Well, obviously no, but of course, something that is seen as needing to be "the default" as to how you must fight is necessarily seen as being almost required. And common knowledge says one must utilize the shortened sword as "the default" when in armor (and/or facing an armored opponent)! But is that actually true?
Note: the scans, transcriptions, and translations used here can be found on Wiktenauer (Michael Chidester et al.).
Fiore de'i Liberi
First we will look at Fiore's Flos Duellatorum (among other names; you must notice the pun in most of them!). Fiore's corpus is, like many other of the fencing treatises of the time, intended to be pretty holistic; and there are good many clues leading towards this conclusion (for example, directly referencing armor or other weapons in one weapon's "section"). But for a more relevant example, let us look at the "unarmored" section on the sword.
I am a good guard, in armor or without armor, and against a spear or a sword thrown from the hand, I am confident I will not be harmed, because I know how to beat them aside and thus evade them.
Fiore's second, third, and fourth guards all explicitly reference armor; the third and fourth are shortened, but the second (seen directly above) is not. And when armor is mentioned, there seems to be a broad assumption that your opponent will also be armored.
... e piu e apropiada tal guardia in arme che senza arme.
This is the Short Guard that is more effective with a longer sword. It is a deceptive guard but it is risky to wait in. It is constantly moving, trying to see if it can enter with a thrust and a step against the opponent. And this guard is more effective in armor than without armor.
Fiore explicitly says that posta breve is "more appropriate" when in armor than when unarmored.
Now looking at the wide plays, he explicitly references armor three times: First, for a play that occurs after the scambiar de punta play (which is also presented as a play that is done with the sword unshortened), and the armor is presented as a reason why a thrust might not have struck the face or chest. And second, for a play that is started with the sword held long, but ends with the halfsword (because, indeed, moving from the one to the other can be quick), and this second play (punta falsa or punta curta is its name) he says is better in armor than without. And third, for the counter to that second play.
This play is named “The False Point” or “The Short Point”, and I will explain how to do it. I make it look like I am making a powerful attack against my opponent with a crosswise strike to his head. As he makes cover I strike his sword but only lightly. Then I quickly turn my sword to the other side of his blade, gripping my sword with my left hand at about mid-sword. From there I can quickly make a thrust into his throat or chest. This play is however better in armor than without armor.
This play is the counter to the previous play, the False Point or the Short Point. And this counter is made like as follows: when the student strikes my sword lightly and then turns his sword around to the other side, I turn my sword around his in exactly the same way, stepping sideways to the left as I do so to gain his unprotected side. From here I can make a thrust into his face. And this counter is good both with or without armor.
As seen, both of the above plays start with both swords unshortened.
For the close plays, armor is referenced three times, and for all three, a sword is held unshortened. For brevity's sake, I will not cover them.
Now, finally, we reach the section dedicated to the sword in armor.
My name is Middle iron Gate, and whether you are armored or unarmored I make strong thrusts. I step offline with my left foot and I put a thrust into your face. I can also place my point and blade between your arms in such a way that I will put you into the middle bind, as depicted and identified earlier.
This guard is also seen in the "unarmored" corpus, and the use of sword from this guard is, for some reason, again referenced in the axe section.
If my Middle Iron Gate is opposed by the Guard of the Lady, we both know each other’s game, for we have faced each other many, many times in battle with swords and with poleaxes. And let me tell you, what she claims she can do to me, I can do better against her. Also let me tell you that if I had a sword instead of a poleaxe, then I would thrust it into my opponent’s face as follows: when I am waiting in the Middle Iron Gate with my two-handed sword, if he attacked me with his poleaxe with a powerful downward strike from the Guard of the Lady, then I quickly advance forward striking him strongly under his poleaxe as I step off the line, and then I quickly grasp my sword in the middle with my left hand and make the thrust into his face. While there is little difference between we two guards, I am the more deceptive.
As seen, the play starts with the sword not shortened, and then the player shortens it for his second blow.
Now case closed, right? But we do have some more details from Fiore still.
7 (out of the total of 19) of Fiore's sword in armor plays portray an unshortened sword in two hands (all in the hands of the "opponent"). Another 7 have plays with a sword in one hand (the other being used to grapple). Of these, all but one are in the hands of the player. The shortened sword, on the other hand, is involved in 15, with 13 of them being in the hands of the player.
Now as to why there are no unshortened plays covered, that is likely because they are already covered in the "unarmored" corpus (which we have established, is probably a misnomer). And as to why so many are with the shortened sword, that is because the plays covered are likely not as useful out of armor.
All in all, the evidence points towards that Fiore both wanted you to use the sword held long even when facing an armored opponent at least occasionally, and thought that your opponent might also use their sword unshortened.
Kunst des Fechtens
Which is to say, the broad umbrella that is "German" fencing. Now, anyone who has looked at the texts will notice that there's not a whole lot of plays where the sword is used unshortened (not counting the murder strokes or simple pommel strikes, which I will not cover), but there's not an entire lack of them.
Looking at Paulus Hector Mair (tr. Per Magnus Haaland) (for he is the most comprehensive), we see multiple plays with the sword held by the hilt alone attacking with the point.
If you wish to win over your opponent in this battle, then step forward with your left foot, and hold the sword outstretched before you with the point toward the ground, the right hand on the cross and the left on the pommel, and from here you thrust your opponent with the point in his forward left leg/foot.
He then covers the counter to this, which is portrayed in the image above.
The beginning to another play:
Step forward with your right foot toward your opponent, and hold the sword outstretched against the opponent with both hands on the hilt and thrust to his groin with the point.
And another beginning quite similar to the former:
When entering before your opponent, do as follows in this device: step forward with your left foot and grab hold with both hands on the hilt on your right side, with the point towards the opponent, and thrust at his groin.
Again:
When engaging into combat you step in with your right foot and hold the sword outstretched before you with both hands on the hilt, and thrust at the opponent's face or chest.
And once more:
In this battle you do as follows: stand with your left foot forward and hold the sword with left and above your left knee and the tip pointing toward the ground. If he then stands before you with right foot forward and tries to thrust into your forward left foot, then step forward with the right foot and remove his attack by the cross of the sword and turn in the pommel into his face.
Again:
In this device you do as follows: step forward with your left foot and hold your sword outstretched before you with the left hand on the pommel, and thrust the opponent in his forward right foot.
Now for a longer play, which you will see again that the authors assume that one can transition from the long sword to the short sword quite quickly:
In this device you do as follows: step forward with your right foot towards your opponent, and hold the sword with the point directed to the ground, and from there you thrust him in the front of his left foot past his right leg. If you are standing with your right foot forward and he thrusts at your left foot, then move your right arm over his right arm, and remove his thrust in the middle the sword you your right, and then you raise the sword and put the pommel behind his neck and pull to you. If he uses the same technique, you put your cross against his right arm from underneath. Then you change grip on the sword, that is you put your left hand where you hold with your right hand and take hold of the middle of the blade with the right hand. Then you step forward with the left foot and push your opponent away from you thus. If you are thrust back like this, you step back with the right foot and thrust him in the right elbow with your point.
I will attempt to summarize:
Player 1 throws his point forward, thrusting Player 2's (who has his right foot forward) left foot (which was at the rear).
Player 2 should then attempt to ward Player 1's thrust using the halfsword, and then use his pommel as a lever to throw Player 1.
Player 1 should then respond by shortening his sword (for he thrusted at Player 2's foot with his sword held long) by gripping his blade with his right hand, stepping forward and pushing his opponent away.
Player 2 should then respond by pulling his right foot back (for it was still at the front), and then thrust Player 1's elbow.
Mair also describes a cut with the sword against the helmet:
If you want to emerge victorious, then do as follows in this fight: step forward with your left foot and hold the sword with both hands on the hilt over your head, with the pommel toward the opponent. From this position you step forward with your right foot and strike your opponent hard in the head.
The German version(s) say "and hew [hawe] him with your sword on his head". The goal of Player 1 would likely be to concuss his opponent, if indeed the author intended this to be a blow with the blade (which considering the usage of the term "hew", seems at least likely, especially since Mair doesn't specify the use of the pommel unlike for his descriptions of every pommel strike in his corpus, but rather specifies "mit deinem schwert"; nor does he use the term schlag, which is the only term he seems to use for strikes with the pommel or cross, but rather hau).
Mair might also show another play where the blade of the sword is used to strike with, but the Latin is unclear as to what it means by "inferiori ensis parte" as in another armored play, "partea ensis tui inferiori" is used to seemingly refer to the lower half of the sword blade. And the German I cannot make out (it looks like "schlag im mit sterckh nach seinem haupt mit deinem voirdern teil deines schwerts"/strike him with strength on his head with the front part of your sword, but my paleography is poor), but it also uses the verb schlag; and while this verb is also often used to refer to cuts and whatnot, but unlike hau, it is not exclusively so.
If he parries on his sword, you step forward with your right foot and hit him with the pommel on the inside of his left elbow. If he does this, you parry on the blade between your hands, move the pommel outside his sword and hit him in the chest. If he defends himself in this manner, you step back with your left foot and grab hold with the hilt with both hands and hit him in the head with the lower part of the sword as hard as you can.
The so called Die Blume des Kampfes (tr. Jay Acutt) likewise specifies that the first armored play of Fiore (seen above in the section on Fiore) can be done against a thrust or a strike.
A learned technique for when you stand with your sword at armed hands and someone approaches you and wants to stab or strike from above, then reach up with the blade between your hands and parry him up and away...
Unlike Fiore's work, there is very little use of the unshortened sword (attacking with the point). Out of the 85 or so, these are the only 7 plays that explicitly reference its use (and perhaps another 2 that strike with the blade). It may be a valid argument that Mair (and in truth, the rest of the German "tradition") puts a greater emphasis on the shortened sword. However, it may also simply be again, that the "unshortened plays" (not found in the corpus to those covering the short sword) are not specific to unarmored fencing. However, one may argue (with truth) that the unarmored corpus never references armor in the KdF treatises, and therefore there is no evidence for this (although I believe this may simply be for the sake of brevity).
However, we do have some more evidence from Talhoffer, specifically his attributed Gotha treatise, and his Königsegg treatise, when he covers the principal guards for armored fencing.
You will note that especially the former shares a resemblance to Fiore's posta mezza porta di ferro (the middle iron gate posture), which is also one of Fiore's principal guards for harness fencing.
Unfortunately, Talhoffer's works are quite (purposefully) cryptic, and the texts don't quite make sense on their own. For the Königsegg treatise (the 2nd image, directly above) of the versions say the "first" is good for thrusting (stechen), and the Berlin copy also says that the "second" is for hewing/striking (hawen). It would only make sense if the second was the left and the first was the right, but who knows.
But I do think we can say that Talhoffer, at least for these treatises, assumed the use of the unshortened sword to some extent.
Now oddly enough, the so called Gladiatoria (tr. Hugh T. Knight, Jr.) treatise has no use of the unshortened sword for the sword section, but we do see it in the spear section.
Note the fifth play. If you threw your spear and missed and his counter-thrust comes too fast, grip your sword with both hands and deflect the thrust with an upwards strike. After deflecting, hold your sword in your armored hand and work it around his spear.
Note the seventh play. If you have successfully parted him from his spear and he draws his sword and strikes at you, grab the dagger in both hands and catch his blow between your hands with the dagger. This way, you can start wrestling for his sword.
Lastly, we see two unshortened swords used in armor in the Berlin Picture Book, illustrated possibly by Albrecht Durer.
However, it is not a fencing treatise in the true sense (and the text here seems super cryptic, as usual), although it does properly portray techniques.
Conclusion
So to conclude, I think we can resoundly say no to the question proper. Of course, one may argue the philosophy of Fiore vs. the German texts, and while I personally believe that both show enough use of the point of the unshortened sword to say it was not odd, the evidence for the German texts is a lot less strong.
Now if halfswording was not used because it was required to be used, then why was is it so prominent in the treatises? The sword held conventionally (not shortened, I mean) retains the advantage in reach, afterall. I think the obvious answer is that when you are in armor, because you can close with a certain amount of ease (although not entirely without risk), as reach is much less important when in armor, the threat of the same goes up, and therefore one must practice for it. And secondly, the halfsword can be a pretty strong position, especially to overthrow your opponent after planting your point. As the gloss attributed to Peter von Danzig (tr. Stephen Cheney) of Liechtenauer's armored fencing zettel writes:
Note, arrange yourself into the fourth guard in combat as follows: Hold your sword with the right hand by the handle, and with the left grip the middle of the blade, and hold it under your right armpit, and plant the one hilt forward firmly to the chest, and hold the point against the man.
Note a good lesson
Know, you shall come to the fourth guard from all other guards with planting, hear it as follows: When you stab to him from a guard, if it is then the case that you land your hit correctly, so that your point sticks in the armor, then immediately wind the hilt to your chest into the guard, and force him in front of you as such, and don’t let him come away from the point, so he may not stab nor strike again.
And for some trivia, Joachim Meyer (tr. Jordan E. Finch) in his 1561 treatise actually describes striking (hewen) with (the blade of) the sebell (the curtilace seen blow), seemingly principally to force the opponent to release his sword or his own sebell by striking his hand (and the use of its point, as well as the point of its pommel, is also described).
Paulus Hector Mair also has a play in his spear section where one of the players (the man on the right, depicted below) throws away his spear, takes his sword in his right hand (with the shield still in his left), and throws a cut (haw/ferias) at his opponent's elbow (as he cannot thrust at his opponent's face).
Furthermore, should he do the same thing, you parry his attack to your right with your shield, drop your spear, step forward with your right foot, grab the sword with your right hand, and strike him in his right elbow and step away from him.
Although you might consider this one more circumstantial, although for one of his plays with the mace and shield (it is clear via the text that the play is to be done in an armored context), he also has you strike the elbow (and both are done with the passing step, probably targeting the medial epicondyle/the funny bone).
And I think that is it! For me, the evidence feels pretty conclusive, especially since the primary tenets of fencing still apply to harness fencing, like tempo and measure (and not just buffaloing to the grapple), although if you disagree, feel free to explain why (preferably with reasoning supported from the texts). Thank you to those who have contributed to Wiktenauer!
- William
No comments:
Post a Comment