I.33 and Falling Under the Sword & Shield

[Jaron Bernstein]

OK. I am far from an S&B expert. I will defer to what you and Ilka are saying.

Jaron

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi again,

one interesting bit that Randall is addressing, and I forgot to comment on, is the tactical difference depending on whether the Scholar besets the underarm ward in half-shield or longpoint.

In case of longpoint the priest is instructed to bind always, either above or under (page 12).

In case of half-shield, the instruction is to fall under the sword and shield. If the priest was, again, to bind, why would the action be called totally different?

Interestingly, the half-shield against underarm is repeated on page 16, with the text saying that here you do all that was before (...et habebis omnia priora). Could this be referring to the possibility of also binding, or is it a reference to the action of falling under that was in the very beginning? Why is this repeated here?

Now, for something different, I'd like you to consider the following:

What if the "falling under" is not a bind, but neither a cut to the arm, and neither the complete action of following with the mutacio. Wikipedia gives the following for the Latin preposition "sub":

sub (+ ablative)
under, beneath
behind
at the foot of
within, during
about (time)

What if, it does not mean "under", but behind or within?

For a second, let's say that I am the priest. My opponent goes to beset me in half-shield. No immediate threat in the form of point is presented, and the blade is not in a good position for me to bind it. The arm may be exposed, but I know that my opponent is probably expecting it, and going for the arm leaves me in danger of being stabbed as I cut the arm (which follows the instruction "not to throw a strike").

Instead, I incite the opponent by simply throwing my sword near the hilt of his weapon, into a position from where he is in a perfect position to bind. Now, being an ordinary fencer, he goes to strike my head immediately, but as my sword is pretty close to the center, and I am not committed to an attack I can easily stifle his attack with a stich-schlach.

If, on the other hand, my opponent takes the bait and binds my sword, which he can easily do, I am prepared to do my mutacio, the durchthritt or the wrap, depending on my will, the aggressiveness of the opponent and the measure in which we end up working.

What do you think?

- Ilkka

[Randall Pleasant]

One interesting bit that Randall is addressing, and I forgot to comment on, is the tactical difference depending on whether the Scholar besets the underarm ward in half-shield or longpoint.

In case of longpoint the priest is instructed to bind always, either above or under (page 12).

In case of half-shield, the instruction is to fall under the sword and shield. If the priest was, again, to bind, why would the action be called totally different?

Ilkka

Against Longpoint it is very easily to get a good over-bind. As you know, I.33 has a couple of techiques where one just grabs the blade being held in Longpoint. But this is not true of Half-Shield. The result of binding against Half-Shield is the establishment an Longpoint bind against Half-Shield. From such a bind the adversary can easily get a Shield-Strike.

Interestingly, the half-shield against underarm is repeated on page 16, with the text saying that here you do all that was before (...et habebis omnia priora). Could this be referring to the possibility of also binding, or is it a reference to the action of falling under that was in the very beginning? Why is this repeated here?

Now, for something different, I'd like you to consider the following:

What if the "falling under" is not a bind, but neither a cut to the arm, and neither the complete action of following with the mutacio. Wikipedia gives the following for the Latin preposition "sub":

sub (+ ablative)
under, beneath
behind
at the foot of
within, during
about (time)

What if, it does not mean "under", but behind or within?

In regard to "sub" meaning something other than "under" we have to consider it in context of Latin rather than English and within the context of I.33, which has a number of images that show a sequence of actions that strongly support the translation of "cede sub" as meaning "fall under". We should not analysis one piece of data outside of the context of all the data.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hi everyone,

Sorry for leaving the discussion early, but I was away from keyboard in vacation.

Anyway, I think there are in fact a bunch of matters being discussed at once, of varrying significance:

1) What is the appropriate translation for cade sub gladium quoque scutum, does cade apply to just the sword or does it mean something else
2) Does this sentence apply to a whole sequence ending by the change of sword, or just to the action shown at the bottom of page 3
3) What exaclty is the priest doing at the bottom of page 3: cutting (if so where and from which angle), binding, thrusting etc.

1 and 3 are linked of course, but 2 is relatively independent. Randall, I thought the gist of your point was to challenge the common answer to question 2, but now I'm not sure. As you said yourself it has little practical impact, because everyone already does the end of the action in the way you describe... Unless it brings a further understanding of other parts of the manual, it still means that if you are in a guard from the left and opposed by half-shield, you do the action at the bottom of page 3, whether you call it "falling under" or just "initial action of falling under".

Personally I think Ikka was correct when he highlighted this:

These three are for the priest: durchtritt, mutation of the sword, or with the right hand he may grasp sword and shield.

Mutation of the sword is only one option, so falling under is not just attempting to do this.

As for problem 1, I trust much better latinists than me (Franck Cinato and André Surprenant). If they think cade sub ... can apply to the body as it dives under the opponent's weapons, I won't challenge their understanding of latin. They are not working from a translation but from the original text... And this interpretation of fall is not specific to English or German, it works in French too, for one thing. I think it goes deeper than just idiomatic use in germanic languages.

The real interesting question, in my opinion, is point 3. Whatever you call it the action is not clear, as the discussion shows, and many actions could end up in this position and lead to the three options of the priest.

Personally, I think it all hinges on our understanding of half-shield. Why is it a good opposition to the guards with the sword held at the left side? I'm no expert on I.33 but everytime I see this kind of discussion I have the feeling that we'd need a better understanding of the oppositions and how they protect the opposer. For one thing, I'm not all that sure that the right arm really is exposed in halfshield. I'm nearly sure that there is something lost on the manuscript with the lack of perspective, even for these seemingly simple positions. Since it is nowhere written that the one doing the falling under is even likely to cut the arm, and nowhere written that the one in halfshield protects his arm, I assume that halfshield protects the right side, and mostly right arm, far better than it seems on the flat drawing. It's in the direct line of attacks after all.

Anyway, interesting discussion. Makes me reconsider some things that I thought I understood...

Regards,

[Randall Pleasant]

Hi everyone,

Sorry for leaving the discussion early, but I was away from keyboard in vacation.

Anyway, I think there are in fact a bunch of matters being discussed at once, of varrying significance:

1) What is the appropriate translation for cade sub gladium quoque scutum, does cade apply to just the sword or does it mean something else
2) Does this sentence apply to a whole sequence ending by the change of sword, or just to the action shown at the bottom of page 3
3) What exaclty is the priest doing at the bottom of page 3: cutting (if so where and from which angle), binding, thrusting etc.

1 and 3 are linked of course, but 2 is relatively independent.

Vincent

What is the most logical thing to assume would be falling? To assume that anything else other than the priest's sword is totally illogical. It is a very simple act being described by the author of I.33! It's not unlike seeing a image of a man and a airplane and reading the instruction "Fly to the sky" and wondering if it is the man or the airplane that will do the flying. The sword falls.

Randall, I thought the gist of your point was to challenge the common answer to question 2, but now I'm not sure. As you said yourself it has little practical impact, because everyone already does the end of the action in the way you describe... Unless it brings a further understanding of other parts of the manual, it still means that if you are in a guard from the left and opposed by half-shield, you do the action at the bottom of page 3, whether you call it "falling under" or just "initial action of falling under".

My interpretation has a significat impact and it brings a totally NEW understanding to "Falling Under the Sword & Shield"! I have clearly shown that binding against Half-Shield as done in the interpretations of Guy Windsor, Sean Hays, Paul Wagner, Roland Warzecha, and Robert Holland is totally wrong. It also shows that the interpretations of Guy Windsor, Sean Hays, Paul Wagner, Roland Warzecha, Robert Holland, and Brian Hunt & Stewart Feil are incomplete because they did not include the actual "Under" part of "Falling Under the Sword & Shield". My interpretation of "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" is fully supported by the text and images of I.33 and it the only interpretation where the priest's sword actually falls and goes under the sword & shield of the student!

Personally I think Ikka was correct when he highlighted this:

These three are for the priest: durchtritt, mutation of the sword, or with the right hand he may grasp sword and shield.

Mutation of the sword is only one option, so falling under is not just attempting to do this.

As for problem 1, I trust much better latinists than me (Franck Cinato and André Surprenant). If they think cade sub ... can apply to the body as it dives under the opponent's weapons, I won't challenge their understanding of latin. They are not working from a translation but from the original text... And this interpretation of fall is not specific to English or German, it works in French too, for one thing. I think it goes deeper than just idiomatic use in germanic languages.

The real interesting question, in my opinion, is point 3. Whatever you call it the action is not clear, as the discussion shows, and many actions could end up in this position and lead to the three options of the priest.

Personally, I think it all hinges on our understanding of half-shield. Why is it a good opposition to the guards with the sword held at the left side? I'm no expert on I.33 but everytime I see this kind of discussion I have the feeling that we'd need a better understanding of the oppositions and how they protect the opposer. For one thing, I'm not all that sure that the right arm really is exposed in halfshield. I'm nearly sure that there is something lost on the manuscript with the lack of perspective, even for these seemingly simple positions. Since it is nowhere written that the one doing the falling under is even likely to cut the arm, and nowhere written that the one in halfshield protects his arm, I assume that halfshield protects the right side, and mostly right arm, far better than it seems on the flat drawing. It's in the direct line of attacks after all.

I fully agree that one must understanding of Half-Shield to understand why one has to "Fall Under the Sword & Shield". As I have stated earlier in this thread the priest wants an over-bind from which he can perform a Shield-Strike. However, from the Under-Arm guard any attempt by the priest to bind against a correctly a held Half-Shield will put the priest in Longpoint with his weak on the strong of the students blade. Sean Hay's has a video (http://www.northwestacademyofarms.com/) that not only shows a bind against Half-Shield but it also shows how easy the student can counter that bind...and that is just one of a dozen ways to counter it. The priest performs "Fall Under the Sword & Shield" so he can get the student to move out of Half-Shield into a position where the priest can get a good strong bind.

That the right arm being exposed in Half-Shield is very easy to test. Just stand in the Half-Shield guard and see if someone can hit your arm from Under-Arm. I assure you that I can hit your arm. What protects the student's right arm is his sword, which he uses to bind against the oncoming blow. We see the hand protected by the sword rather than the buckler on the left side on page 17 when the student stands in Covering. During "Falling Under the Sword and Shield" the cut by the priest forces the student to bind in order to protect his arm.

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi,

it is quite easy to protect the hand in half-shield. As Vincent implies, the perspective of the pictures can leave a part of the story untold. If you direct your centerline towards the sword of the opponent your arm is basically no longer exposed, especially not as much as it is if half-shield is held straight towards the opponent.

I'd also like to remind that I haven't really seen anyone interpret the initial action as a bind in the sense that binds are done in I.33. An action with contact on the blade can be called a bind, or not, depending on how one defines these terms.

The cut to the arm is, of course, a possibility, but it can be negated by turning the body towards the sword, as then, in order to reach the arm, the person in first ward would have to step very wide to reach the arm opening himself up and taking too long a tempo in doing so.

The mutacio has more of an element of really falling under than the other two, but it is clear from the text that there are three options. Either the falling under is the initial part, or then the falling under is any of the three. Is there an argument against this?

By your own reasoning, the cut to the arm can't be called 'falling under', since it is falling over. It would be very odd that the name of this initial action would be called falling under if that is only the result of the opponent going to bind. If he doesn't, yes, you could strike the arm, but that would then be a strike to the arm, not falling under. And what comes to pictorial evidence, the position is maybe a bit strange, but in all instances the priests sword is over the arm, not under.

I see your point, Randall, but please try to stay objective, especially to your own theory. Saying that you are right, and everybody else wrong, is perhaps not the best way to convince others, is it?

And let's keep in mind, that there will never be one single way to tell whether we are absolutely 'right' or 'wrong', since these terms are quite subjective. If everybody ends up doing the technique as you do it, then you can be happy about it, if not, then it is a question of reasoning why one does things a certain way - if it works for you, then good.

You see, if the priest had, instead of talking about "falling under" said that he beats the scholar's sword aside, the pictures could be the same, the rest of the text could be the same and the interpretation could be martially sound. Just a change on few words. Think about it.

- Ilkka

[I. Hartikainen]

...and one more thing.

Randall, if you want to be really convincing about this, go beyond the mere first pages of the text with your analysis (as you might already have done), see how the action of falling under is referred to in the text multiple times, and how everything seems to be falling back to that.

According to you, I get the feeling that everything should be falling back to the change of swords, which is a very intriguing theory.

I'd love to read your reasoning as to why the mutacio is the key to the whole system of I.33, and how this action relates to the plays from other positions.

Yours,
Ilkka

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

I disagree that the sword is logically the only thing that can fall. I can't remember ever looking at the image and thinking that the sword has fallen. I can however pretty much figure how to let my body fall, or stumble, under the weapons of the adversary. Seriously, we must be missing something if it's simply a cut to the arm. Why would you describe a cut to the arm as "falling under"? Because it fails? Why assume that the cut always fails? Why even throw such a cut if it always fails? Why, if not to establish contact with the opponent's sword (indeed calling it a bind is confusing in I.33 context)? I disagree that this contact is only used to get the student to counterbind. If the student ignores it and tries for example the attack shown in page 22, it is possible for the priest to counter efficiently, setting the strike aside as the point of contact moves towards the tip of the student's sword and the guard of the priest's. Once again, it is exactly like in Thibault.

As for the protection of the sword's arm when in half-shield, Ikka has pointed out what I had in mind but couldn't test myself. I do not question the fact that you can hold a version of half-shield in a way that exposes the arm and yet fits the illustration, but if the arm is never hit that version must be the wrong one.

Your whole line of thought would benefit from including page 17, as it shows a position somewhat similar to half-shield on the other side (weapons pointed up, buckler on the right even though the main lines of attack come from the left). Do you see the priest trying to cut the arms? No, he seeks contact first, and not a specially advantageous one at that, with the cross of swords occuring near the tip of both. I think in that situation, just like against half-shield, the arms are protected a lot better than you think.

[Randall Pleasant]

it is quite easy to protect the hand in half-shield.

Ilkka

Absolutely! The student is very able to protect his exposed his hand in both Half-Shield on the right and Covering on the left.

As Vincent implies, the perspective of the pictures can leave a part of the story untold.

And that is why both the text the image must be analysed together.

If you direct your centerline towards the sword of the opponent your arm is basically no longer exposed, especially not as much as it is if half-shield is held straight towards the opponent.

The student holding Half-Shield a few inches to the right will make no difference when the priest cuts with a simple off-line step to his left. If the student holds Half-Shield far enough to his right to actually make a difference then he is basically not in Half-Shield anymore.

I'd also like to remind that I haven't really seen anyone interpret the initial action as a bind in the sense that binds are done in I.33. An action with contact on the blade can be called a bind, or not, depending on how one defines these terms.

My personal view is that if the priest cuts into Half-Shield and then attacks along the blade then the priest is in a bind with the student's blade.

The mutacio has more of an element of really falling under than the other two, but it is clear from the text that there are three options. Either the falling under is the initial part, or then the falling under is any of the three. Is there an argument against this?

I only consider the mutacio to be an "under" action. The other two options, grabing the student's shield or wrapping up his arms , are basically forms of grappling.

And what comes to pictorial evidence, the position is maybe a bit strange, but in all instances the priests sword is over the arm, not under.

But we know without doubt that the priest's sword does go under the student's sword and shield during the mutacio.

I see your point, Randall, but please try to stay objective, especially to your own theory. Saying that you are right, and everybody else wrong, is perhaps not the best way to convince others, is it?

I think I have been very objective in regard to both mine and other's interpertations. Why would I even put forth a new interpretations of "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" if I thought all of the other interpretations were correct? How do we move forward in our endeavor to recreate these lost arts if we accept all interpretations? Only one interpretation can be right. We have to be willing to drop interpretations when we see that they are wrong. In the last couple of months ARMA has gone through nothing less than a revolution in regard European longsword fighting (http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23959) and that came about only because John Clements was willing to challenge his own interpretations. We didn't mourn the old interpretations, rather we happily embraced the new interpretaitons since we took enormous step in recreating that lost art. It was that movement that encouraged me to take another look at existing I.33 interpretations.

I'd love to read your reasoning as to why the mutacio is the key to the whole system of I.33, and how this action relates to the plays from other positions.

I don't view the mutacio as key to the the I.33 system. I see it only as a major part of the "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" play and as a very important technique to be used whenever one is in an under-bind on their left side.

Against, thanks for a most excellent discussion.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

The mutacio has more of an element of really falling under than the other two, but it is clear from the text that there are three options. Either the falling under is the initial part, or then the falling under is any of the three. Is there an argument against this?

I only consider the mutacio to be an "under" action. The other two options, grabing the student's shield or wrapping up his arms , are basically forms of grappling.

Wait, is stepping through a shield grab? Does not look like it on page 18...

Only one interpretation can be right.

Once you get to a sufficient level of detail, I doubt that this statement can be true. In fact it's not even true in martial arts that have a living tradition (basically there are as many interpretations as there are teachers), so for martial arts reconstructed from a rather superficial writing along with stylized illustrations, it must be even worse...

Regards,

[Randall Pleasant]

I disagree that the sword is logically the only thing that can fall. I can't remember ever looking at the image and thinking that the sword has fallen. I can however pretty much figure how to let my body fall, or stumble, under the weapons of the adversary.

I guess we just have to disagree at this point. When I look at the image I do not see the priest falling or stumbling. I only see the priest sword falling.

Seriously, we must be missing something if it's simply a cut to the arm.

It's not simply a cut to the arm. However, it is a simple play that starts with a simple cut to the arm.

Why would you describe a cut to the arm as "falling under"? Because it fails?

The cut to the arm is only the "falling", it is not the "under". The author of I.33 says it falls because it is an Oberhau, ie it moves in a downward path.

Why assume that the cut always fails?

The cut to the arm does not always fail, I have been hit on the arm several times while in Half-Shield against Under-Arm due to a lack of awareness (falling asleep at the sword ). We say the cut fails because we expect that normally the student will take an action to protect himself.

Why even throw such a cut if it always fails?

As I have said in many of my posts the cut gets to student to move into a position where the priest can get a good over-bind.

Your whole line of thought would benefit from including page 17, as it shows a position somewhat similar to half-shield on the other side (weapons pointed up, buckler on the right even though the main lines of attack come from the left). Do you see the priest trying to cut the arms? No, he seeks contact first, and not a specially advantageous one at that, with the cross of swords occuring near the tip of both. I think in that situation, just like against half-shield, the arms are protected a lot better than you think.

On page 17 the priest is in the Right-Shoulder (2nd) guard which is his strong side. More importantly, his sword is not under his own buckler as it is in the Under-Arm guard. Therefore the priest is in a position where he can establish a strong bind against the student's blade. In short, the situation shown on page 17 is a completely different situation from that show on page 3.

All the best,

[Randall Pleasant]

Wait, is stepping through a shield grab? Does not look like it on page 18...

You're right, my bad. Writing during breaks at work sometimes leads to a little embarrassment. I'll re-vist that later after work.

Only one interpretation can be right.

Once you get to a sufficient level of detail, I doubt that this statement can be true. In fact it's not even true in martial arts that have a living tradition (basically there are as many interpretations as there are teachers), so for martial arts reconstructed from a rather superficial writing along with stylized illustrations, it must be even worse...

Regardless of whether one is talking about a living tradition or the recreation of a dead tradition if two interpretations are ratically different then only one of them can be correct. My interpretation is ratically different from that of Windsor, Hays, etc. to the point that only one of them can be correct. I think my interpretation is correct.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

You're right, my bad. Writing during breaks at work sometimes leads to a little embarrassment.

I can easily forgive that one, my own breaks at work are often filled with sword-related business as well

I still think it's surprising, assuming you're right, that the cut to the arm is nowhere mentioned, especially given that the manuscript has quite a few examples of what happens to people "falling asleep at the sword" and a few other cuts to the arms. There is no mention and no decisive pictural evidence of the fighter in halfshield doing anything at all to protect his arms or otherwise stop or set aside the cut. That's why I think there are details of halfshield (angle, distance) that currently elude us.

I enjoy challenging the interpretations myself, but for I.33 I'd rather start by the understanding of wards and oppositions. Without that the actions can be wrongly interpreted, because the wards and oppositions can have weaknesses that they shouldn't have.

Out of curiosity, what is your description of a correct halfshield, and why do you think it's a good position to be in against a first or a third? Why do you think it is described as better than longpoint?

[Stacy Clifford]

Only one interpretation can be right.

Once you get to a sufficient level of detail, I doubt that this statement can be true. In fact it's not even true in martial arts that have a living tradition (basically there are as many interpretations as there are teachers), so for martial arts reconstructed from a rather superficial writing along with stylized illustrations, it must be even worse...

I have to agree with Randall on this one. We are looking at a single manual written by a single man or group of men depicting sword and buckler as they understood it. It may be reasonable to assume that the style depicted was widespread and taught by many with differing opinions, but without other manuals from the same time period as evidence, we're forced to rely on what we have. My starting assumption would be that a single author writing a step-by-step manual has a pretty clearly defined idea what he is and is not trying to show you how to do. Whether or not he's any good at explaining it is another story, but if you could go back in a time machine and ask him, he would probably have a pretty specific answer for "this is what I was trying to show." Smart fighters may very well be able to come up with alternate versions that work equally well, and the author might even agree with you that what you did works, but that's still not what the example in the manual was. I've run into this problem with Di Grassi several times already. The principles learned may give you several options, but when it comes to named examples, you're either doing what the author intended or you're not.

Since we obviously can't just go back and ask, we have to assume that the author's intended actions both adhere to the writings and drawings on the page and achieve their stated goal against vigorous, antagonistic opposition. The problem is that the first test relies entirely on the author's ability to explain what he means (based on the knowledge he assumes his audience already has, which we may not have), and the second test may validate "wrong" interpretations that aren't what the author meant, but still work (which I would label as good interpretations, but not correct ones). The first test will also never change (wouldn't it be nice if we could get a revised edition?), while the second test may change with the skill of each opponent you face. The closer we come to passing both tests under all conditions, the more likely we are to be right, but I just don't believe the author would tell four of us who are all doing things differently that we are all doing what he was describing. The "right" interpretation is the author's, and there's only one of those.

By the way, great discussion here guys, this is what our forum is really intended for.

[I. Hartikainen]

Randall,

I meant no offense to you. I agree that the author of course knew what he was trying to convey, but I think what Vincent was after is that it is possible, even likely, that we won't be able to with 100% certainty be conclusive about an interpretation today - at least in some cases. Sometimes it is even possible that two different interpretations both follow the text, and can be made work under antagonistic pressure. Then we can look into internal structures in the treatise itself in order to find evidence of which would be more likely. Still that would likely not bring us to certainty.

The sidestep and cut to the arm can be made very difficult, or I should perhaps say, an unlikely choice by aligning the sword and shield slightly towards the right side.

If you think about it, against 1st ward, the buckler is on the left side of the sword arm. Against 2nd ward the buckler is held to the right side (schutzen). By closing the line by turning both weapons outwards this brings greater protection and gives a reason to holding the buckler on the opposite side from the opponent's weapon.

You suggest that this turning would make half-shield something other than half-shield, but where do you base this statement? Nowhere is it said that half-shield should stand in the centerline, as far as I know.

Slightly off-topic, but since you mentioned it, I'm curious about the new revelations Mr Clements has had - but the post is rather cryptic. Is there going to be any other news on this soon?

- Ilkka