Oberhau question

[Michael Edelson]

Hi all,

From the inception of my Liechtenauer studies, I've concentrated on three things when doing the oberhau (and all of the other cuts as well)...sword must move first, footwork must be sloping and follow the sword, and sword must hit target as foot hits ground.

This combination makes for an excellent cut, tactically speaking. By moving your sword first and casting your point, you provide much needed defense. By timing your step and shifting of weight to the impact, you give the cut power. All of this, however, makes for a much weaker cut than if you were to to cock the sword back and take a full swing with your body powering the cut throughout a greater range of movement. This is the type of cut I was taught in Toyama Ryu.

My question is...are there times in Liechtenauer when you want to do the full power, cocking back motion? I watched a preview for the Ochs DVD and saw them cock back when delivering an oberhau. Also, in Mark Rector's Talhoffer translation, he mentions that there are three types of cuts...harassing cuts with the wrists, more powerful cuts with the arms and shoulders, and full power cuts with the entire body. This, combined with the ochs dvd, seems to suggest that there is more than one way to do an oberhau.

Any thoughts?

[T. Stoeppler]

Hi Michael,

Please note that there is quite a large window of interpretation. I, for example consider a "sloping pass" in the german tradition as completely overrated and often as incorrect.

However, the cocking back the sword prior to the strike is completely unnecessary and leads to improper fencing for many reasons. (telegraphing, lack of control, risk of being pre-empted etc)

You can generate a hefty amount of force without this.

Regards, Thomas

[Christian H. Tobler]

Hi Michael,

While I don't agree with my friend Thomas on the sloping pass (which is supported explicitly in several passages in Ringeck, von Danzig, and Lew), I fully agree regarding the dangers of cocking back the sword. Doing so creates an 'empty tempo' wherein your opponent can strike you in complete safety.

I don't recall seeing this happen much in the Ochs DVD, but I'll re-watch it. It may be just some errors in form on their part, and not an intended intepretation. I know I certainly am guilty of cocking the sword back at times - something I practice a lot to try to eliminate. Ironically, from what you're saying, it was the Ochs DVD that made me reevaluate my positioning of vom Tag, which they hold literally on the shoulder, a la the von Danzig illustration of the guard. That positioning limits your tendency to cock back, whereas the way I show it in "Fighting with the German Longsword", with it off the shoulder, makes cocking back a difficult to avoid mistake. So, while they may not show it perfectly every time, they're very much on the right track, in my view.

All the best,

CHT

[Dierk Hagedorn]

Hi Michael,

like Thomas said you are quite vulnerable to techniques like Nachreisen or Ansetzen when you retrieve your sword for a more powerful blow. I also agree with Thomas on the generation of force - but I can't, Thomas, quite follow here:

Originally Posted by T. Stoeppler

I, for example consider a "sloping pass" in the german tradition as completely overrated and often as incorrect.

What should be wrong with that? What is it I don't get?

Asks curiously:
Dierk

[George Hill]

On the subject of the slop pace, I would humbly request someone post a video of a single step slope pace in action, preferable with a waster against a target, or atleast steeping around a target. I find trying to slope step puts me off balance unless I drag the rear foot. I'm not sure why.

[Christian H. Tobler]

Hello Dierk!

Thomas feels that, among other things, the Zornhau-Ort technique should be performed with a step towards the opponent's right side, not yours. He bases this on some verse for the Zornhau that only appears in Hs. 3227a (aka the Döbringer Hausbuch).

I don't agree with him for several reasons:

1. It's additional verse, appearing in the marginalia, and it only appears in this particular manuscript. While much is made of this work being the earliest in the tradition, it's important to remember that primacy of date does not equate to primacy of authority.

2. Where this additional couplet fits in the verse scheme is unclear from the poor scans of the manuscript we've had access to thus far. In fact, the Zabinski and Lindholm transcriptions do not agree on where to put the couplet.

3. Like all of Hs. 3227a, the pronoun usage is quite different from the later, 15th c. manuscripts. I'm not confident who the text is referring to when it says to step to "one's" right.

4. Stepping inside to the opponent's right, not yours, would make this techique a 'stop' and not a blow (a 'Hau' is a hewing blow), and certainly not particularly wrathful at that.

5. Even incorporating Thomas' excellent advice for avoiding telegraphing, I find the inward step unnecessary - the other things work fine without them, as Bill Grandy and I discovered during our work with it at WMAW.

In general, I'd say we have to first get a reliable transcription of this work, including lots of footnotes about the text's ambiguities, apparent addditions, scribal corrections, etc. before we interpret too much radically different from what the later glosses say quite clearly.

All the best,

Christian

[T. Stoeppler]

Again, this is my interpretation and it fits into what I do.

In the earlier sources, the text says, step to his right side - i.e. interrupt his space, rather than sloping around it. The sloping around is *not* expicitly mentioned in any sources, and in the period artwork there is no sloping to be seen, the stances are more linear.

This would take a very long time to explain and how to work with the angles, but, in a nutshell, if you slope you have a static axis and your strike is not direct anymore, and also less safe, except you want to leave the attacking space, in which case a direct step is necessary. (btw - I tried to show this at the WMAW, but then, time was short)

Regards, Thomas

[Dierk Hagedorn]

Hi Christian,

nice to hear (read) from you.

Originally Posted by Christian H. Tobler

He bases this on some verse for the Zornhau that only appears in Hs. 3227a (aka the Döbringer Hausbuch).
[...] 1. It's additional verse, appearing in the marginalia, and it only appears in this particular manuscript. While much is made of this work being the earliest in the tradition, it's important to remember that primacy of date does not equate to primacy of authority.

I just looked through it but couldn't discover the passage in question. Can you give me a page number, please?

Originally Posted by Christian H. Tobler

In general, I'd say we have to first get a reliable transcription of this work, including lots of footnotes about the text's ambiguities, apparent addditions, scribal corrections, etc. before we interpret too much radically different from what the later glosses say quite clearly.

I'd like to add that I myself find MS 3227a very interesting and a helpful resource indeed, but actually I do not use it as a source to teach from. (Perhaps I should but I have to study it more closely still.) The reason is that some terms have obviously shifted a little in meaning from 1389 until 1452 when the so-called von Danzig manuscript was written. The Huten for instance are held differently which I think is a very curious thing indeed.

Well, shortly, I hope to finally be in possession of fine colour scans and see what it's all about. And then, of course, I'll transcribe it. Let's see.

Best greetings
Dierk

[Christian H. Tobler]

Hello Thomas!

Originally Posted by T. Stoeppler

In the earlier sources, the text says, step to his right side - i.e. interrupt his space, rather than sloping around it. The sloping around is *not* expicitly mentioned in any sources, and in the period artwork there is no sloping to be seen, the stances are more linear.

It does say this, even in Hs. 3227a, on f. 19v:

"Also he means by this that one should not follow or step directly after the strikes but always a little sideways and in a slope around, so that he gets to his side." (that's mostly your translation btw, with a tiny bit of massaging by me)

Also, again, *only* 3227a has that couplet about stepping to his right, which may or may not have anything to do with Zornhau-Ort, depending on where it belongs, which is not yet clear. It's not earlier sources, it's only one manuscript.

The later sources have many instances of "step well to your right side" - which seems pretty explicit to me. Sloping steps are part and parsel of cutting mechanics with two-handed weapons all over the world, so this certainly works.

BTW, Dierk, the passage on the Zornhau in question is in the margin of f. 23r.

All the best,

Christian

[Michael Edelson]

Thanks for the replies.

I have some follow-up questions...

When facing a skilled fencer, it seems as though the very act of performing an oberhau is a telegraph. Because you need to move your sword first, and because your hands are faster than your feet, you need to slow the sword, or your cut will land before your feet put you into range. Therefore, when you begin your oberhau, your opponent will see the telegraph and be prepared for a counter. At least it has been so in my experience.

If you can control distance, it seems logical that you can safely cock your sword back and then, for example, take a quick gathering step to bring yourself into the zufechten as your sword moves forward, so that by the time you are in the zufechten you have already cast out your point...you are still telegraphing, but you cut will have more power. Is there a reason not to do this?

As for whyI think you need more power...

Cloth armor, or even several layers of stout fabric, is very difficult to cut with some longswords, particularly those designed as a compromise between cut and thrust. In recent experiments, I've found it very difficult to cut through a pair of blue jeans on a free swinging padded pell without cocking back the sword and taking a full swing.

So...if you're facing an oponent in a stout woolen cotte or a light gambeson, it's very difficult to cut him without a fast (tip velocity and momentum), powerful cut.

In such circumstances, would you be better off aiming all cuts at the head or using your control of distance to cock the sword back before cutting?

Or am I completely off base in these assumptions?

[George Hill]

Originally Posted by Michael Edelson

Thanks for the replies.

As for whyI think you need more power...

Cloth armor, or even several layers of stout fabric, is very difficult to cut with some longswords, particularly those designed as a compromise between cut and thrust. In recent experiments, I've found it very difficult to cut through a pair of blue jeans on a free swinging padded pell without cocking back the sword and taking a full swing.

Cut through.... or cut 'into'?

Now, I certainly imagine that's not an espeically easy target, but remember this, you don't need to cut a man in twain. You only need to cut as deep as his collarbone.

[Lance Chan]

Perhaps it has something to do with your sharpening... I do the sharpening on all my swords and I have no problem cutting open fabric layers with a mere touch. Tried that on a realistic situation. I don't need to put in additional momentum to deal with clothes so far and my swords were all non-cutting-oriented either. The key is how do you form the edges. Do you leave some micro-serration along the edges? Different sharpening technique will produce different result and that makes a huge difference on fabric target.

If you were trying cloth-cutting with the default Albion edges, then there's no doubt you'll have to cut very hard to open up the fabric.

It is also a reason why I keep my swords as sharp as possible because of the need to deal with fabric layers when in fight (not that I fight with the sword but you know, that's the idea in the past tense).

[Gregory Mele]

Hey all,

I'll leave the specific debate ove to slope or not to slope to those of you working with the Liechtenauer tradition every day, but I did feel compelled to add three thoughts.

1. "Doebringer's Hausbuch" Hs.3227a is a jumbled mess of a text, paleographically speaking, and I'm not sure that I'd feel terribly confident of anyone's transcription and ordering of the marginalia, just yet. There's a post-doctorate at the University of Chicago who specializes in late medieval books and hausbuchs who has been working on this for several years, and HE still questions some of the marginalia.

2. Earlier doesn't = primacy INHERENTLY, especially when the earlier text is an outlier in contents and the author(s) and their specific relationship to the source (Liechtenauer) is unclear. It can also be argued that even if their instructions ARE different, and reflect Liechtenauer's ideas, if the bulk of the tradition after his death did something different, Liechtenauer becomes an outlier in his own tradition!

3. There are only two ways to deal with cuts - as di Grassi specifically states, but as we see in every and any sword art from Silver to kenjutsu and everything in between. You can move into the vector of the cut before it is in full force, or you slope away from it. I would agree with Thomas that the slope breaks the rotational axis of the swordsman, only if his foot remains pointed along the line of the slope. By this I mean that if you slope right with the right foot, if your foot stays pointed in that direction you have a mechanical problem. Instead, their is a circular component to the step, so that your toe points in towards his center of mass. Where the toe and knee point is where the swordsman's own center of rotation is, and thus his maximum force. Align that with the target and there are no mechanical problems.

As Christian said:

Originally Posted by Christian H. Tobler

Hello Thomas!
Sloping steps are part and parsel of cutting mechanics with two-handed weapons all over the world, so this certainly works.

Cheers!

Greg

[Jörg B.]

Originally Posted by Michael Edelson

When facing a skilled fencer, it seems as though the very act of performing an oberhau is a telegraph. Because you need to move your sword first, and because your hands are faster than your feet, you need to slow the sword, or your cut will land before your feet put you into range. Therefore, when you begin your oberhau, your opponent will see the telegraph and be prepared for a counter. At least it has been so in my experience.

It's perfectly feasible to strike an Oberhau with a surprising amount of force entirely untelegraphed.

It's easier shown in person than explained with words, though.

Cheers,
Jörg

[T. Stoeppler]

Christian - that is correct, that couplet is only found in the 3227a. My mistake!

As a clarification, I would would like to add that the stepping around is IMHO a body path and not necessarily a single step. The approach can be directed to his right side, by taking a straight or a curved path, which has many effects depending upon certain factors, and as the strike is being delivered you step out, to avoid a collision. I usually teach to step in, as the first step in learning the specific mechanics I work with - it is more than that, but it takes a while. I mostly avoid turning steps, for several reasons.

Regards, Thomas

[George Hill]

Originally Posted by Gregory Mele

By this I mean that if you slope right with the right foot, if your foot stays pointed in that direction you have a mechanical problem. Instead, their is a circular component to the step, so that your toe points in towards his center of mass. Where the toe and knee point is where the swordsman's own center of rotation is, and thus his maximum force. Align that with the target and there are no mechanical problems.

Greg, Did you land your foot ... 'crooked' (pointing in) on a slope step, or do to twist it say, repositioning the body after it lands?

*Argh!* If you are landing the blow and the foot togeather, that won't do.
I find the sloping step awfully confusing.

Wait, you twist the body as you step, causeing the step to land sort of sideways to your overall body vector? I can do that... but when I do I feel off balance unless I slide the rear foot.

[Adam R]

Turning the front foot as your foot lands helps to steer your hips. You might want to turn them in a number of ways depending on what you are trying to achieve - for example:

a) if I step towards my opponent's right side to oberhau (like Thomas indicates) to intersect his attack vector, then I might turn my right foot outwards so that my continuing step takes me easily past my opponent on his left side. (Stepping around him to my right)

b) if I take a wide step to my right with my right foot to angle my attack inwards then I will land with my right foot turned in, that will angle my hips towards him to allow me to efficiently launch my angled attack around whatever he was doing. Taking care not to lead me into a dead end where I can no longer move past him.

I used to be of the opinion that hips wanted to face the opponent - after spending time with Thomas I think hips want to be facing either opponent and/or motion of travel - to avoid coming to a halt during the fight.

[David A Teague]

Originally Posted by George Hill

Greg, Did you land your foot ... 'crooked' (pointing in) on a slope step, or do to twist it say, repositioning the body after it lands?

*Argh!* If you are landing the blow and the foot togeather, that won't do.
I find the sloping step awfully confusing.

Wait, you twist the body as you step, causeing the step to land sort of sideways to your overall body vector? I can do that... but when I do I feel off balance unless I slide the rear foot.

Hello All,

Hmm, as I've been violently ill the last 24 hours (food poisoning), I'm not sure if my response will make much sense (even less than normal, but I'll try).

I use the slope as taught by Christian Tobler and it's similar to the way I take my opponent's side with my Scottish Broadsword studies ala Thomas Page of 1746.

George, What kind of shoe are you wearing when you fence?

If I try "slope pacing" with my current running shoe with a Oberhau, my sword will end up well though Langenort and almost to Nebenhut before my foot hits the ground. Not good...

If I wear either my turnshoes, ballet shoes, or my set of wrestling shoes (or just wear socks), my foot hits the ground as my sword passes though Langennort... the right way.

If your shoe doesn't allow you to pivot smoothly on the balls of your foot, your timing will be off, robbing you of your power with your stroke.

Look to your shoe.

Also, it seems that your making far more of the slope pace than it is. Start in your stance (let's say a right VomTag) Step out to your right with your right foot, while pivoting on your ball of the left foot, don't swing, just do a guard transfer to left VomTag) All you are doing is stepping outward and forward and ending up in the same basic stance that you started from... in this case with your sword in left VomTag. There is a slight weight shift from foot to foot as you step, it's part of the power generator in this system. It allows you use you body weight as you strike instead of just your arm strength. I sometimes slide my rear foot too, but only if I'm striking a blow where I really want to be at the edge of my range and just out of theirs... like a Krumphau.

Michael, you're putting too much thought into the whole jack and mail thing... think about the German longsword system, how it was used, and who used it.

A soldier who was so well armoured would need to be dispatched by attacking his weak areas... face, palms, legs, groin... no mail.. thrust though his jack.

I was stabbed in the neck a few weeks ago with a steel blunt that passed under my fencing mask bib and got me in the throat... I was wearing a mail standard that has a heavy quilted liner and it felt like I had nothing on... took the fight right out of me to be gacked in the windpipe.

Don't forget, a good blow to the shoulders can break the collarbone and that the fight right out of somebody.


Hello Thomas Stoeppler, Thomas Page does have us close "sometimes" by stepping towards the opponent's right side to force his blade and targe apart or to take his sword offline to remove his hand at the wrist, it does work well, but feels so wrong as I'm use to trying to take their side... but this is a discussion on German longsword, so who cares...

Man... I think I'm going to throw up again... Got to go!

[George Hill]

Originally Posted by David A Teague

Hello All,

George, What kind of shoe are you wearing when you fence?

If I try "slope pacing" with my current running shoe with a Oberhau, my sword will end up well though Langenort and almost to Nebenhut before my foot hits the ground. Not good...

If I wear either my turnshoes, ballet shoes, or my set of wrestling shoes (or just wear socks), my foot hits the ground as my sword passes though Langennort... the right way.

If your shoe doesn't allow you to pivot smoothly on the balls of your foot, your timing will be off, robbing you of your power with your stroke.

Look to your shoe.

This isn't so much a shoe issue... I THINK. I'm doing this in socks on carpet, barefoot, and sometimes on dirt in combat boots. My issue seems to be that whilst I'm fine with a straight pass, I'm having terrible issues with figuring out where each part of me ought to be with a slope.

It's like, If I face the forward foot at the target, the angle raltive to my rear foot sucks.

[David A Teague]

Originally Posted by George Hill

This isn't so much a shoe issue... I THINK. I'm doing this in socks on carpet, barefoot, and sometimes on dirt in combat boots. My issue seems to be that whilst I'm fine with a straight pass, I'm having terrible issues with figuring out where each part of me ought to be with a slope.

It's like, If I face the forward foot at the target, the angle raltive to my rear foot sucks.

Ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner!

Socks on carpet, combat boots on dirt will not let you pivot correctly IMO. (All you are doing is steping with the swordside foot and pivoting on the ball of the off foot to end up with a reversed image of your foot placement.)

Try the socks on a smooth floor.

Do your movement reeeeaaaallllyyyy slow.

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

You have to get the bio-mechanic right at slow speed before moving up to full speed.

With a simple slope pace (not with a over extension due to sword play) all you should be doing is stepping from one foot forward to the other in a "crab" like walk, with each step putting you into the same footwork you started in... except for the fact that the sword and leading foot changes sides... unless you just stepping way out to the right/left.

You may be stepping too far to the side and not forward enough with your basic step. That would screw up your footwork.

I'll go back to being sick and brain-dead now.

[George Hill]

Originally Posted by David A Teague

You may be stepping too far to the side and not forward enough with your basic step. That would screw up your footwork.

The rest requires testing but on the above line, How much should I move to the side? 5 inches? 12 inches?

[David A Teague]

Hello George,

I think I've got it sorted out now.

Stand in your fighting stance (Right VomTag... but forget the sword )

Your left foot is facing your "attacker" (pretend there one in at the edge of zufecten), your right foot is back at a 45 degree angle, now... just slowly lift your right foot and pivot on the ball of your left foot.. don't step towards your "attacker" as if you were going to wrestle (that the natural step where your foot just passes the other when we walk) BUT just lift it up, spin a little bit on the ball of the left foot and put it back down in the same stance... if done correctly your right foot now faces your "attacker", your left foot is at a 45 degree angle, you went offline ( i.e sloped) and you are in krieg. (Aim at a spot on the wall to work as "attacker" as you step )

Your problem is that you are stepping way too far to the side from your proper stance and taking your pivoting foot out of posistion.

What seems like a poor shoe / surface choice for the pivot and a wide sideways step is screwing you up big time IMO based off of your posts.

Once you get the slope pace, you can step farther out and slide that rear foot to catch up ... but I think you just need to get the basic slope pace down for now.

Try spining around on the ball of the left foot if you must, then the right... with the "ball" foot used like the pin on a grade school compass. End up with proper foot work each time your off foot hits... Go around 360 degrees and end up in a proper stance each time you set that foot down, then I think you'll get it.

Best of luck, don't spin till you vomit.

(What's silly about all this is: any of us here could show you a slope pace in just a few seconds in the salle. I just taught it to 4 new guys in my study group last week...)

Cheers,

DT

[Gregory Mele]

Originally Posted by George Hill

Greg, Did you land your foot ... 'crooked' (pointing in) on a slope step, or do to twist it say, repositioning the body after it lands?

*Argh!* If you are landing the blow and the foot togeather, that won't do.
I find the sloping step awfully confusing.

Wait, you twist the body as you step, causeing the step to land sort of sideways to your overall body vector? I can do that... but when I do I feel off balance unless I slide the rear foot.

George,

I think Adam basically explained this, but here goes.

Can you step straight forward? I knew you could! OK, that's a pass.

Now step that rear foot 45 degrees to the side, that's a slope. If you can change directions while walking, you can do that!

Now step the same direction, but keep your toe pointed at your imaginary target. Viola!

Or, another way to look at it: stand in guard with your left foot forward. Assume the opponent is directly in front of you. Your left hip is pointed at him. Now pass diagonally off the line - you're no longer pointed at him, right? Step back. Now step forward and as your foot comes down point your toe at him. Your right toe, knee and hip point at your target's center of mass. Simple as that.

[Steven H]

I'll point out the guard of wrath. Cocking back from a vom Tag position may be in advisable but starting a in zornhut is clearly depicted in a number of manuals.

As far as the power goes: One can clearly generate enough power for many situation without using a zornhut/zornhau but you can't deny that the zornhau generates more force. And if the opponent is lightly armored but still wearing a plate steel helmet then a more powerful blow might be just right for the situation

[Jörg B.]

Originally Posted by Steven H

And if the opponent is lightly armored but still wearing a plate steel helmet then a more powerful blow might be just right for the situation

A blow to an area other than the helmet might be even more useful.