Hand position in Messer, Saber, and Rapier

[Bill Welch]

Something that just dawned on me the other day while looking thru some fight manuals.

I noticed that in most manuals that cover Messer, Saber, and some small sword (cut and thrust) the off hand is held out of the way to (presumably) prevent it being chopped off, But in most Rapier texts it is kept at the ready to grab or set aside the Blade. Now the use of the off hand is of course not prevented in Messer, Saber, and small sword (cut and thrust), but is reserved for once you have closed range with the opponent.

To my way of thinking it seems that this observation, shows the less than lethal cutting power of the Rapier.

I was just wondering on others thoughts and opinions.

[Corey Roberts]

Yes, indeed it's one thing to grab at a long pointed length of steel with more or less no serious edge capable of causing large lacerating wounds, whereas no fool in their right mind would try to do the same to something like a wide bladed cutting weapon such as a messer. Just a note cut and thrust swords are not smallswords, the smallsword developed in the late 17th century and also does not possess a powerful cutting ability. The military cut and thrust developed before, and was also contemporanious to the Rapier.

[Stacy Clifford]

I would agree with that too. A circular wrist cut with a messer definitely has enough power to take a hand off at the wrist and is extremely fast, too fast to try and jerk your hand out of the way if it's already in range. A longer cut and thrust or older single sword is just as powerful at the wrist and makes up in reach what it loses in speed over the messer. Despite its length I could see a rapier doing a fast wrist cut due to its balance, but without a narrow edge or significant mass at the tip it probably wouldn't do much more than break your wrist bones at worst. You do risk having your hand run through in trying to swat or grab the blade, but I imagine a hole in your hand is quite a bit easier to live with than a stump, and it might even bind up his blade long enough for you to get a more lethal counter in (not that anyone would do that intentionally, but when you get lemons...).

[Bill Welch]

Just a note cut and thrust swords are not smallswords,

I guess what I meant was really single sword manuals, not really small sword.

[Martin Surdel]

Hi

CGM582 (Leckuchner) advises holding your off hand in front of your chest, if in-fighting is expected or planned. It's in the text (folio 2 recto), but not shown on illustrations.

I think that later Messer/Dussack manuals are more and more influenced by sporting rules of Fechtschulen, where the use of the off hand and grappling were forbidden.

Greetings

[Bill Welch]

Hi

CGM582 (Leckuchner) advises holding your off hand in front of your chest, if in-fighting is expected or planned. It's in the text (folio 2 recto), but not shown on illustrations.

Sorry it took so long to get back to the discussion.

In Talhoffer 1467 starting with tafel 223 it clearly shows the off hand firmly placed at the small of the back, and In Hans Lecküchner 1482 the pictures show the fighters their hands behind their backs.. Once they get in close to grappling distance the off hand comes into play.

[/quote]
I think that later Messer/Dussack manuals are more and more influenced by sporting rules of Fechtschulen, where the use of the off hand and grappling were forbidden.

Greetings[/quote]

I don't know about that, Meyer is full of grappling and offensive use of the off hand.

[Martin Surdel]

In Talhoffer 1467 starting with tafel 223 it clearly shows the off hand firmly placed at the small of the back, and In Hans Lecküchner 1482 the pictures show the fighters their hands behind their backs.. Once they get in close to grappling distance the off hand comes into play.

CGM 582 is Hans Leckuchner's, written between 1478 and 1482.
We've tried that approach, with off-hand held as a general rule at the lower back, but found it too slow to employ off-hand in grappling. You just don't have enough time against aggresively closing opponent - either you have off-hand at least slightly in front, or you take more risk. That seems consistent with written advice:
So soltu mit eyner hendt vechten mit dem messer vnd dy
ander soltu auff dem ruck haben ob dw aber wildt mit lerer handt
vechten alz mit messer nemen vber greffyen arme beschlissen
So soltu dy handt von dem ruck auff dy prust wenden waß
dw ym wildt ynbendig vber den arme treyben

Quick and dirty translation:
"You should with one hand fight with the Messer, and the other keep on the back - unless you want to fight (also) with the off-hand as in Messernehmen (disarms) , catching from above and immobilising his arms. In that case you should move the (off-)hand from the back to the chest, if you want to work from inside over his arms."

As to the plates from Talhoffer and CGM582 - they don't show starting positions, just middle of sequence when they illustrate Stuecke with use of the off-hand. Of course, one can assume that off-hand starts always from the back, but that would be against the text of CGM582 IMHO.

There's one more bonus in incorporating "off-hand slightly in front" positions to your Messer repertoire - transition to sword-and-buckler as in Ringeck's seven pieces becomes more natural.

I don't know about that, Meyer is full of grappling and offensive use of the off hand.

Seems I need to read Meyer properly, not just flip the pages ...

[Bill Welch]

I don't know about that, Meyer is full of grappling and offensive use of the off hand.

Seems I need to read Meyer properly, not just flip the pages ...

Yes if you can get Jeff Forgeng's translation, it is the complete translation. It contains some information that is not available in English. Such as something that I thought was a fight school rule. In the very first paragraph on Rapier it says

"As regards Rapier combat, which at the present time is a very necessary and useful practice, there is no doubt that it is a newly discovered practice with the Germans and brought to us from other people. For although the thrust was permitted by our forefathers in earnest cases against the common enemy, yet not only did they not permit it in sporting practice, but they would also in no way allow it for their sworn in soldiers or others who had come into conflict with each other, except against the common enemy, a custom that should still be observed today by honorable soldiers and by civilian Germans."

So don't thrust against other Germans, but it was OK to thrust into a Common enemy.

I had always heard or thought that the "Rules ofFIGHT SCHOOL" did not permit the thrust. I would like to see something that outlined the Fight School rules, other than supposition and conjecture on someones part.[/b]

[Martin Surdel]

Thanks, but transcription from Freifechter website will do.

As to the Fechtschule rules - Matt Galas seems to have found Belgian rules, more info can be found at Swordforum: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... gian+guild
Not actually German, but close enough.

There's also a bit in Amberger: http://www.swordhistory.com/excerpts/marx.html , but I don't know what's his source.

[Bill Welch]

Thanks, but transcription from Freifechter website will do.

It is a good translation, but the Longsword section is incomplete it stops after fighting from longpoint, and then leaves out the next 40 something pages.

But I don't know of one on the net that is complete.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Yes, I do not understand why those guys have left such a big gap in their text after so many years.

[Bill Welch]

Yes, I do not understand why those guys have left such a big gap in their text after so many years.

Mike said that at the time The Meyer Project was going on and he thought they had a better shot at completing it. Then The Meyer Project fell apart and nobody finished it until Jeffery Forgeng. He completed the whole fight book, Longsword, Rapier (Meyer is really more cut and thrust than true rapier), Dusack, Dagger, Wrestling, Pike, halberd, quarter staff.

I don't know of any other full translation from German into English.