Same Problems, different Answers - Comparing Historical Systems

Leaving aside the fact that the Liechtenauer glosses do describe a left Oberhau and just recommend to not use that as the first cut in an exchange, there seems to me something more fundamentally wrong with the idea of listing guards or cuts to compare systems. A real fight is messy - and a good swordsman will use the cut he needs in the moment, regardless of whether it has a name or not. Likewise, a guard is just a way to hold a sword before the attack starts, but for e.g. Meyer a particular guard is merely a transient point that is reached while moving the sword arount - and standing in a thrusting guard doesn't actually mean you have to attack with a thrust. Would Liechtenauer's system really be different if we would introduce posta di donna (as Meyer has done with the Zornhut) - or would it not still work pretty much the same?

Guards and lists of cuts reveal preciously little about what a particular master expects you to actually do in a swordfight.

On the other hand, there are some tactical problems that simply occur when fighting with a longsword. If they are not addressed, a swordsman is unlikely to live long enough to teach his system to anyone. But these problems don't have unique answers, different systems might come up with different solutins. To my mind, an interesting comparison of different systems is what answers they find to overcome these challenges.

Let's look at a few examples of that.

To stay in a guard - or not?

If you use a guard to always do the straightforward action, you are bound lose in a fight. The reason is that the opponent can easily deduce your intentions just by looking at what guard you are standing in and then prepare for that. So, the tactical problem to be dealt with is:

An opponent should never be able to deduce what you are going to do before the actual attack.

There are two possibilities to address the issue. Either a fencer never really assumes a guard to stay there but rather changes position all the time or he does stay in a particular guard, but doesn't attack in a straightforward way from there.

Joachim Meyer is fairly explicit about this:

But as far as guards are concerned, I do not want you to stay in any of them

He envisions a fencer who constantly changes from one position to the other and observes what the other is doing at the same time, and when he finds a good moment, he launches the actual attack out of the transition (Meyer's book describes several such plays explicitly).

On the other hand, Philippo di Vadi writes on the subject of guards:

Place yourself in guard with the sword in hand,
If you pass forwards or back remain side-on.

and this reads more like a guard is something you assume and then approach or retreat in. By implication this means that a fencer following Vadi's system must do quite different attacks from the same guard, although this is never spelled out in any great detail.

Also the German designation Leger for a guard has the connotation of 'laying in wait' (a Leger can also denote a siege camp) - so the idea expressed here is likewise that a guard is a static position in which one remains, not something that is assumed only in a transient way.

Fiore has three types of guards - stabile ('stable'), instabile ('unstable') and pulsativa ('pulsed') - the designations suggest that stable guards are held, unstable guards are assumed only briefly and pulsed guards serve to power a cut in that the fencer moves into the guard that acts like a spring to store power and releases that power when he moves out again.

To attack - or not?

A possible solution to this problem is to wait for the opponent to attack, meet that with a properly prepared defensive action and mount a counter-attack only when the situation is under control to the degree that an unintended double-hit is unlikely.

Of course, focusing on defense carries risks of its own, for instance such a tactic always cedes initiative to the opponent. So the alternative is to take the initiative and attack - but that either carries an element of risk, see above, or needs to be done carefully in a way that the most likely counter-attack is prevented.

Especially the German systems have developed a rich toolkit of attacks that 'break' a certain guard to accomplish this. At the same time, single-tempo counter-attacks as a means to quickly gain initiative from a defensive position are known both to German and Italian systems.

It should be emphasized that in practice there is no system where a fencer would be instructed to only attack or only defend - this would be tactically too predictable. Rather, it is a question of focus and the idea that underlies how an exchange should be ideally structured.

Despite describing many defensive sequences, it is made rather clear that the Liechtenauer tradition expects a fencer to attack:

When you approach, you should not wait and look out for your opponent's attack. All fencers who do so have little success and tend to be defeated.

Meyer takes a similar stance - while he describes techniques that start from breaking an attack by the opponent, generally he advocates taking initiative:

See to it that you're the first to take action, before he finds his guard, attack!

On the other hand, the clear majority of techniques described by Fiore is reactive in nature, so there is no strong emphasis on taking initiative there.

To stay in a bind - or not?

It is clear that if both pull back no fencing in the bind takes place, if both stay the next actions have to be from the bind - but what happens if only one fencer decides to pull back? Can he force the issue or not?

Conceptually at least his opponent will win. In most binds (exclusing situations where only the tips cross), if one fencer pulls back his opponent can thrust quickly into the opening that is created by pulling back and wind his sword in a way to be protected against a counter while doing it, and this threat - again conceptually - implies that if one fencer wants to continue from the bind, it will happen.

First, note that the threat requires a thrust - a cut cannot be used so easily into the opening because it is slower. And second, in practice carrying out the threat requires making a correct split-second decision about the appropriate moment for the thrust and where to wind it - if that decision is made the wrong way, the thrust gets displaced and the fencer who tries it is in a tactically poor situation.

It is no accident that the Liechtenauer tradition emphasizes Fühlen - the ability to deduce from tactile information what happens in a bind - over and over again. It is a highly critical skill if one aims to fence from a bind.

The real issue is then that it is in practice far easier to pull back from a bind than to stay, deduce what the opponent is doing and react accordingly. As a result, this is a situation where a theroretically superior tactic might run into problems of execution - and generally it is better to execute a basic plan well than to execute a brilliant plan poorly.

I suspect for that reason, many fencing systems do not share Liechtenauer's emphasis on staying in the bind and continuing with Mutieren and Duplieren while keeping the contact at all times. Vadi clearly advocates keeping cuts coming from all directions, and even Meyer - who does describe techniques like the Zirkel (a cut in contact with the opponent's blade) - seems to have that part somewhat de-emphasized (I suspect that is because his system does not use thrusts at all).

To thrust - or not?

There is a substantial difference between fencing today and in the times of our ancestors. I will only describe fencing today and this means cuts with the blade, but the old use also involves cuts and thrusts in sharp fencing.

One can speculate that this is because at Meyers time, fencing is well on its way to being a sports activity rather than a necessity in war. However, also Vadi has a chapter Costione di tagli & punte ('The dispute of the cuts and thrusts') in which he argues that thrusting is tactically not as good as cutting.

The thrust is worth little against he who turns quickly
The blows clear the way for the one who is going.

(the meaning likely intended is that a cut against a blade can create an opening for an attack, a thrust on the other hand is easily turned away). Also - clearly an advice for a bloody war-like setting - Vadi states

If the thrust enters but does not swiftly exit,
It lets the companion hurt you with a strike.

i.e. your sword might get stuck even if you thrust successfully, but that is not an issue with a cut - which is highly relevant in a fight of one vs. many. Generally Vadi acknowledges that one can do thrusts and that they carry venom like the scorpion but really advocates not to use them much.

On the other hand, thrusting is highly relevant in the Liechtenauer system - it is not only the prime threat when the opponent is soft in a bind and wants to pull back, but also techniques like Absetzen (counter-thrust) and Zucken (pulling back the sword for a thrust) heavily use it.

Summary

Created by Thorsten Renk 2025 - see the disclaimer, privacy statement and contact information.