This gets me excited like no other swordplay content I have seen. To see the possibilities that bloom from these fundamentals and to see the movements executed so artfully is a real thing of beauty - and aspiration. Thank you for your work.
This is incredibly useful and something I have missed in beginner training. I believe this helps a lot to not learn 'a trick' but learn from a solid foundation. Thank you for sharing and thank you for the excellent didactic approach
Wonderful work, very helpful even for non-beginners to brush up their terminology. A lot of these words I've heard thrown around but never had a good grasp of what they meant, so it's nice to have a visual reference.
Without a doubt, this is clearest explanation of Vor, Nach, and Indes that I have ever heard. Nice work! Your sparring video with Federico Malagutti is another great example of how to bring these terms to life
@@VirtualFechtschule It means a lot to have your content. Whenever my clubmates want videos to help with home training, I have no qualms pointing them straight to you.
Great work Oskar! This will be great as reference material for our longsword beginners, and great for getting the link between longsword and Leckuchner messer.
Thank you. This was excellent. As an Italian style (Fiore/Vadi/Bolognese) fencer who has only studied a little Meyer, this helps immensely in understanding things that my German style colleagues are talking about.
My backround is in bolognese sidesword mainly but since I'm seriously thinking about trying out the messer I wanted to check this video out. Suprisingly much of these techniques have a pretty much one on one equivalent technique in bolognese fencing. It's like someone told me in a tournanent once: "single handed fencing is single handed fencing and you can use single handed techniques in it"
Very nice. Most of the words have alternative spelling depending on from which period or region the book or manuscript comes from. For example “haw” can be seen spelled as: haw, hau, hauw. Reyssen or more commonly spelled raissen and is spelled rasen in modern german is to rush in or dash. It is often used a reaction against a mistake done by the opponent. Most commonly in longsword it is used in the context of “nachreissen”, that is “to rush in after”…
Very true. I'm just picking one spelling, with maybe a silly variation on my own style here and there, and I'll maintain that that is a very historically accurate thing to do. 😅
Huh, as a german I until now always thought that as the old terms are much closer to the modern german "reißen" (ß is sz in modern german, previously often spelled ss) than to "rasen", it correspondingly meant "ripping" or "pulling fast", the latter making a lot of sense in many situations where the old terms are used (and "reißen" also describes an animal killing prey, but that doesn't make as much sense). Do you have a source for your translation into "rasen"?
In the München version, Rayssen is the spelling for Nachrayssen and Reyssen is the spelling when there's an armwrestling action. I have to check for consistency, but this might just be a different meaning. I wouldn't translate it as 'rushing' in a wrestling context.
This is absolutely cracking work. Do you have a text reference for: 1. the unterhaw with the messer being short edged? I don’t remember reading it in the text. 2. Keeping the strong side forward whilst moving the feet in the messer? We often deliberately let the strong side trail to develop power via torso rotation.
No text reference for 1 unfortunately (hence why I thought this video was necessary). I used the plays for Ansetzen and Durchwechsel and came to the conclusion that they only work with short edge unterhaw. (Additionally, the illustrations only make sense with short edge unterhaw as well). 2. I'm not sure if I said strong side, but what I meant at any rate was that you want one particular side to be forward, which might not coincide with footwork, hence the need for a turned foot.
@@VirtualFechtschule I had a bit of a hunt through the text and I can’t find evidence either way for 1. Given that you are supposed to press with it from both above and below though, I just can’t see the short edge working for abscheiden. The hand is just in too much of a weak position on a short edge cut. 2. With you on that now. Perhaps I misunderstood it in the video.
As said, it's nowhere in the text, but based on Ansetzen and Durchwechseln and the fact that the unterhaw simply makes more sense in freeplay this way, I feel quite strongly about it being with the short edge. When it comes to the Abschneiden / Schnitte and Hände drücken, I'm not sure if I'm following. I understand these to not be cuts, but structured pressing against the wrist, and rather done with the movement associated with winding. There's also a short edge/long edge component in that Haupstück as well, but I get a strong feeling that hat is more to consistently use the short edge on windings on your left side and the long edge for windings on the right side.
But anyway, if I need to clarify the short edge and the thought process behind it further, I could probably better do a short video on this the coming week. I can throw in the plays I was referring to. :)
The concept of "vor nach und Indes" is a bit more dificile than you explained. There are two ways how you can define the "vor" and "nach". 1. Timingwise - this is like you explained - the first one who acts is in "VOR" the other one in "nach" 2. tacticalwise - my opponent is moviing first, but in a forced movement which I did by a guard/stance/presenting opeing gap whatever - and so I am quite aware what he will do, so I am in a tactical "VOR". Timingwise I am in "Nach", but tacticalwise I am in "Vor" 🤷♂ stay well, cheers harry
Vor and Nach are purely timing. What you describe as "tactical vor" is, if at all, indes. Your interpretation would mean, both fencer can be in tactical vor at the same time (I know them giving me the Blösse is a trick and their counteraction will propably be x, so I prepare to do y to counter that, yadda yadda yadda. But, the words used contradict this possibility. Only one fencer can be in the vor, the one moving first, which lets the other one automatically be in the nach. The sources also pretty mich state that indes is actually this tactical timing you explained, by saying: "You should always be aware of what to do next if your opponents acts and that is the word that is called indes."
That one's coming! I'll do a video dedicated to the SIGI Messer and somewhere this year I'll also do a huge video to compare as many different messer trainers as I can. :)
I’ll give you a really short one. Buy one. They are awesome. Just like their feders. Other companies make messers that are designed to look as much like the real thing as possible. Sigi makes a training tool that handles beautifully and is safe. Buy one. They are by far the best on the market.
I am a bit confused. You said „Obenhau“ but it is called „Oberhau“. Maybe you will change it in further videos. Btw. It’s a very good video for people who are new to HEMA and want to study Langes Schwert and Langes Messer in the German tradition.
Isn't treten just advance/retreat steps, and passing steps should be reffered to as schreiten? This comes from Talaga's interpretation of nurymberg codex.
Possibly this is the case in the ms.3227a. DRL and Lecküchner are far less detailed. Treten is the most common word, with schritt sometimes being interchanged. The advancing steps should be there obviously for distance management (but this is not described afaik), but especially for Lecküchner during fencing actions mostly you're either passing, jumping, double stepping, or only occasionally, stepping out to the side.
*obeRhau Your explanation for the geometry of the Unterhau in Messer would also apply to long sword...so this cannot be the reason. Can we, as a sport, please stop showing the Wunder as direct attacks with free cuts? The sources are very clear about the point that the Wunder come from the bind. The Liechtenauer glosses even state you should not, in any case, do a free cut. The zeckrur is done AFTER your opponent did an action with the sword. Otherwise they will hit you with a double hit. *Schwäche. I am pretty sure it is swech in the older sources. Fühlen and Empfinden are synonyms. Lecküchner just uses a different word for the same thing.
Oberhaw: yeah, I'm crap with orthography. Get over it, I get it right most of the time nowadays. Unterhaw with Messer: it does make a difference, since having two hands on the blade allows for more extension without compromising structure of the cut. Wunder: it's an explanation of the different ways to land a hit. Glosses do connect it with windings indeed, but that's not the point here. Apart from that, I also like to be practical. Direct attacks are part of fencing, and not doing them because the glosses don't necessarily mention them as stücke is... Not really sensible I guess? Zeckrur: if you take only what the glosses say, true. But cuts to hands work, they don't lead to doubles if done well. We may as wel call them Zeckrur because the underlying principle is the same. Fühlen and Empfinden are synonyms, and yet, Lecküchner uses it differently. Fühlen in longsword sources seems to assume a bind, from what I've seen, and in Lecküchner Empfinden happens anytime when you notice something that you can respond to, even if there's no blade contact.
@@VirtualFechtschule Oberhau: No ill meaning. I am just a pedantic German guy 😅 Wunder: It's not that the glosses don't mention free cuts, there are glosses that specifically say: DO NOT do it. With the exception of very specific circumstances (Nachreisen and Zecke to the body). Zeckrur: Strong disagree on that one. Zeckrur is not a cut to the hands. It is a superficial cut (zecken means "provoking/teasing" and was at the time the word for teasing childs play) to an opening after the opponent left his threat to the center with an action (most commonly a cut to the blade). The glosses are very specific about this and also about which target (hands or body) you should zecken to in which situation. The zeckrur specifically uses the impulse you gain from the opponent. It is basically what you do if you fail the timing on your durchwechseln and the opponent hits your blade befor you begin the durchwechseln motion. Empfinden: Do you have a citation for this? You are way deeper in the lecküchner sources than I am and I didn't find any mention of it that didn't follow a "after your blades meet" since I wrote my initial comment. Edit: Geez you got hurt by this. I view this as a somewhat scientific discussion. My experience is that the German to English interpretation often creates some "lost in translation" mumbo jumbo, so I just spill my facts as I know them. If I am wrong tell me.
