do. Later on the commentary it even addresses how you can use the structural advantage of an oberhau against the zwerch when the person zwerching does something like striking around. I find the plays in something like Meyer to be much more effective (replacing short edge flicks with thrusts etc), which makes sense given that he wrote it for fencers to learn from and apply (assumedly from his own experiences), instead of being an explanation of cryptic verses. Admittedly Meyer also sticks to the lichtenauer misnomers sometimes, and there’s the whole discussion about sportificstion, but I’m just using it as an example for his context can affect things. Of course it’s confusing that all these plays are mixed together and presented as equally valid sequences of attack. Maybe with the zwerch specifically it’s just a vestigial of the lichtenauer tradition, and the commentary authors conflated taking the before with zwerching; in Fiore’s system the equivalent of the zwerch, crosswise blow, uses the long edge. All interesting questions to discuss, and if you have any more specific examples I’m all ears.

Regarding this topic, i always remember this paragraph from Ms 3227a: "Now notice and remember that you can't speak or write about fencing and explain it as simply and clearly as it can be shown and taught by hand. Therefore, you should consider and debate matters in your mind-and practice them even more in play-so that you understand them in earnest fencing. Practice is better than artfulness, because practice could be sufficient without artfulness, but artfulness is never sufficient without practice." In the end, fencing is about what WORKS, not what looks the coolest or what's shown in a book or a play.

I don't have an essay to write, so I'm just going to copy+paste the first chapter of Das Kapital into a comment later.

Zwerchau out front with straight arms works great as a single time counter attack. Zwerch with bent arms works much better in close.

As a saber instructor, the much more modern texts are a blessing and a curse. The modern books make it clear that they are for an audience that has no idea what they are doing and Angelo, for example, spends most of his time teaching how to drill footwork and foundational cuts and parries and then mentions, almost as an afterthought, things about feints and timing manipulation. As a result I frequently have students asking if we are ever going to get to any cool flash stuff. And I tell them "Sure. When there's enough folks who know how to recover from a basic lunge we'll do some flashy footwork." I haven't taught anything but the basics in years.

I come from a sport fencing background. The big thing I notice looking in at HEMA is the lack of fundamentals at high level tournament finals. Often seeing a problem with Distance, timing, and/or balance. But, those are also the hardest things to learn from a book. Likely training with boxers, wrestlers, or BJJ clubs would help HEMA understand the fundamentals better.

Greetings from Italy. One of your best video so far, methinks. Keep up with the good work. Regards, Scassonio

Rob Childs has a similar take. He proves through his performance that his methods work, and they are based strongly in physics and physiology. Thanks for the video!

Also, a question - "you don't know if the people who wrote them are real". Er.... what do you think they are? Imaginary? Do you think ghosts wrote them?

I like to compete obvs, but i am also very into the sources. I think pieces from RDL happen constantly all the time in tournaments, and if someone doesn't think that's true then they're being too stingy about what they consider that technique to be. If the action has to be 100% identical in all aspects to the specific example that the text gives, then nothing is ever anything, because fencing is chaotic and every action is always slightly different. On the other hand, if you only ever fence RFF point forward, then yeah you're not going to be using any of these cool cuts because you're not set up to use them.

Interpretations of the texts are still important, but in my own personal experience, nothing has improved my skill more than simple controlled sparring, and practising the same basic cuts and forms on my own over and over again. Through repeated practice I develop an intuitive understanding of distance, timing, and how to analyse my opponent. This is in addition to building speed and precision with my cuts and thrusts. I still have a lot to work on, and those flashier techniques definitely give an advantage when you know how and when to use them, but the basics are not to be underestimated.

Not on the main topic but regarding a throw away comment you made about safety: I think the whole premise that "back in the day" they didnt care about safety is a bit of a fallacy. Maybe if it was wrapped in the clarification that they perhaps didnt care about it in the SAME WAY as we do today. The point you made about bodies being the same, a foot is a foot, a human is a human, etc applies in much the same way regarding safety. In fact, given the less advanced medical treatments available, I would say they must have cared MORE about safety than we do today. At least, for critical, potentially life threatening injuries. Think about it; You could get a seemingly minor flesh wound at fencing class on Monday. By Wednesday it is a raging infection, and by Saturday you are dead. By this metric, it would seem that attending a fencing school back in the day could be the most dangerous thing any person would do, with a high risk of death. This would be counter productive for a teacher needing to keep a full attendance roster. We look at safety through our modern eyes, and marvel at the giant sack of marbles it must have taken to fence without a fencing mask, gloves, armored joints and padded jackets. This is simply ignorance wrapped in awe and reverence. * It is absurd to assume that "back in the day" no one cared about safety, or that they lived or died. Humans have a natural desire to preserve their life, an aversion to risk and danger. Sure, there are some adrenaline junkies who love to start their day thinking "I could die today" (skydivers, free-climbers, those crazy people doing pull-ups from cranes). But we cant assume all fencing students had a reckless disregard for their own safety. If you walked in on a fencing school and half the students were missing an eye, you'd turn around and walk right back out. That holds true both today and 300 years ago. * We KNOW they wore various levels of padding or armor, depending on period, location, and weapon styles. It is not what we think of today, but no doubt was optimized for what they expected would be the highest risks. If they structured their training in such a way that hands and fingers would not be at high risk, they could have gotten away with just light gloves. Its all about the training methodology. A rare case of broken finger is an acceptable risk. Broken fingers being a constant, regular occurrence would be unacceptable. Either the armor or the training methodology would have to change to accommodate that. (see below point) * In our modern times, we have invented various forms of safe, unarmored practice such as 1/4 speed, stop at first contact, drills and other techniques other than hard sparring, as well as padded simulators and "safer" weapons. We can assume they did much the same to keep training as safe as possible. Its my understanding, for example, that fedders were originally intended to be used by striking flat rather than edge aligned. This may be a myth, but something to consider. Some later systems were invented specifically to "make fencing safer". As you mentioned, nearly all of the texts have very little if any information regarding how they actually went about day to day training. We simply cannot be certain what steps they took to make training safe. That doesn't mean they didnt care about safety. * In the schools, they probably didn't spar in quite the same way we do today, or with the same goals (points and winning tournaments). Many complain about how its easy to "game" modern tournaments to achieve hits without managing your own risk. "Excess armor makes you more confident to take bad risks.." "do we count touches the same as solid blows?" "Some body parts are worth more points than others.." "Do we allow after-blows or only count first contact?". I think a lack of armor (to the extent we have today), and an overall higher safety risk, along with a more present danger of some day being involved in a real, life or death fight, contributes to a significantly different school and sparring experience. * Personally, I think "no pain, no gain / bruises and broken bones are a lesson" is a poor training technique invented by the worst form of "teacher". Even so, it was effective in many eastern martial arts. is nearly a necessity for boxing / MMA etc, and could have been common in European fencing systems as well. But such injuries are only "effective" if the student is able to; 1: power through them and continue to functionally practice without further risk, albeit in pain, and 2: able to fully recover in a reasonable amount of time. Allowing for anything more than sprains, bruises, minor flesh wounds and broken fingers, toes and noses would be counter productive for both the student and instructor. These "allowances" are much the same today, yet we have superior medical treatments for them. Even so, a broken ankle is 6 months to 1 year of recovery. This is not a "returning student" injury.

Interesting. A lot about assumptions based on assumptions, perceptions of perspectives, subjective reality coloring objective reality. I agreed and disagreed with several things to about a 50/50 level. Imma have to chew on this one for a bit.

Exactly! For an instance I can do something that looks like a zwerh vs ober for a bystander, but for me tactically its something completly different. I do it out of my own initiative, in close distance as a direct attack to the head that covers the line of the inevitable oberhaw - NOT as a reaction to his attack like it is in text. In my experience if you are close enough for zwerh structure to work you will not be fast enough to react if he attacks first like in the text. If you stand further away you will have time but the structure will be too weak and you will get bonked.

Great video! Everything must be tested in a tournament environment to see if it works.

I'd say one thing historical texts have over HEMA is in the context of making contact with or recovering from a successful strike, 'cuz actual combat with sharps isn't really something modern fencers experience. ...I hope. (it's also only relevant to the history rather than the sport)

I believe there is a happy marriage between both point s of view...."Modern" kinesiology and the obvious fundamentals of the use of the "archaeological item"(simulator) and the "Historical" data we are provided by different documented mediums...not just illustrations, miniatures, text and glossa but also from sculpture , textiles, relieves , oral and surviving living traditions. for me that s what makes HEMA well "H"EMA. And that s I keep pursuing personally. Said that, on 417 HEMA we end up adopting a mixed-matched methodology. Where we at a basic level work with everything kinetic, posture, fundamentals of movement(even the seemingly dumb stuff), footwork from a "historical"perspective but filling the gap with modern practice, disassociation of the upper-lower body, turning, the kinetic chain, efficient biomechanics on the swing etc...everything we can add to fill-into the gaps and compensate for a probable lack of any martial-anything experience. The anatomy of the sword, the mechanics of the lever, the anatomical planes of the body and how they relate to the trajectories of cuts and thrusts for example .//// Done that at an intermediate level we start casually immersing the student into all kinds of elements directly from the historical sources....we explore one, two, three steps techniques and maneuvers...we start doing contact getting a feel of the steel with opposition. But we only start doing this AFTER we work a good basic and fundamentals...whatever that may mean for each one of us. We introduce linguistic elements, cultural context and a Pan-European purview on every source we can put our hands on as a broad sample of the use of that specific weapon. ///// When the student is ready to Advance after being bombarded with all kinds of historical bits and tips from a variety of sources , the we focus on specific sources. ............ Its a slower more tedious way to learn and commit to practice but in my experience it produces more complete overall historical fencers. Also, more humble and open- minded ones.

Fantastic insight into a thorny subject. I'm definitely guilty of trying a technique over and over and over to attempt to get it to work - when it's just... not that good. Damned monks and their dodgy illustrations!

You are not Manly enough to do the Zwerch right! ;)

If a technique requires you to be faster, stronger, have a better timing and footwork than our opponent to successfully execute..... why bother with that technique, you have all advantages anyway.

There’s a linguistics issue, which is trying to figure out what any of the English treatises meant by a “hawke” (double OR thricely even!) And then there’s the issue of the books often assuming you know a bit about fighting to begin with. Meyers texts are very comprehensive, and even there he’ll simply say stuff like “leap out strongly to his left”. What does that mean? Am I taking a passing step? A shuffle step? The books have great information and we shouldn’t just throw them out, but you have to pay attention to what’s NOT included.

FLATAMASTRONG!

Yep.

I don't really agree with the example, but in general I tend to agree with the approach. But I don't agree that there is a common footwork and movements for every tradition and weapon. The teacher should condense the simple motions based on the techniques he will later teach from the textbook

So the way everyone talks about this subject is the very reason I don't trust the sources. Everyone's coming at this from a different angle and coming up with vastly different interpretations. Whenever people ask me "should I do Fiore or Liechtenauer" I always tell them, you'll learn more about whoever's teaching you than you'll ever learn about the source they say they're pulling from. Personally, I still hate the "they're MASTER strikes, you have to learn fencing first" argument, because they weren't called master strikes for the first hundred years. But you do at the very least need to know what fencing is like before any of the haupstucke are going to help you. And I think it's better to find a technique to fix a hole in your game than to use a technique to replace a technique you were already using effectively. The latter leads to "this technique sucks, either Liechtenauer was an idiot or we're doing everything wrong", the former leads to "here's how this technique really works, and why".

Notice how the defender's sword is longer than the attacker's in the drawing 😄

Thank you for your video, I am certainly not in the position nor is there any reason to yell at you. While agreeing mostly, there are some things that are hard to understand for me: One thing is about safety. Why do you think, historical people did not really care about? Didn't they live form their hands work too? Did they really act careless and were they oblivious to danger and the risks of injury, crippling wounds and death by stupid mistakes? I can hardly believe that. Another thing is about the person organising a curriculum in 1415. Where does the idea that the teacher is not smart enough to understand group dynamics and leadership theory come from? They most certainly did not “free ball it”, especially as books were way less common than nowadays. Isn’t that a little far fetched to imply, people in the late Middle Ages could not do that, but we nowadays can do it? What would people in 200 years say about us and our teaching methods? Addendum: By reading the respective manuscripts from first to last page, not just the fancy plays, could also provide the reason, why the “Master Strikes” are called that way. The complexity of doing them not always is the reason 😉

Zwerchau works fine as a thrust

Fencers don't need to learn to fence common first, they need to learn how to wrestle first. Petro Monte begins his teaching by saying, "you can't learn how to use a sword if you don't know how to wrestle first" and that "If you can't wrestle you are doomed". Fiore books comprise all his teachings and it begins with unarmed combat first. I think that the lack of danger and restriction to sparring (No grappling/throwing in tournaments, calling halt after 1 tempo opening for a counter) does mean that the income stimulus we get is going to be different slightly from what the sources were expecting. Oberhaws coming from the shoulder rather than check because the cut doesn't need to cut through a thick gamberson for example, just making contact. Or the full on jumping fleeche in longsword, that's not in any text for longsword because it's so suicidal. Not really needing to withdraw after you land a blow because halt is going to be called. Or you see two people just smashing the shit out of messers is missing the fact that oftern that steal for a common person's messer wasn't that good and was gonna break if used like that. Or the hopping hema style doesn't work on wet grass or uneven flooring which is what fencers back in the day were likely going to be fencing on. I also attended Jake Norwood's common fencing class at fighting a few years ago and he ideas makes sence, the reason why Liechtenauer doesn't seem to work is because it's fighting against other Liechtenauer fencers and not the common fencers it was designed to fight against. I do know that most very top level fencers Such as Pedro San Miguel, Cosmos, Martin Fabris are all big nerds who have read a disgusting amount of sources and historical adjacent documents.

100%

Almost AI generated a 2,000 word response but there are some gems here already

Bro doesn't understand how a zwerhau works.

Basically you are repeating "I am right because of physics" without elaborating on it. Just putting it in as a statement. Also the thesis that the Twerhau does not work like descriped against a commited Oberhau is just wrong. Done correctly it just works. You are throwing around "physics" and "science" a lot. What do you mean by this? What is this HEMA-Science? And where are the papers which say "the Twerhau from the sources does not work"?

I haven't read any manuscripts and have placed 3rd and 1st respectively my first two tournaments

lol. I gave up on using the zwerchau a long time ago. Now I feel validated.

Trying to get Liegniczer's 6 plays to actually work competitively already helped me realise medieval HEMA treatises are flawed in themselves. Anyone who doesn't believe me, try the 6th play to steal ur opponent's buckler.

Even more Longsword brain rot. Try reading a source from 1740 forward and tell me it’s lacking in technical instruction lol.