Liechtenauer's Sweeping Parries
Exploring the defensive systems of Kunst des Fechtens
“Note whenever the opponent cuts, you cut as well”
-Sigmund ain Ringeck
Introduction
Should you parry, according to Liechtenauer’s approach to fencing?
There used to be an old axiom within HEMA, that “Liechtenauer doesn’t believe you should parry”. Alternatively, “Liechtenauer wants you to defend yourself by making the opponent defend, so you have to always be attacking”.
These axioms were based on, in my view, shallow and mistaken readings of the sources and a lack of practical fencing experience on the part of early interpreters. That’s not our fault, strictly speaking, and I include myself in this criticism. Many early HEMA interpreters didn’t have a great depth of fencing experience. I certainly didn’t when I began, so there was much I did not understand. Our students also were often relying on the interpreter rather than engaging directly with the text.
Many years and thousands of double-hits in sparring later, I think it has been pretty conclusively proven that you can’t have a complete approach to fencing without defence.
We can speak of two aspects of any complete fencing approach: The offensive system (how we attack and strike our opponent) and the defensive system (How we avoid being struck ourselves).
All too often, HEMA has focused very much on the offensive systems within our texts and has unfortunately neglected the defence. Today, we are going to discuss some aspects of the defensive system within Liechtenauer’s fencing.
There is an enormous range of potential offensive actions which an opponent can take in fencing. This is especially so in longsword fencing with its wide range of cuts and thrusts from many lines and angles. As a result, the defensive system needs to be versatile enough to successfully defend against the full range of possible threats.
At the same time, it is unmanageable in combat to have a specific defence for every specific threat. The technical complexity and cognitive load is too great. Your defensive system also needs to be simple. Simplicity is essential to having a defence which can be successfully executed and relied on under the pressure of combat.
Within the Liechtenauer texts, can we find a set of defensive tools with the right versatility, reliability, and simplicity for our needs? I think so. Let me explain:
The Purpose of Parrying
In the words of Molière, “the entire secret of fencing lies in two things: to give and not to receive”1.
In order to do that, our offensive actions with the sword must often be combined with defensive actions. We strike at our opponent and we also prevent or avoid them from striking us.
A very clear-cut example of this is in the age-old technique of shifting the leg, as seen in sources from Fiore dei Liberi onwards:
The offensive action (a strike to full extension), is combined with a defensive action, (shifting the lead leg back out of reach), so that the fencer both attacks and defends themselves.
It is not always possible to avoid the blow with movement in this way2, and so we need a wider range of defensive actions. In the medieval and Renaissance periods, companion weapons like bucklers and daggers were often paired with single-handed swords for defensive purposes. With both hands on the hilt, the longsword cannot defend with a companion weapon and so demands that defensive actions be performed with the blade itself.
Source3
“Parry” as a term is much used and abused in fencing. Like “tempo”, it has so many definitions and many of them are contradictory. To be clear, when we discuss “parry” today we mean: “Any way which the fencer physically interacts with the opponent’s blade, using their own blade, to stop an attack from landing”
Blocking with the strong of your blade? That’s a parry. Beating the opponent’s attack aside with force? That’s a parry. A point-down deflection where the opponent’s blade strikes and then slides off yours? Oh you better believe that’s a parry.
Moving your sword out of the way when the opponent attempts to strike it, so they hit nothing but air?
Source4
That’s not a parry, that’s a disengage.
When we use a parry, there are generally two things we are trying to achieve. One of these is more important than the other.
Stop the opponent from hitting us.
Set ourselves up to hit back.
The most important part of the parry is that the opponent cannot strike us on the targeted line if we parry successfully. A good parry will also position ourselves to deliver a swift riposte so we can strike back and, hopefully, hit our opponent. In this way, parrying and preparation can be combined into one action. The whole sequence together is the much esteemed parry-riposte.
However, it’s no good at all to prepare a strike and simply get hit, so the more important objective in parrying is to prevent the opponent’s strike from landing. Only after that is successful can we consider how to use the parry to prepare a strike.
Ways of Parrying: Positional versus Percussive
There are two ways we can parry, in my opinion.
The first is to place our sword such that it blocks the line of the opponent’s attack. I will call this a positional parry. In this style of parrying, the fencer uses their blade to create a physical obstacle to the incoming threat.
Source5
There are a few advantages to positional parrying. First of all, it’s relatively simple and straightforward as an action. The technical requirements are basic: If you have blocked the correct line and have your sword in place at the right time, the opponent’s blow will not hit you. A simple action is more often reliable and more easily done in combat, and that is no small thing in the complicated environment of fencing.
It also involves a relatively small amount of movement, and correspondingly a small commitment of momentum. An uncommitted blade is easier to move into a new action, and so there are in some ways more options for the next action from a positional parry. A positional parry can often snap into a quick riposte or adjust to a new parry on a new line if the opponent throws a second attack.
There are also more refined ways you can use positional parrying. For instance, one could parry point down in the “hanging parry”, so that the opponent’s sword slides away and the fencer is prepared for a swift riposte cut. I still categorize these as primarily positional parries, as they again rely on the position of the blade to make the defence.
There are some downsides though. If you misjudge the line, you may parry and yet get hit anyways. If you parry with the weak of the blade, your parry may collapse and fail against a strong blow. Additionally, you may parry too wide and be poorly positioned for riposting or for covering an opponent’s following strike.
Although they are fairly simple in execution, there is still necessarily elements of distance and timing to consider. You have to close the line at the exact moment when the opponent is fully committed to the strike but before they get close enough to land the attack. If it is too late, you get hit. If it is too early, you offer the opponent an easy chance to re-direct to a different target6.
Finally there is the problem of the thrust: A positional parry works very well against an opponent’s cuts. But, the thrust travels on a linear path and can bypass a static obstacle. An incoming thrust usually must be pushed aside rather than blocked.
The other way to parry is to push or strike the threat away. We shall call this the percussive parry, because it applies force to move the incoming strike off-target.
The percussive parry can beat a thrust aside or knock a cut away, so they don’t have the vulnerability to being bypassed like a positional parry does. They also have the advantage that by striking the opponent’s blade, they can lead to a larger opening for the fencer’s riposte and can create the opening rather than merely be ready to exploit one as a positional parry does.
Source7
Percussive parrying also opens up new tactical options that simpler positional parries don’t. One such example is a “hooking” parry, where the fencer strikes the opponent’s blade from behind the incoming attack, “pulling” it away from their intended trajectory and opening them up for a riposte in an unexpected quarter. Such options can create effective surprises for your opponent.
The tradeoff however is a somewhat greater level of technical complexity. In particular, the percussive parry is more demanding of timing and body control from the fencer. The ideal percussive parry is a sharp and controlled beat. If you commit too much force to the percussive parry, you can severely expose yourself to a disengaging attack from the opponent.
These terms are useful mainly as theoretical descriptions for how a parry is intended to work. In practice, types of parries are not exclusive categories: A movement into a positional parry can also function as a percussive parry. A percussive parry can deliberately end in a positional parry (And indeed generally are safer and better when done that way). We will be returning later to how these types of parry can be combined into one action.
The Sweeping Parry
A key problem within all parrying is finding the opponent’s blade.
The opponent is going to attack you. In order to make a parry, you have to bring your blade into contact with theirs. The opponent wants to hit you and not your sword. If they are cunning they will be using every means they can to try to avoid your blade.
Maybe that means feints or disengages or threatening on one line and then finishing the attack in another. There are many ways they can deceive and avoid a parry.
A percussive parry uses some kind of striking motion in order to achieve the intended percussive effect. Due to this, it is the motion which parries rather than creating an obstacle like a positional parry.
This creates a valuable tactical possibility: With motion, we can cross multiple lines in a single movement, defending against a much wider range of possible threats than a simple beat or positional parry would do. Because multiple lines are crossed, it is much easier to find the opponent’s blade no matter where it is.
This is what we shall call a “sweeping parry”.
With a sweeping parry, we substantially simplify the needs of defence. We do not need to judge the exact position or line of the opponent’s threat, we just need a general idea of where its coming from and the opponent’s timing.
Source8
These sweeping parries tend to function in a percussive way: The opponent’s strike will be knocked away by the motion of the sweep. You can also combine the sweeping parry with a positional parry.
This looks like sweeping across a range of lines and then ending in a positional parry. A strike within the arc of motion will be knocked aside, and a strike at the end of the motion will run into the obstacle of the positional parry. In this way, you can combine percussive and positional defence.
Sweeping Parries à la Liechtenauer: Krump, Twer, Vorsetzcen
“Well sure you can use sweeping parries, Eric,” you may say. “But did Liechtenauer use them? Or are you just putting in frog DNA again?”
Not only are sweeping parries a practical tool in live fencing, but I think sweeping parries are also an integral part of Liechtenauer’s defensive system.
As usual, Ms3227a will be my main source but today I will also be referring to some non-Codex texts within the Liechtenauer corpus.
Let’s start with Twerhaw9.
This is about the crosswise cut, etc:
What comes from the sky,
The cross takes in its stride.
Cut across with the strong,
And be sure to work on.
To the plow drive across,
Yoke it hard to the ox.
Take a leap and cross well,
And their head is imperiled.Explanation: Here notice and remember that out of the whole art of the sword, no cut is as good, as honest, as ready, and as fierce as the crosswise cut. It goes across to both sides, with both edges (the front and the back), to all exposures (upper and lower), and when you cut across correctly, you counter and defend against everything that comes from above (meaning the high cuts and whatever else goes downward from above).
In modern HEMA, the Twer is often used as an attack, as a remise, and especially as a riposte from a parry. It is very good for these applications! The “Liechtencopter” and “Fleche to Twer” combinations are very effective in modern competition for good reasons.
I think sometimes we miss that the Twer is praised also for its defensive characteristics. This is especially clear in 3227a’s gloss on Twer:
You can also strike toward both sides with crosswise cuts, and as you bring the crosswise cut to either side, above or below, your sword should go up with the hilt above you and with your hands thrown forward in front of your head, so that you're well covered and defended.
Emphasis mine.
Why do I think the Twer functions as a sweeping parry?
First of all, consider the mechanics of the Twer: It’s a cut that travels across, from one side to the other. This means that it covers an arc of space.
The author specifically notes that the Twer will defend everything that comes from above. Due to the Twer’s crossing nature, almost any descending cut from above on any particular angle can be intercepted with the Twer.
Also, cross to both sides, toward the ox and toward the plow (that is, toward the upper and lower exposures), from one side to the other, above and below, continuously and without delay, so that you're always in motion and don't let them come to blows.
Consider also the lines of the Zettel: “What comes from the sky / The cross takes in its stride. / Cut across with the strong, / And be sure to work on.” The strong of the blade is usually the best for parrying, as it has the best leverage. The lines seem to me to be calling for us to cut across so that any threat from above is collected into our strong.
I have argued before that downward cuts from above were 3227a’s expected standard counterattack from an opponent.10 If this was the case, then a sweeping parry that covers all the lines that the upper openings may be attacked by a downward cut would be a very useful tool for the fencer. I think the Twer is that tool.
But there’s more sweeping parries within Liechtenauer fencing than just the Twer! There’s also the Krump.
This is about the crooked cut, etc:
Throw the curve and don't be slow,
Over their hands the point you throw.
Many strikes you will offset,
With a curve and with good steps.
Cut the curve to the flat;
Weaken masters with that,
And when it clashes above,
I will praise them who step off.
Cut short, and curve not,
If the changing through is sought.
Who crookedly leads you astray,
The noble war will leave them dazed;
They'll have no way to know
Where they're safe from your blow.Explanation: Here notice and remember that the crooked cut comes down from above and goes in a curved way with a good step outward to one side.
This is why Liechtenauer says that if you want to bring this cut well, step well to your right, fully flanking them with your cut, and cut in a curved manner, swiftly and well, and then throw or shoot your point over their hilt and over their hands.
Cut
toward theirwith your flat; if you hitthe flattheir sword, then remain strongly on it and press firmly, and see what you can bring in the quickest and most decisive way, with cutting, thrusting, or slicing.
The passage on the Krump in 3227a is unfortunately a bit less clear and developed than its gloss on Twer. The crossed out text with additions lead me to suspect there was some confusion with the scribe or perhaps the author had some disagreement with the typical way of doing Krump.
For purposes of clarify and comparison, let’s pull in Ringeck’s passage on the Krump11:
Yet another play from the crooked cut
Crook. Whoever fully commits
Disrupts many cuts with stepping.Gloss. This is how you shall displace the descending cut with the crooked cut. Conduct the play like this: When the opponent cuts in from above from their right side to the opening, step to their left side with your right foot and fall across their sword in the barrier guard with your point to the ground. Conduct this on both sides. You can also strike them on the head from the displacement.
So the Krump: It travels down from above, in a “crooked” or “curved” way. The usual interpretation here is a cut which starts on the right shoulder and cuts down along the left side of the fencer, while stepping towards the right. You can also do it to the right, stepping left.
Much like the Twer, the fully executed Krump covers a wide arc of space. Ringeck’s account of the Krump calls for us to end with our point to the ground. Any incoming cut, or thrust, aimed within that arc will be intercepted at some point by the Krump.
This versatility in defence is suggested by the Zettel itself, stating “Many strikes you will offset / With a curve and with good steps. / Cut the curve to the flat/ Weaken masters with that”. The note that “masters” can be weakened by using the Krump also suggests that this defence is applicable against skilled opponents.
Tactical advice on the sweeping use of Krump is also given in the anonymous Dresden gloss fragment12. This unique text from MS Dresden C 487 gives us a brief but useful guidance on the use of Krump together with Czornhaw:
Understand it like this: When one strikes at you from-the-roof, strike the wrath-hew with the long edge, as he is indicating to you, into his strike, upon his sword with the long edge of you sword and with this, from that moment on, wind your point into his face with command, that is with strength.
[…]Item. When you fence with someone, whatever they strike at you that does not come right straight from high down onto you, parry that with the crook. When the recital says: Whoever parries crooked well, disrupts many hews with stepping. This is if someone strikes at you, then drive crooked thereon and then hew so that you come before any work and wind your point or strike into him so he must parry you, so that you again come to more strokes that you then may execute the failer or thrust or inverted wind or otherwise stroke or fall-across when someone parries you too low or too wide forwards with the parrying.
Or put more plainly: If the opponent strikes directly at you, then use the Czorn and shoot the point against him. If they do anything other than a straight and direct cut from above, then parry it with the Krump.
Implicitly, the Krump needs to be the more versatile tool here. If any threat other than a direct cut from above is met by the Krump, then the Krump needs to be able to effectively parry to a wide range of angles and different types of strike. To me, this describes using the Krump as a sweeping parry.
To return our focus to Ms3227a, let’s finish with discussing the defensive applications of the Vorsetzcen13. The relevant passages are Fol 23v:
Also remember that there are only two cuts (that is, over and under both sides), and all other cuts come from them regardless of how they're named.
These are the pinnacle and the foundation of all other cuts, and they, in turn, come from and depend on the point of the sword, which is the center and the core of all other plays (as was written well earlier).
From these same cuts come the four Vorsetzcen from both sides, with which you disrupt and counter all cutting and thrusting, and all guards. From them, you also come into the four hangers, from which you can perform the art well (as is written further on)
And 32v:
Here remember that there are four Vorsetzcen to both sides, one upper and one lower to each side, and they counter or disrupt all lairs and guards. Any way that you divert or deflect someone's cut, thrust, or slice with your sword, from above or from below, could well be called Vorsetzcen.
If you're the one Vorsatz, however that happens, swiftly pull back and cut again in a single advance.
If you Vorsatz or turn away someone's cut or thrust, immediately step in and follow through on their sword so that they cannot pull back. Then do whatever you can, but if you hesitate and delay, it will be harmful to you.
As in my previous article, I have here restored the German “Vorsetzcen” to these passages rather than used Chidester’s translation of “parry”, for purposes of clarity and specificity.
The key point here is that the Vorsetczen derive from the Four Hauen. Vorsetzcen are associated with a striking motion. As a result of this, the Vorsetzcen often act as a percussive parry while the Hengen they end in function more positionally14.
According to the text, Vorsetzcen can be done upper or lower, and to either side. One way to interpret this is that a Vorsetzcen starts high or low to one side and travels to high or low on the other side, in the common X pattern of cuts. One could also do these motions from side to side while remaining high or low, or from high to low while remaining on one side.
Source15
Twer is done from side to side while remaining high with the hilt and ending in the upper hengen. Krump travels from high to low while remaining on one side and ending in the low hengen.
The later Liechtenauer texts classify the Twer and Krump as “Versetzen”, and specifically defines the Vier Versetzen as the Twer, Krump, Schiel, and Scheitel Hawen.
3227a does not make that connection, at least not explicitly. It says instead that the Vorsetzcen are applications of the four Hauen, which are the fundamental actions of ascending and descending cuts from both sides. My interpretation is that “Vorsetzcen” in the Codex is a broad category, like the “Hauen” they derive from. I think that Vorsetzcen potentially includes Twer and Krump but is not limited to them16.
Vorsetzcen are another piece of evidence for the use of sweeping parries in the Liechtenauer fencing approach. Since they are a broad category, there are many possible sweeping parries we could construct from the Vorsetzcen.
Rising Back Edge Sweeps
“The fool always counters
What someone cuts or thrusts”
I would like to briefly discuss the technique of rising back edge sweeping parries as well here.
In the treatises of Fiore dei Liberi and Philippo Vadi, one of the characteristic actions is a rising cut with the back edge from a low guard, followed immediately by a descending cut with the forward edge from above on the same line. There is nothing wrong with this and it is a very practical and useful action. Used defensively, I would certainly call it a sweeping parry as it has the necessary characteristics.
In Ms3227a, a technique called Krauthacke is listed which has a similar motor pattern17:
One technique is called the Krauthacke (herb hoe) and comes from the iron gate and is practiced by striking upwards from the ground directly to the man and down again. And it is a strong method for those who can do it correctly, with steps directly forward and with one upstrike with each step.
However, this technique is given in the “other masters” chapter, where the author is discussing fencing techniques which are not within Liechtenauer’s teachings. So while the motor pattern was known to Liechtenauer students, at least to the Ms3227a author, its inclusion within Liechtenauer fencing is more dubious.
There is a similar pattern given in the Ab Schneiden technique presented in the Danzig and Lew glosses. In these techniques the fencer initiates with a cut from below that seems to be done with the back edge, and if the opponent parries then the fencer uses their sword to pull the opposing blade back and away and open the opponent for a strike. A century later, Joachim Meyer also provided for techniques like this.
The anonymous “Stuck im aufstreichen”18 treatise provides a number of techniques from rising back edge sweeping parries. It claims that “[there] is good fencing from the sweeps, although they are not named in the Recital. Yet the plays from the Recital arise when one fences from them.”
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this type of action. However I do think that it’s place within Liechtenauer fencing is, textually, slightly dubious. Ms3227a considers Krauthacke useful enough to discuss, but says comes from “other masters”. Some sources provide techniques from it among the Liechtenauer corpus. Others say that you can do Liechtenauer fencing from this rising back edge cut, but admit that it isn’t named in the Zettel.
That all being said, the inclusion of point low guards like the Fool in the Liechtenauer system in my opinion requires some kind of defensive actions from them. A position in fencing must be able to both attack the opponent and defend ourselves, and rising sweeps are a natural action from low positions. Rising back edge sweeps are at least implied by the inclusion of point low guards in the texts.
My conclusion here would be that rising back edge sweeps can be integrated into a Liechtenauer approach, but arguably shouldn’t be seen as the centrepiece of your defensive system. If the only sweep you use is the rising back edge, that’s probably not accurate to Liechtenauer’s approach.
As I see it, Liechtenauer’s defensive system in fact gives us more options for sweeping parries. It uses the Twer, the Krump, and all the many ways of performing Vorsetzcen, in addition to back edge rising cuts.
Notes for Training and Application
If you accept that Liechtenauer’s defensive systems use sweeping parries, then the next question is how best to apply them yourself?
First of all, “practice is better than art”. Nothing I write could help you more than you going out to fence with sword in hand and experiencing things for yourself. Go to your next fencing bout and try to defend yourself with sweeping parries. Use the Krump and the Twer and anything else you can think of, and note well when and why you succeed or fail.
From my own practice however I do have a few pieces of advice on the matter.
As in all things Liechtenauer, measure and moderation are key.
A sweeping parry gives you a versatile defensive tool, but it cannot liberate you from the fundamentals of distance and time. An opponent at a close enough distance can always hit faster than the parry can be made, if you let them get to that distance. You can however give yourself more time by retreating or sidestepping, either in preparation or during your parry.
It is unwise to commit too much force and momentum into the parry. You don’t need to smash the opponent’s sword. Doing so usually just exposes you somewhere else and hinders your recovery into an additional defence or interferes with making a timely nachschlag.
While defending ourselves is the primary purpose of all parrying, good parries also position you for a timely riposte. However you use a sweeping parry, make sure that you can riposte afterwards. This imperative will also assist you with finding the right physical moderation. You have to balance the need to intercept and deflect the threat with the need to set up your own attack.
A note here on the positioning of the point: In my experience, it is often best to do sweeping parries to bring the point forward, but you do not need to have it strictly on-line. Positioning the point a little to the side, up or down, often makes for better defensive security, but you should still bring the point forward so you are positioning your blade closer to the target for a quick riposte.
The Codex notes that the Vorsetzcen lead into the Hengen. It’s often very useful to recover from or end your sweep into a positional defence where you are well covered and from which you can launch further actions.
The best exercises for working on sweeping parries I find are ones where the attacker has a range of offensive options within a given arc of angles. If the attacker has only one line and one attack available, then the positional parry is usually better. If you let the attacker strike anywhere between point A and point B on the defender (i.e: From the top of their head to their left hip, and both deep and shallow targets), and the attacker’s specific threat is unknown, then the sweep becomes a more effective option.
The sweeping parry can still be deceived by an opponent who feints effectively and draws the parry out and then strikes somewhere else. Against such opponents, the best answer I find is a direct counterattack with Schiessen19. My advice here is to maintain a wide distance during the opponent’s preparation, work on judging whether they will feint or attack, and then either parry or shoot the point. Your starting position should enable you to do either.
I hope you have enjoyed this brief treatment of the sweeping parries within Liechtenauerian fencing. I think these are a critical part of Liechtenauer’s defensive system, giving us a defence which can effectively deflect most of an opponent’s offensive actions while remaining simple and reliable. For myself, I mean to take these into my training and try to find how much I can rely on them for defence in as many circumstances as possible. If you have any points or disagreements, let me know and let’s discuss.
Happy fencing, colleagues!
Molière, the Middle-Class Gentleman
A strike with the hand moves faster than movement with the feet, generally speaking, therefore an opponent close enough to reach you can often strike you faster than you can step or move away.
Ibid.
This commonly happens to me when I parry a moment too early and my opponent withholds their strike and then hits my exposed hand.
Perhaps some day I will get through one article on this blog without discussing Vorsetzcen again, but it is not this day.
Ibid
Against this argument, one could counter-argue that Twer in 3227a is described as using the back edge where the Vorsetzcen seem to use the front edge.
“If they attack wide or long / shooting in defeats them”.