Novices to this art oftentimes grow frustrated at the number of double hits that are committed while sparring. It’s obvious that a double hit does neither fighter any good and can make fighting with swords seem a game of chance—e.g. one’s opponent so happened to cut across one’s torso while one’s own cut to the opponent’s head was successful. It’s clear there’s no victor in such instances, as both wounds are to fatal targets. Indeed this would not be much of a noble and worthy Science of Defence if one left defense up to chance. The German master of defence Joachim Meyer writes in 1570 that this art is specifically focused on “the protection of [the] body” (49). What aspect of the art, then, helps one avoid the double hit and ensure the body’s protection?
The masters of defence have an answer to this question that they themselves believe are the foundations of the art. This foundation is best understood through Sigmund Ringeck and Joachim Meyer’s description of the terms “vor,” “nach,” and “indes,” commonly translated into the terms “before,” “after,” and “in the instant” respectively. These terms are references to both moments of timing and awareness in a fight. It is through these terms that the double hit—and how to prevent it—can best be understood.
When one initiates a cut or thrust one is seizing the initiative, or the “vor.” However, if one’s opponent does this first, the masters tell us that we should preferably act “indes” by defending and striking in the same instant. So what happens then in a double kill? In the case of the double hit, both fighters are attempting to seize the vor regardless of what the opponent is doing. This mistake is unproductive for both fighters, as neither one is defending their body. The failing then is an understanding of how one acts indes. Ringeck specifically exemplifies how one does this successfully:
When you do not succeed with before, then wait for the after. These are the defenses against all techniques he uses against you. So when you must displace him, make it simultaneous (indes) and strike immediately from the bind at his next opening. Thus you win the before and he remains in the after. (21)
The key here is to understand that one essentially re-seizes the vor by acting simultaneously while remaining aware of the opponent, i.e. recognizing the opponent’s openings created by the instigating attack. This philosophy in turn is expanded by Meyer over one-hundred years later:
Indes is a good German word, and embodies a serious exhortation to quick judgment, so that one should be constantly swift of mind. For example, if you first strike to the left, and secondly you see at that moment an opening to the right, then thirdly when you rush at the opening you have seen, you must pay good heed where or with what techniques he may come to you, so that you do not overcommit to your attack at your opponent’s opening, and receive harm from it. Thus the word Indes admonishes you to have a sharp lookout, which involves seeing and heeding many things at once. (70)
Meyer further describes ways in which one can keep that “sharp lookout,” such as by taking stock of the opponent’s movements and being familiar with their techniques and what openings those techniques create. It’s also important to note here that Meyer earlier on describes an exchange that can in fact not end in a decisive win for either side, but rather end in both fighters potentially squaring off again: “[I will teach] how you may well and properly withdraw from him, if not with harm to him, then at least without injury to yourself” (50). It’s clear that Meyer understood the futility of the double hit, and even went out of the way to describe even one’s failure to successfully strike the opponent as an opportunity to get out of the exchange unharmed.
What both masters Ringeck and Meyer have in common is that a good fencer—or a “master,” as a skilled fighter was commonly referred to in many manuals—acts not in response to but in awareness of the opponent. To act in response to an opponent would suggest to always act after the opponent, which is contrary to what the masters teach. However, to act indes, to be aware of one’s opponent while acting, allows one to both defend and strike, or defend and threaten simultaneously.
Interestingly, master Fiore de’ Liberi around 1410 did not describe a fight in these exact terms of before and after, but rather took a more holistic approach by explaining that a good fighter will have these virtues: caution, speed, strength, and courage (66). It’s important to note that “caution” does not mean “fearful.” In fact, Fiore further defines caution as a fighter being aware of “measure” (66). “Measure” in this sense is the holistic representation of the same philosophy explained above by Ringeck and Meyer. “Measure” is awareness of an opponent’s actions through the elements of space, reach, and timing. For a fighter to have measure is to understand one’s capabilities at a given distance and also potential capabilities of an opponent at that distance. Having measure then is the key to both recognizing why a double hit occurs and how to avoid it. An awareness of measure then, is a necessary component to acting indes. Joachim Meyer illustrates a similar point by focusing on the necessity of proper timing: “For daily experience attests how much depends on the opportunity, and especially in combat, since no technique, no matter how good it is, may be usefully carried out, if it is not used at its proper time” (69). The utility of a technique, therefore, can only be weighed through a consideration of measure or time, which requires one to be cautious and aware of the opponent. In fact, the opponent is exactly what time and measure are being referenced to. Therefore, one cannot be said to have obtained proper measure or proper timing if there’s no awareness of the opponent. The aspects of awareness, time, and measure are mutually inclusive.
The crux of the double hit problem therefore lies with the fact that it occurs when one sacrifices themselves in order to gain a successful strike. The sacrifice extends from a lack of awareness and caution. However, there’s a modern element at play as well, because it further extends from the fact that a fighter who seizes the vor thinks an opponent will naturally respect the technique as a potential threat and defend properly. Due to our modern inability to train in the context of ever having to use these techniques in a life-threatening fight, the most we can ever do is play, or spar. It’s within this modern context that a lack of real danger has the tendency to breed an unrealistic and anachronistic action while attempting to act indes. The fighter’s mindset regarding the non-lethal nature of a wooden waster or steel blunt allows for the bodily sacrifice that is inherent in the double hit. More simply, if one doesn’t perceive an attack as a real threat, why defend against it? The focus, with this flawed mindset, becomes ensuring a successful hit no matter the cost. But, to forget the heavy cost of such a sacrifice due to the lack of real danger in our modern context is to forget the real martial and lethal context that was the genesis of the art in the first place. This martial mindset is one of the most difficult components of the art to grasp exactly because of our modern context. In fact, because we will never use these techniques in actual combat it is easy to argue that fully attaining this martial mindset is impossible. The double hit, then, can never fully be eradicated or expunged from training. However, it can absolutely be minimized through true understanding and practice of the fighting principles mentioned above.
Is this then to suggest that Renaissance fighters never experienced a double hit? Of course they did! However, fighters who earned the title of “master” from their peers learned how to minimize their occurrence. The proof of this lies in the fact that these masters survived real combats. Moreover, the masters that wrote the treatises on the art of defence mention time and time again the purpose of the art as a personal defense. This seems obvious, but it’s a realization that many fail to comprehend—the authors of these fencing manuals used these techniques to successfully kill or defeat others without being killed themselves. Fiore specifically recounts in the beginning of his treatise that he had to defend his honor by utilizing the art “no less than five times” with sharp swords in a gambeson, “without any other defensive weapon” (8).
Incidentally, it is erroneous and foolhardy to suggest that the fault of the double hit lies with the opponent and not with oneself. If one seizes the vor and attacks, it is not the opponent’s fault for acting incorrectly. The opponent is also seizing the vor, but doing so by sacrificing themselves. To put it candidly, if your opponent strikes at your opening, regardless of when, you have incentive to defend yourself. One must learn to recognize when an opponent is striking without awareness or caution—it is part of being aware oneself. It is then possible to follow Ringeck’s teachings by defending against this strike committed unawares and regaining the vor, thusly protecting one’s body.
Works Cited
De’ Liberi, Fiore. Fior di Battaglia – M.S. Getty Ludwig XV 13. Trans. Tom
Leoni. Rev. 4. Self-published. 2009.
Meyer, Joachim. The Art of Combat a German Martial Arts Treatise of 1570.
Trans. Jeffrey L. Forgeng. London: Greenhill, 2006. Print.
Ringeck, Sigmund. Knightly Art of the Longsword. Trans. David Lindholm and
Peter Svard. Boulder, CO: Paladin, 2003. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment