Mit Abe und Czu Treten

Thoughts on preparation and recovery footwork

Facing an opponent’s counterattacks are a big challenge in fencing.

I like to fence with forward movement. I like to close the distance, and I want to take the initiative offensively. This is also in line with what the Liechtenauer sources tell me to do in combat. Yet while doing this, it often happens that I blunder carelessly into an opponent counterattacking at the time when I step to them to close the distance.

A common story! A common challenge for fencers across all weapons. Are there answers to this problem? Let’s consider them, focusing on the most fundamental part of the problem: The position of our body, as determined by our footwork.

In an article on Sprechfenster Blog about preparatory footwork, the author Maciej Talaga shared this gif of epee fencing.

Let us consider the footwork we see in this exchange.

The fencer on the left, Yamada of Japan, attempts an advance to prepare a lunge attack. Santarelli of Italy retreats in time and the distance is wrong on the prep for a finish. Yamada steps back, Santarelli advances, Yamada preps again, this time Santarelli cannot retreat in time and Yamada finishes with a lunge and thrust to the chest.

This illustrates one of the important features of the step-lunge footwork often used in FIE fencing: The recovery. What do I mean by recovery? Yamada’s prep advance was able to be immediately abandoned and followed with a retreat to a safe distance when his first prep did not win for him the distance needed for his attack. If he had stayed on the advance chasing after Santarelli he might have been able to chase his opponent down, but he risked a counterattack, and such an approach would force him to rely for his defence on difficult countertime¹ defensive actions while closing distance. Expanding the distance to recover was a safer option, leaving Yamada out of easy reach for any attack from Santarelli, requiring Santarelli to advance himself to try to set up an attack. As we see, Yamada correctly exploits that by returning to his prep again and then finishing his planned attack.

The importance of the recovery in epee footwork was a critical reason behind Johan Harmenberg’s adoption of bouncing footwork, as he explains:

”A normal fencing advance consists of two steps. First you lift your front foot and move it forward until it touches the piste. Then you lift your back foot and move it forward until it also touches the piste to preserve the proper distance between the feet. Let us now consider a situation where the opponent launches a counterattack just as you have started to advance by lifting your front foot on your way forward. At this point you have moved all your weight onto your back foot. This means you cannot start to retreat by lifting your back foot because all your weight is on it. You must first put down your front foot and then shift your weight onto it before you can lift your back foot to start your retreat. This means that if you are exposed to a properly executed counterattack, you will need to continue your forward movement for some time before you can start retreating. The time involved may only be a fraction of a second, but you may not be able to afford it”²

Why was it so important to Harmenberg to be able to retreat rapidly against a counterattack? His approach to epee fencing was strongly predicated on closing the distance, choking off an opponent’s options, and leaving them without space or time to carry out complex fencing phrases. But closing the distance aggressively exposes you to an opponent’s counterattacks (For a HEMA source which explicitly advises you to do this against an advancing opponent, see George Silver and just about every rapier author ever). To evade or defend the counterattack, Harmenberg needed to be able to expand the distance as rapidly as he closed it, and to change direction on a dime against sudden or unexpected counters.

Seeking a solution to make the retreat more rapid in order to be safer in closing distance, Harmenberg abandoned classical footwork for the most part and adopted a bouncing footwork strategy, preparing attacks with forward bounces and recovering from preps with backward bounces.

My primary HEMA source the Nuremberg codex likewise advises us of the importance of direction changes in our footwork. It is in fact one of the few things said explicitly about footwork in the whole of the KdF textual corpus:

”Also know that when you fence with someone, so shall you fully pay attention to your steps and be sure in them just as if you shall stand upright upon a scale, stepping backwards or forwards according to necessity, suitably and appropriately, swiftly and quickly.

And your fencing shall completely proceed with good spirit and good demeanor or sense and without any fear as you will hear about hereafter.

You shall also have measuredness in your applications accordingly as it necessitates itself and you shall not step too wide, so that you may better adjust yourself to another's steps, done backwards or forwards according to that as it will necessitate itself.

Also the situation often necessitates two short steps for one long.

And often the situation necessitates that one must execute a little rush in with short steps and often that one must do it a good step or a spring.”

(Trosclair translation).

So for myself studying this text, the text directly tells me my footwork should be able to move backward and forward as necessary, quickly and readily. I also have both my own experiences in HEMA competition and the works of modern authors like Harmenberg to tell me why this might be important: If I intend to adopt an offensive and proactive strategy in fencing, I need to be able to defeat counterattacks, and that usually requires competency in recovery footwork. If my prep has not set up the attack successfully and a counter is incoming, I need to be able to recover into a safe position again in time to not get hit. The most reliable way to regain a safe position is to change direction and regain a safer distance, more defensible from the opponent’s attacks.³

Have I mastered this skill? To put it shortly, no not at all. But! I do have a few lines of thinking on this matter to pursue in my practice, and I’d like to share my hypotheses with you. Perhaps you might come away from this article with some ideas for working on direction changes yourself.

Footwork Aspects in Ms3227a

Returning to the earlier passage on footwork, there are a few points of practical advice it gives us on how to achieve the footwork effects it speaks of.

Firstly, it advises that we be measured in our footwork. The original German word here is mosse, which Chidester renders as “moderation” and Trosclair gives as “measuredness”. The German word, Maße in modern German, seems to carry implications both about the measuring of a physical object or area, and implications about measure as in having moderation or self-control. Linguistically, the mosse in the Codex more probably means moderation and self-control, but both implications are appropriate for fencing. Footwork in fencing needs to be both measured in that you have moderation and control of your steps, and measured in that your steps carry you to precisely the distance you desire in the necessary timeframe.

Secondly, it tells us to not step too wide, so that it is easier to adjust to the steps of our opponent. There are a couple practical reasons for this: A longer step leaves our foot in the air with us committed to movement in that direction for a longer period of time than a shorter step. Therefore if there is a need to adjust, the longer step leaves us unable to for a longer timeframe. The text is not entirely against using large steps or springing or leaping motions where appropriate, it says as much, but for adjusting to the opponent it would rather we not step too wide.

Tied to the idea of not stepping too wide, it repeatedly advises us to use short steps. Two short steps may be better than one long one. I believe that using short steps is easier for fulfilling the criteria of adaptability the codex gives us about our footwork, but also has some advantages in terms of preparing and launching our attacks as well. The distance adjustment of each shorter step is less notable for the opponent to read than a longer step, allowing the fencer to steal into distance where they may launch an attack with surprise. Because the short step is in the air for a shorter time, it also makes it easier to more rapidly withdraw if needed or launch an attack if the opportunity is there.

There are further some passages of the text which don’t address footwork explicitly, but nonetheless give advice or requirements I believe are applicable to our footwork. In particular:

”And whatever you wish to sensibly conduct in play or in earnest, you should make that out of place and disordered in the eyes of the opponent so that they do not identify what you intend to conduct against them.”

(Trosclair translation)

This has implications about what kind of footwork we use. If we are to obscure our plans from the opponent, we will need to support that with footwork that makes it difficult for the opponent to determine the timing or intentions of our attacks. We shouldn’t step in ways which obviously telegraph our attack.

The Codex also does give us a direct instruction on using footwork as part of a recovery action:

“If you mislay or overextend the point of your sword when shooting or lunging, you can recover and realign it by winding and stepping out, and thus come back to the reliable plays and rules of fencing, from which you can cut, thrust, or slice again. For all cutting, thrusting, and slicing can come from the plays and rules of the art of the sword, according to Liechtenauer's art.”

(Chidester translation)

Interpretation: When our sword is out of position (and thus, presumably, we are vulnerable to the opponent), we recover by a combination of footwork and bladework which brings the weapon and our body back into position to continue fighting. So the idea of recovery footwork is in my opinion directly stated in the text.

So, in sum, I would say that a 3227a-informed approach to footwork needs to:
-Move back or forward quickly as needed
-Be adjustable and adaptable to the opponent’s movements, capable of supporting either preparation or recovery.
-Be measured, which I believe implies both control of distance changes and moderate and controlled physical actions
-Permit us to confuse our opponent and obscure our intentions from them.

All good in concept. But how to do it? And, particularly, how do we execute effective recovery footwork, achieving the adaptability we need? I have two potential proposals which may give us some avenues for solving these questions.

1st Proposal: Czu treten and Abe treten

On the Starlit Ramblings blog, Travis Mayott published an interesting piece a few years ago about the advance of the left foot as a preparatory step in KdF footwork. Generally, I agree with him: For attacking with a passing step of the right foot, the attack’s preparation and range is determined by the positioning of the lead, left foot.

Think of it like this: The position of the rear foot relative to your target determines whether and how quickly you can reach that target on a lunge, because in the lunge the rear foot remains on the ground and the front foot moves. Likewise, the position of the front foot relative to the target determines whether and how quickly you can reach a target on a pass, because in the pass the front foot remains on the ground and the rear foot moves. By extending the front foot closer to the target, we prepare a potential passing step attack by bringing the initiating point of the attack closer to our potential target, shortening the distance we need to cover and thus the time the attack will take.

This type of linear extension of the front foot seems to be referred to as “treten” in Ms3227a, and specifically “czu treten”, which we may render as “treading in” or “stepping in” or “stepping to”.

That’s all well and good for preparing attacks, but our topic today is primarily on adaptability and recovery with our footwork. What do we do if during our preparatory extension we are attacked and suddenly need to retreat? The quote from Harmenberg above sums up the potential problems we may encounter with this.

A potential answer emerges when we consider some of Talaga’s work on footwork according to 3227a, in particular the “abe treten”, treading away or stepping out, which he interprets as a pulling back of the lead foot towards the rear foot. This seems to be explicitly called for in text as part of a recovery action from a failed or overextended attack (vnd ab eyner syn ort des swertes / mit schißen ader mit voltreten / vorlewst ader vorlengt / zo mag her in mit winden ader abetreten⁴)

There’s a few pieces of Talaga’s work relevant to this proposal:

• Abe treten can initiate a retreat, and Talaga’s practical experimentation found that this had some advantages over a conventional fencing retreat which begins with the rear foot moving backwards.

• A somewhat back weighted stance can in fact maintain a balanced fencing position while unloading weight to some degree from the front foot, rendering the front foot more nimble.

So, extending the front foot prepares a passing step attack and so offers a potential threat. Retracting the front foot supports a retreat, and so offers a potential escape from a threat. Could we then combine the two, as Harmenberg combined forward and backward bounces for his footwork? Alternatively extend and retract the front foot as we manoeuvre, with each potential threat followed by a potential retreat if the opportunity to attack is not suitable.

A problem arises with this approach in regards to the weighting of our feet. Committing too much weight forward onto front foot may render this combination of czu- and abe treten slow and cumbersome, hardly suitable for combat with an adversary. This will run particularly afoul of the advance-into-counterattack problem Harmenberg identified.

Then there is the problem of the rear foot. If we are constantly extending and retracting our front foot, then the rear foot becomes our principal support. If we don’t move the rear foot as well, then czu and abe treten is mere movement on the spot and won’t close distance on our opponent. If we rest too heavily on the rear foot, then movement forward into a pass becomes slow and cumbersome and our attack becomes more telegraphed and slower and less likely to succeed.

Harmenberg in his writings also identified that a fencer with a “fixed back foot”⁵ was particularly vulnerable to direct, explosive attacks, and this method may risk becoming that fencer as well.

One way I have been addressing this is by not planting on one spot with the rear foot for too long. Continually shifting forward and back in my position with both feet, remaining in movement, while using the czu and abe treten of the forward foot as outlined above to prepare my threats and retreats. This does require weight shifts from the front foot to the back foot, but I try to keep the movements of both feet short, and the corresponding weight shifts as short as possible, in order to enable the back and forth adaptability that 3227a advises.

If a threat is spotted, or even suspected, following the czu treten with abe treten allows the fencer to immediately initiate a retreat by drawing the front foot back as quickly as possible. Well practiced, this becomes a smooth and very rapid way to retreat, and I am especially a fan of it for making the fencer focus on pulling the body’s forward turned side and most advanced and most vulnerable targets, out of harm’s way first.

Note: Here abe treten supports a retreat into a parry-riposte.

You can further improve the retreat in this method by combining it with a strike or thrust of your own as you retreat to offer a threat to dissuade a pursuing adversary. Even if you strike nothing, the threat gives the opponent pause. This is also incidentally something Ms3227a advises us to do when an opponent parries us⁶, albeit it should be admitted that it doesn’t explicitly say to do this when retreating during general manoeuvring, this use of the combination of abe treten and a strike is a conjecture on my part.

My next stage of experimentation on treten I think will involve using the back-weighted stance more. With a slight hip hinge backwards, we take weight off the front foot and thus render it more nimble in movement. This should permit the czu treten to be used with less commitment of the body and the weight forward, to “test the waters” as it were by probing into distance on the opponent, while still having the capacity for the rapid retreat of abe treten. But I do not currently have enough practical examples to say whether this works in live fencing or not, so for now we leave it only as a possible line of exploration.

With the czu and abe treten combined together, the opponent has to deal with the constant visual noise from our footwork, and when combined with what I call obscuring blade actions⁷ it becomes difficult for them to spot when exactly we mean to attack by obscuring our genuine preparation among constant movement. This is especially so if we practice for attacking at any time (While a forward movement of the foot prepares an attack, we can and should practice to strike from any position) and with minimal telegraphing beyond the necessary preparation.

Note: At the time of this clip I was not pursuing this method in training or fencing deliberately. Still, it gives a general idea of the idea of using the front foot to prepare the passing attack, and moving the front foot forward and back.

Note: Here I use treten footwork to set up a counterparry-riposte on the opponent’s counterattack.

Used in this way, we have a method of movement which resembles somewhat the step-lunge pattern of modern fencing, but with more emphasis placed on the extension and retraction of the front foot as we mean to prepare a passing attack rather than a lunge.

That all being said, it should also be noted that the does not specifically tell us to use treten in this way. As Talaga notes in his article, a conservative read of the text would only allow for treten to be used as a follow-up to a passing attack, or as a recovery from one, but not for manoeuvring, preparation, or distance management. The rear foot again proves troublesome: While the text provides for treten as extension and retraction of the front foot, it doesn’t explicitly accompany that with any implied movement of the back foot. Without moving the rear foot, you can only extend and recover on the spot, not actually advance and cross ground, nor in fact retreat and expand distance either.

Now, we can guess that the movement of the rear foot was probably included in the author’s practice. I certainly do guess that. But we are engaged in a degree of conjecture in regards to our primary text’s instructions here that should be acknowledged.

I would further note that I need a lot more practice and testing, particularly competition testing, of this method’s pros and cons, advantages and pitfalls. In particular I need to consciously focus on the abe treten retreat, as my fencing footage currently mostly shows either my attack working, my counterparry working, or myself getting hit by the counterattack, and does not show many examples of successful escapes supported by footwork. Thus for now let us leave it as a proposal, not as a proven solution.

2nd Proposal: Schreiten and Aus Schreiten

Mr. Talaga’s practice adheres more conservatively to Ms3227a than my own tends to do. As noted above, a conservative read on the codex does not necessarily give us support for the treten-based method I described. A source purist may wish to explore alternatives based on the schreiten, passing or walking steps, which the source more often uses as its primary descriptor for foot movement in combat. This is what Talaga has been working on with his experimenting with passing preparatory steps, as described in the linked article.

I myself have also tried this approach, passing with the left foot forward to prepare a right foot attack. For readers of the Sword and the Pen, here are some observations about it that I posted over on Sprechfenster Blog:

”So I tried applying your version of closing the gap with the left foot step in my sparring last night. A few observations:

1. It worked very well against opponents who would willingly bind or engage at the blade. Against such opponents, the advance with the left foot pass succeeded at closing the gap and winning me a blade engagement from which I could thrust or duplier or come to other work.

2. It worked well at setting up rightward movement in the engagement. Because the footwork is passing, the natural next step is a right step, and the natural direction shifts you to the right. This often proved advantageous against people who tried to collapse the distance or thrust with the fleche, as against an opponent trying to crash in I would pass laterally and they would often rush past me.

3. I had more difficulties from opponents who relied on direct attacks as I closed the gap. If I stepped too large on the pass forward I often ended up too close and just ate the direct counter as a consequence. Closing the line with wenden of the sword helped, but any hesitation on my part was fatal. To improve this, I need to use it as a prep for my own attack I think and transition more seemlessly. Don't become lax or hesitant or you miss your chance, as the Codex might put it.”

I want to focus on points 2 and 3 today. Let’s start in reverse order with point 3.

As we have already discussed, a preparation step is often a good opportunity for a counterattack either for ourselves or for our adversary. If we complete a preparation and are within distance to strike, then most often the opponent is also in distance to strike. If we then hesitate or delay for any reason, we may cede the opportunity to them, and then they may initiate the attack first. If this occurs, we need to quickly defend, and our footwork needs to move us in a way to enable that defence.

Therefore, one of the critical requirements for preparation footwork is how we recover. Can we use the preparation step to return us to a position of safety if necessary?

The step-lunge or Harmenberg’s bouncing footwork offers one answer to the issue of recovery: If a threat is suspected during the advance, you immediately change direction by bouncing back and recovering at a safer distance.

My proposal above in regards to using czu and abe treten likewise works on changing directions to go backwards for recovery, using the abe treten to quickly initiate a retreat.

But, what if we instead intend to using passing steps for our preparation? As Talaga rightly notes, Ms3227a most commonly uses the term “schreiten” as the general term for maneuvering footwork in the fight, and this term seems to refer to a passing step. “Czu treten” is only specifically given in application as a follow-up step after a passing attack, and “abe treten” as a recovery action after an attack. Their use in maneuvering footwork before engagement can be suspected, but is not actually explicitly in the text.⁸

So if we’re going to maneuver with passing steps, and prepare our attacks with passing steps, what are the effects of that on how we recover?

Well as noted, preparing an attack with a passing step can carry you too deeply into range if you are careless and leave you severely exposed to a counterattack. If you try to evade that counter by immediately stepping backwards, there are some difficulties. The length of time your foot is in the air during a passing step, and the required commitment of momentum, makes reversing direction quite slow and cumbersome. This is one reason why non-passing, shuffling steps are far more common in fencing systems for general maneuvering. This makes recovering straight backwards out of distance relatively difficult for passing footwork.

But let’s move on to point 2 of my observations to Sprechfenster Blog: When you prepare an attack with a left foot passing step, the natural next motion your body wants to make is a passing step of the right foot. Think of it like walking: When your left foot hits the ground, your body naturally wants to step with the right next. We can use the momentum of the left foot step to carry us rightwards on the following step.

This movement to the right is also something which Ms3227a advises us to do:

“Always go to your right side with your plays, because in all matters of fencing and wrestling, you can better take your opponent in this way than directly from the front. Whoever knows this piece and brings it well is not a bad fencer.”

The textual term for this lateral stepping seems to be “aus schreiten”, stepping out or stepping around.

So here is my second proposal for 3227a-informed recovery footwork: Prepare the attack with a left foot pass, and if you cannot finish the attack directly then recover not straight back but rather laterally, moving rightwards after your left foot step.

This will not expand the distance as much as a straight backwards retreat will of course, but it will change the angles between yourself and your opponent. By changing the angles, this also changes the distance the opponent’s sword must cross in order to land a hit.

As I noted in my comment to Sprechfenster Blog, using this rightward movement as recovery from a passing prep step has some advantages. Particularly, opponents who try to counterattack with explosive movements or deep advances to collapse the distance during your prep can often be bypassed by this lateral movement. Further, if the opponent does engage at the blade with you then moving to the right has some advantages for changing the leverage and angles and allowing you to get behind their blade.

This is hard to describe in words. Imagine that you stand in front of your opponent and their sword is extended towards you in the middle in a Sprechfenster sort of position with the point at your chest. If you stand straight in front of them, lined up, then the entire length of their sword is between you and their body, making it hard to reach any target other than maybe their hands or arms, and even that risks the threat of the point.

Now take a pace to the right, maintaining your blade contact so that the opponent’s sword is angled towards your left with your sword on the inside of it, between your body and their blade. The opponent’s body is now more exposed, the openings much larger, and you may be able to get your sword behind theirs, in between their weapon and their body. This position offers many potential advantages for landing your strike. You are also yourself safer with the weapon no longer directed at you, and if the opponent wishes to strike around your sword to your open side then that path is longer because of the change in angles between you.

What makes this rightwards step a functional recovery? Let’s work it out:

If we prep with the left foot pass, and then opponent retreats in time, then we move right. They’re not in range to strike because we didn’t chase them, although we’re not in range either. We’re both safe, there should be little danger due to the distance between us. At the same time, we didn’t expand the distance hugely since we moved laterally and not linearly, so we should still be close enough to attempt prepping further attacks.

If the opponent tries a distance collapsing attack of their own, the rightward movement allows us to evade them and position ourselves on a flank. If we combine this rightward movement with a sweeping parry to cover all our lines on our left side, such as a Krumphaw, then we should be relatively secure from most of the opponent’s most likely attacks to our closest available targets.

If the opponent enters a bind with us, moving right can help us exploit that effectively.

Note: Here I used the left pass prep, and then moved right as he attacked during my prep, which gained me an angle to strike to my opponent’s upper openings.

Note: In this exchange I prepare with the left foot pass, then take the opponent’s counter with a counterparry and riposte to his arm while stepping right.

And of course if they stand firm and allow us to close the distance, then since we opened with a left foot preparation we’re positioned for an attack on an explosive pass of our own.

Note: Sourced from Talaga’s article on the left pass prep, because he is much better at this than I currently am!

All that being said, there are a few lines of textual criticism for this rightward recovery that do trouble me. The text does say to move to the right with our plays, but it also tells us to step such that we can easily adjust forward and backward as necessary. The passing step nature of schreiten and aus schreiten does support moving to the right, but makes it more difficult to adjust backwards linearly away from the opponent if necessary. And, again, as with abe treten in my first proposal, this specific application of aus schreiten as a recovery from a prep is not explicitly given in the text.

It is also somewhat harder to use this footwork for obscuring our intentions from the opponent. If we start right leg forward and pass the left as our prep, that’s a fairly big motion that can be pretty easy for the opponent to read. We can still use obscuring blade actions of course, and we can continue to step forward and back and side to side to make the pattern less easy to read, but the pass is just a bigger motion and more noticeable for the opponent than the small adjustments of treten.

Further, the commitment necessary for a pass for a preparation step does make it particularly vulnerable to a counterattack if you have misjudged the length of your step, which was the specific problem this article is addressing. If you really need more separation and distance between yourself and the opponent to get to safety, the rightward aus schreiten does not necessarily deliver that, and you may not have time for that step if you have strayed too close.

Here I prepared with a pass much too close, trying to set up a rightward shift with a Krump, and I eat a thrust in the shoulder in consequence to the distance being much too close. Mea culpa.

Conclusions

The two approaches I have laid out here to preparation and recovery footwork are ultimately just as they are labelled: Proposals. These are areas for further exploration, lines of thought for more inquiry, not hard and fast final answers to the problems of counterattacks and of preparation and recovery.

That being said, fencers being fencers, you’re probably wondering “Well which one is better? Which one should I use?”

So far I have found through my own practice that the treten method works better when the fencing moves to closer distances, where smaller and more granular adjustments of the distance are necessary and where there is not sufficient time or space to safely use a pass in preparation. If the distance has closed considerably and no engagement has yet begun, treten seems a safer and more secure option. When it is close work and I am trying to steal an extra inch or two on the opponent while remaining primed for the retreat if necessary, I prefer treten as my main footwork pattern.

I also think that a treten-based method fulfills the Codex’s footwork instruction on backward and forward adaptability more effectively.

At a wider distance, when needing to close rapidly from further out, then the schreiten method seems a better option. With more space to work with, the longer distance covered by passing steps are more efficient and less risky than at a closer distance, and the rightward recovery means you surrender less distance if the prep must be abandoned and you’re primed for lateral evasion if the opponent decides to try collapsing the distance themselves. I have also found that when I use this method as a conscious choice to close the gap from wide distance to close distance, then I am very watchful and judicious during the length of my pass for the opponent’s threats, and this improves my success rate at using the otherwise very difficult countertime actions against counterattacks.

I would also say that the schreiten-based method is more effective at enabling me to drive rightwards with my stepping, which is another piece of footwork advice the Codex gives.

So which should you use? Try both! Experiment, try things out, and find for yourself what works best. “Practice is better than art” after all. I am no master and I don’t have all the answers, I can only share what I am working on in the hopes it helps you as well.

If you see fit to try these proposals in your own fencing, I would love to hear back from you on your experiences and what you observed about these footwork approaches.

1. A defensive action carried out while on the offensive which counters or parries an opponent’s counterattack. Devastating if successful, traditionally regarded as among the most difficult skills in fencing.

2. Harmenberg, Epee 2.6, pg. 101-102

3. See my previous article “Going the Distance” for some more writing on the interactions between distance and defence.

4. Fol 18v of Ms3227a.

5. Harmenberg, Epee 2.6, pg. 105

6. Fol 32v of Ms3227a

7. Constant small adjustments and non-committed movements of the blade which confuse the opponent as to the timing and nature of our planned attack

8. There is a bit in the introduction to Ms3227a which refers to “hindersich · ader vorsich · czu treten”, or, roughly, “stepping to backward and forward.”. This might refer to treten in a maneuvering sense, but like many things in a HEMA text, it is somewhat ambiguous.