Springeck 2016: Coming together to train!

Shenanigans at Springeck 2016.

Springeck 2016 wrapped up on Sunday, April 24th and I couldn't be more pleased with the result. 11 clubs from 6 states gathered to train, learn, fence, and grow. It's clear that tournaments are a vibrant part of the HEMA community, but Springeck strives to bring historical fencing clubs together in order to train and learn from one another in a non-competitive atmosphere. The philosophy of Springeck is simple--expand your horizons as a fencer by training with others who you don't usually train with. This perspective shift helps fencers to understand our Art from different angles, oftentimes angles they've never considered.

Take for example Katy Lehman's workshop on Saturday afternoon. Katy, an instructor from the Wisconsin Historical Fencing Association, demonstrated that one's goals (whatever they might be), actually colors one's behaviors and actions in a drill. If your goal is to increase your physical fitness, for example, you'll attack the drill with energy and a lot of movement. If your goal is more technique-oriented, you may slow down the drill, analyzing footwork, blade angles, and the pressure/leverage in a bind. Katy's point, as I understood it, is that all of these objectives are valid. We just need to recognize that these goals affect our mindset as we perform a drill.

This was eye opening to me. I never thought of drills in this fashion and never understood that drills could sometimes fall apart because two practitioners were approaching the drill from wholly different points of view. As an instructor, this information is incredibly helpful now that I know to look for these perspectives.

This is the type of eureka moment that Springeck is geared towards. In a sense, we all have the possibility to experience such a moment when we branch out and train with others whose point of view differs from the approach that we're used to or comfortable with. Springeck brings the necessary elements together to allow that possibility to foment.

Sparring during the open free play session.

So what else happened at Springeck? A lot. Open free play, lightning rounds, coached free play (thanks to Axel Pettersson's fantastic seminar at Longpoint 2014), workshops for direct instruction, balloon wars, and a prize play.

What the heck is a prize play? Oh, this is where it gets really good.

A prizing is when a student decides to demonstrate their skill by fencing anyone who will face them. Historically, it was performed in and around London in Elizabethan England as a means for a student to attain the rank of free scholar--a student who was liberated or freed from the possibility of tyranny and oppression because of their ability to fight and resist that oppression.

Many schools have adopted that rank structure, but the Historical Fencing Affiliates (HFA) is an international martial arts federation of autonomous fencing clubs that share a common rank structure based on the historical English system. The HFA has added a few additional ranks to the historical English system, and has also adopted the use of prizing in order to denote the rank of Senior Free Scholar. This year, Ben Lehman of the Wisconsin Historical Fencing Association (another HFA club) played his prize.

One of the great images that sticks in my mind is the start of the prizing. The challengers--all those at Springeck-- lined up to form a corridor leading to the ring, their swords extended high in a vaulted archway. Amidst a percussive slow clapping, Ben entered to cheers and calls. This was his moment, but we were there to push him in order to help him excel. This wasn't going to be a cakewalk for him, and he didn't want it to be.

A single ring was outlined by cones in the center of the gym. Ben stood in one corner flanked by his second, his wife Katy Lehman. Katy was to act as Ben's coach during the prizing. Beforehand, the participants at Springeck were prepped by HFA Provost Aaron Pynenberg of the Wisconsin Historical Fencing Association (WHFA) on what to expect. He explained that he would send in fighters from amongst the group in order to test Ben's skill. Fighters could use a manner of weapons against Ben--daggers, spears, longswords, rapiers, swords and bucklers, messers, etc. were all used. Ben chose to play his prize with the longsword.

Ben Lehman fighting during his prize play for Senior Free Scholar.

Ben fought 119 bouts in over forty minutes. With few breaks, Ben demonstrated his skill again and again as he racked up an impressive 88 wins with a 74% win percentage. The HFA rules dictate that a contestant for Senior Free Scholar must pass with at least a 70% win percentage. Ben hurtled over that bar in a continual flourish of strong binds, superior winding, well-placed thrusts, and superb weapon control. Afterwards, everyone clapped and cheered for him in a sincere gush of enthusiasm for what he had demonstrated. The Springeck spirit pulsed; we all threw what we could at Ben in order to help him bring out his best fighting, and he rose to the occasion, demonstrating a strong skill set in our Art.

Overall, as an HFA event, Springeck encapsulates just one component of the martial journey that we take in this Art. Training is vital to what we do, but that training is not often celebrated with others. Competition surely is, and has its own place among the many facets of expression in this Art, but training, learning, and growing together needs to become a focus too. I hope that the HEMA community finds value in this type of event and begins to sponsor more events like Springeck. Tournaments and competitions are well established; let's do the same for martial training.

For more on the HFA rank structure, take a look at its charter. The rank structure is article 3. http://the-hfa.com/index.php/our-charter

On the Double Hit or Double Kill

Note: I originally wrote this article in 2011.

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.