The Adversary
What is our opponent doing in Ms3227a?
“Fencing” is an adversarial interaction between two combatants. Swinging a sword through the air, or hitting a static target like a tatami mat, these things are not fencing. Fencing only arises when you have an opponent.
Every technique and tactic in fencing exists in the context of our opponent and their actions and reactions. No technique occurs in a vacuum.
So for every technique and tactic in our HEMA sources, we must ask “What is our opponent doing that creates the conditions for this action?”
Our sources are often frustratingly vague about the opponent’s behaviour. Still, with careful reading and interpretation it is possible to draw some conclusions about the opponent’s described behaviour in many or most HEMA sources.
Therefore, as a student of Ms3227a, I must ask “How does the Codex describe our opponent and their actions?”
Understanding the expected behaviours of our adversary according to the text will help us better understand the Codex’s tactical system. As well, it will help us find the right contexts and conditions for applying the Codex’s tactics in our modern HEMA fencing, which therefore informs how we fence to create those conditions.
Defining the Terms
For clarity:
The Author is the person who wrote or dictated Ms3227a’s fencing texts. This is the person whose views on combat we are discussing.
The Fencer refers to the combatant in the text who is performing the tactics and techniques prescribed by the Author.
The Opponent means the Fencer’s adversary in whatever duel or combat they are fighting. This is “the other guy”, what Philippo Vadi called “the companion” in his own text.
“Bad Fencing”
The preface of the Codex’s unarmoured longsword has a famous condemnation of the fencing style of the “dancing masters”.
Fol 13v (Chidester translation)1:
When you want to cut or thrust at someone, it should be as if you tied a thread or a cord to the point or edge of your sword and pulled or drew it toward their nearest exposure, because you should cut or thrust in the shortest and surest manner, in the most decisive way. This is all you should want to do, because proper fencing doesn't have broad or elaborate parries, nor the wide fencing around by which people procrastinate and delay.
You will still find many dancing masters claiming that they believe that the art of the sword grows better and richer from day to day, and that they have conceived and created a new art. But I would like to see anyone who could invent and perform a legitimate strike or play that falls outside of Liechtenauer's art. All they do is jumble and confuse the plays and then give them new names (each one according to their own ideas), and they devise wide parries and often want to do two or three strikes in place of a single one. They do this to be praised by the ignorant for the sheer liveliness of it, as they stand fiendishly and perform elaborate parries and wide fencing around, and, having no moderation in their fencing, they bring long and far-reaching strikes, slowly and clumsily, and severely delay and overextend and expose themselves. This doesn't belong to earnest fencing, but only to play in the fencing schools for exercise and entertainment.
Earnest fencing goes swiftly and precisely, without hesitation or delay, as if measured and balanced by a cord (or something similar). When you cut or thrust at the person who stands in front of you, then clearly no strike backward or to the side can help you, nor any wide fencing with multiple strikes (nor any other way that you procrastinate and delay, and miss the chance to end it with them).
The overall impression we get is a very theatrical and performance-oriented style, which seems to prioritize looking impressive with lots of flashy moves over defeating the opponent with direct and utilitarian tactics.
Later on, on Fol 39v, we get another mention of these “dancing masters”.
It's difficult to be a good fencer without the winds, though certain dancing masters dismiss them and say that what comes from the winds is quite weak, and call it "from the shortened sword", because they are simple and go naively. They mean that techniques from the long sword should be done with extended arms and extended sword, and that they come aggressively and strongly with full strength of body but lacking good stance, and it's terrible to watch when someone stretches themselves out as if they were trying to chase a rabbit.
If there were no art then the strong would always win, but this is not the way, neither in winding nor in the art of Liechtenauer, because this art doesn't require great strength.
Like the earlier passage, this passage condemns an over-extended style which lacks moderation and adds a bit about relying too much on physical strength.
To my eyes however, it reads like this is a different kind of poor fencer than the showy, flashy type mentioned in the preface. This type sounds more like the “Buffalo”, a sword-fighter who relies on strong blows and aggression and lacks control or technique.
In the rest of the Codex, the author specifically says “have measure and moderation in all that you begin and do” (Fol 22v). The style the Author calls for implies precision and balance.
There are shades of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics here: Virtue lies in the moderation and balance between deficiency and excess2. The styles they condemn are noted for excessive qualities, such as being overly showy or relying excessively on strength. There are also deficiencies noted, like procrastination implying a deficiency of decisiveness.
The Author has a very low opinion of these “bad” styles when it comes to earnest fencing, but is this the fencing of the Opponent in the rest of the Codex?
In 3227a’s gloss of the Schilhawe on Fol 28v, it advises us to use the Schil against the “buffalo”. This is in common with other Liechtenauer glosses. The “buffalo” is described as a peasant and it is said they often throw downward blows. This is an opponent who relies on overwhelming you with strong overhead strikes, and so this could refer to the aggressive fencers mentioned on Fol 39v.
The verse on Fol 29v also has a section where it says:
If they fight with strength
Then be artfully prepared,
And if they attack wide or long,
Shooting in defeats them.
The “fighting with strength” could again refer to the overly aggressive style mentioned on 39v. “Attacking wide or long” could be either the aggressive style or the showy and elaborate style of the preface on 13v.
The advice in either case appears to be to use Schiessen, which I interpret as a direct and extended thrust in line with Talaga’s interpretation3. Schiessen is often an effective tool for these types of opponents in my experience.4
These sections aside though, the Opponent as described in the rest of the Codex does not line up well with either the overly aggressive or overly showy style. The Codex does not assume the Opponent is a bad fencer.
The Skill Level of the Codex Opponent
“A peasant can end up striking a master simply because they're bold and win the Leading Strike”
The Author first introduces this idea on Fol 20v, in his “general lesson”, and then returns to it again on Fol 37r.
“With this art or this advantage, it often happens that a peasant or untrained person beats a good master, because they deliver the Leading Strike and charge in boldly; it might be lightly overlooked, but it hits Within and thus strikes them and puts them to shame. This is because it's more dangerous to wait—to receive strikes and defend—than to attack and win the Leading Strike. Therefore, arrange to be first in all matters of fencing”
The Author thinks it is very advantageous to take the leading strike. Taking the leading strike, he says, can allow an untrained fencer to defeat a master.
Here are two ways to interpret these lines about peasants defeating masters:
First, it could be a warning: Even if we are much more skilled than the Opponent, we could still lose if we allow the Opponent to take the vorschlag and control the engagement.
Second, it could be advice: If the Opponent is more skilled than us, we may yet overcome them with the vorschlag.
These lines about peasants defeating masters make it clear that the tactics of the Codex are not just for overcoming untrained opponents or quote-unquote “common fencers”. After all, if a peasant can defeat a master with the vorschlag, then this also implies that we can defeat a master with the vorschlag also.
I would conclude from these passage that we cannot assume that these tactics are aimed only against the untrained or unskilled. These tactics are meant to be applicable against skilful opponents, “masters”, too.
Actions of the Opponent
We can now discuss what actions and tactics are described on the part of the Opponent in the Codex.
As textual analysis goes, this is not such an easy task. Most of the prose in Ms3227a is more focused on the Fencer and the tactics and techniques we are supposed to be using. It does at times mention specific actions from the Opponent. Just as often the Opponent’s actions are given only by implication rather than explicitly stated.
With that in mind, let’s begin.
Disengaging
Fol 19v:
When your cutting and thrusting goes directly toward their exposures (toward their head or body) while stepping or treading around them, then those strikes cannot be defended or diverted by changing through or other such plays.
This is our first mention of particular actions from the opponent, in this case that they may “defend or divert” our attack with disengagement (changing through) or other plays.
Disengagement is an interesting first mention of a defensive technique from the Opponent. The typical interpretation of this technique is that it involves leaving a bind, circling your point underneath their blade and then thrusting on the other side5. This is useful when they are pushing laterally on your blade. You can also use it to “void” an opponent’s beat, sending their blade out of alignment by removing your blade when they try to strike it and then opening them up for an attack.
Source6
How and why could the Opponent “defend or divert” our strike with disengaging? A few possibilities occur to me:
The Opponent could be threatening the Fencer in a new line with the point, forcing the Fencer to slow or abandon their planned attack to deal with the threat. The Fencer may need to “divert” their blade to deal with the threat.
The Opponent could be expecting the Fencer to beat at their blade, and therefore they intend to counter that with a disengage. By voiding on an attack at the blade, our attack is “diverted” by striking nothing but air.
The passage does mention the importance of attacking directly to the opening, and a preceding paragraph discusses the idea of attacking the opponent’s body and not their sword. If the Opponent is expected to disengage on any attack at their sword, then sending our attacks straight and directly at the opening is important for avoiding that7.
Disengaging is mentioned as an option for the Opponent in the gloss of the Schilhawe as well, and in particular the Schil is said to “put the opponent to shame” if they disengage (Fol 28v). Additionally, the “schulfechten” techniques listed in the “Other Masters” chapter8 on Fol 28r has several variants on disengaging, which perhaps implies that these were expected to be in an Opponent’s repertoire.
Defending and Retreating
Fol 20r:
Now, when you execute the Leading Strike (be it cutting or thrusting), if it succeeds, then quickly follow through. But if they defend against it, diverting your Leading Strike or otherwise defending with their sword, then as long as you remain on their sword, while you're being led away from the exposure you had targeted, you should feel precisely and notice whether your opponent is Hard or Soft and Strong or Weak on your sword (in their covering and diverting of your cut or thrust).
This passage begins the Codex’s long discussion on the Vorschlag and Nachschlag and different responses to different kinds of blade pressure in the bind. In the interest of brevity, I will not quote that passage at length.
The Fencer attacks the Opponent with the Vorschlag, and in this case the Opponent defends with the blade. As the subsequent parts of this passage describe, this defence with the blade can either be Hard and Strong or Soft and Weak.
Frustratingly, these descriptions mostly reflect the tactile feeling of the bind and don’t give us very clear narratives of the Opponent’s actions and intended tactics. Still, some things can be observed.
First, the Opponent’s blade defence brings forward their point and therefore are done blade forward. This is seen on Fol 21r, where the beginning of the engagement is described: “Once you're engaged with each other on the sword and have extended your points toward each other's exposures”.
A Hard and Strong bind from the Opponent is expected to exert a lateral pressure on the Fencer’s blade. “If you feel and notice that they're Hard, Strong, and firm, and want to press on your sword, then be Soft and Weak against them and give way to their strength, and allow your sword to be swept out and driven away by their pushing.”
This is expected to open up the Opponent for an attack made by leaving the bind to strike a new opening. “Because the harder and surer they push in and force with their sword while you're Soft and Weak against it, giving way to them and allowing your sword to go aside, then the more and the further their sword also goes aside, and they become quite exposed.” But, allowing the Opponent to sweep the blade aside is not expected to immediately expose the Fencer to attack, so this pressure is sideways in some measure rather than directed at the Fencer and their openings.
Why would the Opponent do this? It may be necessitated by the direct threat of the Vorschlag throwing the point towards the Opponent’s face or chest. The Opponent may also be trying to achieve an overbind, or knock the sword out of the way to open the Fencer up for their own follow-up9 in that opening.
Practical experience also suggest to me that it may be done closer to the Opponent’s body, where they usually have stronger leverage. Unfortunately, no footwork is described with the Hard and Strong bind.
There is also a “Weak and Soft” bind that the Opponent may do. “If you feel and notice that they're Soft and Weak on your sword then be Hard and Strong against them, and charge forward with your point firmly on their sword and drive toward their exposures”
How can the Opponent both act against the attack in a way that stops the hit and results in a bind AND be “weak and soft” in the resulting contact? Wouldn’t a weak and soft parry simply be overmatched by the force of the committed attack and result in a direct hit, no follow-up nachschlag necessary?
These questions suggest that something different is happening with the “Weak and Soft” bind.
We know that this “Weak and Soft” bind has managed to somehow avert the Fencer’s attack, because we are given a follow-up response to this bind and the Opponent is assumed to have space and time to parry that following thrust. “With this thrust, you become well aware of whether they're Weak, letting their sword be pushed aside and letting themselves be hit, or they're Strong, defending and diverting your thrust.”
We also know that this response is not exerting a lateral pressure on the blade, because the Fencer’s follow-up is a direct and straight thrust at the Opponent and not moving to a new opening as they do against the Hard and Strong bind.
What is unmentioned in the text is the Opponent’s footwork in this situation.
In distance terms, the Vorschlag is meant to be launched “just as soon as you see you can reach your opponent with a step or a leap”, and at a distance where the Fencer will reach the Opponent “certainly”. There must be a real possibility of the attack landing, so it must be close enough to reach. Further, the preface calls for attacks to be made “toward their nearest exposure, because you should cut or thrust in the shortest and surest manner”.
If the Fencer does this correctly, how can the Opponent bind “Weak and Soft”, not be hit, and there also be space between them for the Fencer to make a following thrust?
The only interpretation I can see which matches the text is that the Opponent is creating space with retreating footwork during the Fencer’s Vorschlag.
I posit that the Opponent combines a retreating step of some kind with an extension of the blade into a more or less central position with the point on line. I think they are defending mainly with distance while extending the blade in order to get contact on the Fencer’s sword and set up a riposte thrust or stop thrust of their own.
If the Opponent is extending mostly forward and not exerting lateral pressure, then the resulting bind presence would feel “soft”. As well, extending the point forward offers the weak of the sword to be engaged. Their point is a threat to the Fencer in this situation, the Fencer cannot merely storm forward or else they risk the stop thrust. The Fencer’s following thrust must offset that threat of the Opponent’s point. This requires being Hard10 and Strong11 in the bind, which is indeed what the text describes.
Source12
It is also worth noting that the Opponent may become Hard and Strong in the bind after starting Weak and Soft. “With this thrust, you become well aware of whether they're Weak, letting their sword be pushed aside and letting themselves be hit, or they're Strong, defending and diverting your thrust.”. So the Opponent also is assumed to be potentially able to respond on the fly to change their blade pressure to respond to a threat.
It’s also my best guess that the Hard and Strong bind also uses this same retreating step, but with strong lateral pressure rather than a more forward and centred extension. We could also posit that the Hard and Strong bind occurs at a closer distance, perhaps when the Opponent was slower to retreat, and therefore they were required to parry more forcefully in order to avert the hit.
The decision making and use of tactile feedback implied in these passages from the Fencer requires some amount of space and therefore time in between the combatants, and the extension of the points also requires space. Since we know the Fencer is to attack where they can surely reach, and is stepping forward and a bit sideways (See Fol 19v), then in order to have the necessary space for all this to occur as described I think the Opponent must be stepping back in both cases.
Summing all this up: The Codex Opponent certainly uses blade defences and may combine these with retreating footwork. I theorize that the Hard and Strong bind from the Opponent is a strong lateral parry with the blade forward, possibly a beating parry, meant to open the Fencer up for a riposte. I also theorize that the Weak and Soft bind is an on line extension of the point to threaten a thrust.
Taking the Nachschlag
On Fol 21r, the Chidester translation gives this passage:
If you do the first strike or Leading Strike and they succeed in defending, then in their defense and covering, they could always deliver a Following Strike faster than you
Now there is a disagreement among translators and interpreters on this bit of text. Chidester has translated it that the Opponent could do Nachschlag faster than the Fencer. Trosclair and others have translated it that the Fencer could do a Nachschlag faster.
I do not have the expertise in the German language to debate the linguistic aspects of this disagreement. As I understand the matter, either read could be valid on a strictly linguistic basis.
I do think that the warning that the Opponent can take the Nachschlag is more consistent with the Codex’s overall tactical advice, and more realistic for practical fencing. So I prefer that read and will use it here.
We know that the Opponent may defend with the blade and with retreating footwork. This passage adds that the Opponent may, if successful in their defence, hit us with a riposte.
Helpfully, the Author also lists some options for what they may do:
They could immediately cut, or drive in with their pommel, or send crosswise cuts (which are always reliable), or they could just throw their sword forward crosswise (and with that, enter other plays), or begin something else before you get the chance to continue.
To “immediately cut” is most likely a conventional riposte cut with the long edge from their parry. There is no mention of specific targeting or any additional footwork with this cut.
“Driving in with the pommel” is more intriguing. For one, the distance for a pommel strike is very close. This requires a collapse of distance after the parry and therefore it gives us another clue for footwork: The Opponent can charge in after a defence. If I am correct that the Opponent’s blade defences are combined with a retreating step, this driving in would additionally imply that the defensive retreat cannot be a very large retreat as otherwise they would not be positioned for this kind of close range technique.
Twerhawe (Crosswise Cuts) are one of the more common ripostes in modern HEMA, which backs up the Codex’s statement that they are “always reliable”. The Twer is one of the Liechtenauer techniques, but here it appears that the Author expects the Opponent to make use of them as well.
Like the pommel strike, the Twer is a closer range technique. We could theorize that “immediately cut” may mean a longer reaching conventional extended cut, while the pommel or Twer are the expected responses if the distance collapses due to the Fencer or Opponent’s footwork after the bind.
“Throwing the sword forward crosswise” is a peculiar piece of text. The German here is “Ader mag sost das swert dy twer vor werfen”, but this Twer is apparently not a “haw”. Evidently this action is something different from striking the always reliable Twerhaw.
To hazard a guess, this actions sounds to me like the Opponent is taking up an upper hengen position to bar out the Fencer’s options while closing distance. Maybe they’re trying to set up a Zwer to the opposite side, or enter grappling, or drive in a slice to the wrists, or something else, as the text notes that with this “throwing the sword forward crosswise” they will enter other plays.
Nachschlage are a wide category of potential actions, and the Author acknowledges this by ending this passage with the mention that the Opponent may just do “something else” before the Fencer can act.
Withdrawing from the Bind
Once you're engaged with each other on the sword and have extended your points toward each other's exposures, if they pull themselves back, then before they can recover from your strike, immediately follow through with a good thrust toward their chest with your point (or otherwise forward toward the closest and surest place you can land)
In addition to the different kinds of binds and ripostes mentioned, there is another option given: The Opponent can withdraw from a bind.
This is countered by extending and finishing the thrust towards their chest, or simply striking whatever is closest.
This idea is reiterated on Fol 37r:
If they happen to pull back from your sword before you actually begin, then immediately follow through and send cuts or thrusts at them (whichever you can perform in the surest way, before they come to anything else); † {since you're closer to them as you remain on their sword, merely extend your point against them. Then when they pull back, immediately follow them in with your point before they can perform a strike.}
So what is the Opponent doing in this withdrawing or pulling back?
Whatever it is, it begins from a blade engagement when the Fencer has won the vorschlag.
It exposes the Opponent to attack.
The Fencer is not threatened for a moment permitting an attack to be carried out, but the 37r passage mentions that the Fencer must act before the Opponent can strike.
They could simply be trying to escape an unfavourable engagement, but I think that the mention of the Fencer needing to hit before the Opponent can strike means it’s not a simple retreat.
My guess based on these aspects is that the Opponent is leaving the bind to prepare a new strike, possibly also stepping away or to the side. I suspect that they are bringing their point back, high or low, in order to prepare a cut, and therefore they are exposed for a moment to the Fencer’s attack.
In my experience, an opponent who withdraws from the bind prematurely to prepare a wide cut around can often be intercepted mid-movement by a thrust or a cut at their closest target, most often the hand. The thrust at the hand, firmly executed, also sometimes pushes the opponent’s hand back and therefore interferes with their striking at you, limiting their ability to finish the strike for an afterblow.
The other thing many opponents do when they withdraw from a bind like this is lower their point to make a rising cut at my hands. When they do this, the most available target is the upper chest and neck, which is best reached by a thrust. That said, this situation poses some problems too: Often I will reach the opponent’s deep targets with the thrust, and their rising strike will clip my hand anyways for an afterblow on the next beat. More experimentation is necessary to find a better solution here.
In any case: The Opponent in the Codex is said to withdraw from the bind, and my best hypothesis for why is that they’re preparing a new attack, which offers an opportunity for the Fencer.
Attack and Recovery
3227a provides a gloss of the Czornhaw on Fol 23r:
By this, Liechtenauer means that when someone begins to cut over you, counter it by cutting wrathfully in and then firmly shoot your point against them. If they defend against your thrust, then swiftly pull back above and drive suddenly to the other side of their sword. But if they defend again, then be Hard and Strong against them on their sword, and swiftly and boldly wind and thrust. If they defend against this thrust, then quickly cut and throw below toward their legs (or wherever you can).
Although the Czornhaw is a technique for the Fencer in the Codex, it also gives us some further information on the Opponent.
Before this, the Codex has focused mainly on the Fencer taking the vorschlag. Here we see the Opponent taking the first attack and the Fencer forced to react against them, in this case retaking the initiative by shooting the point with Czornhaw.
The expectation that the Opponent can seize the opportunity to attack first, with cuts or thrusts, comes up again with the Vorsetczen (Fols 23v and 32v) and the Abe Wenden (36v). The Codex does not assume a passive opponent who will always wait for our attack.
The Opponent is also noted to have the possibility of recovery from their attack. Let’s pay careful attention to the Czornhaw sequence: The Opponent begins to attack with an oberhaw, and the Fencer counterattacks with Czorn-ort13. Then, after the counter has been thrown, the Opponent may defend against that thrust.
This sort of action, defending against a counterattack after having made the first attack, is often called a “countertime” in modern fencing and is quite a technically challenging action. I would see this as another piece of evidence that the Codex acknowledges that the student may run into skillful opponents.
Vorsetczen
Here remember that there are four Vorsetczen 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 Vorsetczen.
If you're the one Vorsatz, however that happens, swiftly pull back and cut again in a single advance.
In Chidester’s work, he has translated “Vorsetczen” as “parry”. “Parry” being a very common fencing term, I have here restored the German “Vorsetczen” to this passage to be more specific about what we’re discussing.
The four Vorsetczen are four particular actions within the Codex’s repertoire, apparently derived from the four Hauen and which set up the four Hengen. They have three potential uses: Defending against an opponent’s actions, attacking an opponent’s guard, and preparation by “coming onto the sword” of the opponent.14
We won’t reiterate today our arguments about Vorsetczen and Hengen, those can be better found in other pieces on this blog.
What is relevant here is that the text mentions the Opponent performing the Vorsetzcen against the Fencer.
The Vorsetczen set up the Hengen, “from which you can perform the art well” (Fol 23v), so I would conjecture that the Opponent can also do this. The Opponent also implicitly could use the Vorsetczen for its other ascribed qualities: They can defend our attacks with Vorsetczen, can disrupt our own guard or position with it, or can bind onto our sword as a preparatory action with it.
The counter here is to “pull back” and attack again, which I interpret to mean withdrawing with both blade and footwork and threatening on a new line.
In my fencing, I find there are two ways which opponents can attack my blade:
Some opponents, nervous or less experienced, will swing hard at your blade with entirely too much force directed much too laterally. These opponents become quite exposed and it’s easy to use the force of their strike to feed momentum into your own moulinette or whatever else you use to strike them.
More seasoned and competent opponents do sometimes attack the blade also, but they do so in a more controlled and measured way. They aim for the short, sharp beat which leaves them positioned to strike on a follow up. I believe Vorsetczen worked like this as well. Against these opponents, if I let them touch the sword with their beat most often I am hit on the follow up. Evading the contact by withdrawing the blade and stepping back while threatening a new line, as the Codex suggests, is often a good response to avoid their desired set up and provide a threat to stop pursuit.
What is curious to me is that when the Opponent withdraws from a bind, the Fencer is told to pursue and immediately strike them. But here, the Fencer withdraws from the bind when Vorsetczen is used and is not expected to be immediately struck. Why is this?
One possibility is that the cut the Author suggests pairing with the withdrawal sweeps the potential lines of threat and prevents a strike. This issue is another that needs further exploration in my training.
Binding on the Sword
Fol 34v:
Also, when someone binds with you, charge forward on their sword with your point toward their exposure. If they defend, change through as before, or wind and feel whether their intention is Hard or Soft. Thereafter, seek their exposures with cutting, thrusting, or slicing.
The binding here, “anbindet” in the German, does not seem to be the percussive action implied in Vorsetczen. The Codex tells the Fencer here to charge forward rather than withdraw, so the situation must be different. The opportunity to launch a direct attack would line up more with the Weak and Soft bind of the General Lesson, not the Hard and Strong bind. This suggests “anbindet” means a soft engagement at the blade.
Necessarily, the Fencer must have their point forward for the Opponent to be able to reach it.
Why would the Opponent be doing this?
First of all, they could simply be closing distance to make a direct thrust, and engaging against the blade to get contact and offset the Fencer’s point.
We have also previously discussed how the Opponent is expected to use disengages in fencing if the Fencer attacks their blade. I think that this “anbindet” is connected to that idea of disengaging.
Here I will draw on my practical experience again: Fencers who extend and engage softly and lightly against the sword are often opponents looking for a “conversation of blades”. They are often trying to use the threat of the point to deceive. If they can induce their opponent to chase the bind with hard pressure, this opens them up for a disengage. Or, if the opponent does not do this, the disengaging fencer can steal distance and thrust directly with surprise.
A suggestion of this may be seen in the “Other Masters” section.
Fol 28r:
The Asp's Tongue or "From the Point"
One technique is called the Natterzunge (asp´s tongue) and comes from the changing-through (or from the point). It done so that one stands in the point (Langort) and works like just as if he intends to change through by threatening to thrust with the point to both sides above the hilt so that he always and constantly aims and threats with the point. And thus you confuse him so that he does not know where you want to hit. And as soon he sees where he can hit his adversary best there he moves in with the point with a perfect thrust; and this has to be done fast so one does not defend against it.
Source15.
I think the “Anbinden” mentioned here is the Opponent trying to do something like the Natterzunge. I believe this is why the Codex tells us to pre-empt this whole thing by immediately thrusting ourselves. If we put the Opponent on the defensive, we avoid letting them play these deceptive kinds of games.
The Opponent’s General Behaviour
There are a few other things we can see in how the text talks about the Opponent. These aren’t necessarily specific actions or techniques, but are behavioural assumptions the text makes about the Opponent.
The Opponent is assumed to prioritize defending themselves.
”if you strike at someone, you're more secure and better protected from cuts than they are (since they must watch out for and receive your strike).” (Fol 64r).
Throughout 3227a, there is a consistent assumption that if the Fencer correctly executes a threatening attack, the Opponent will naturally be forced to defend it. It is assumed that the Fencer can steal the initiative with a clearly presented threat, as the Opponent will naturally prioritize defence. “This is why Liechtenauer says, "I say to you honestly, no one covers themselves without danger. If you have understood this, they cannot come to blows".The Opponent is concerned with the threat of the point.
”However you fence, your point should ever and always be turned against your opponent's face or chest, so that they're constantly frustrated and concerned that you'll arrive faster than them because your path to them is shorter.” (Fol 23v)
It is specifically noted that moving the point into threatening positions frustrates and concerns the Opponent. The text seems to assume that having the point “half an ell” from the Opponent’s face or chest will forestall them and prevent them from carrying out attacks on the Fencer.
Although, this is also the passage that reminds us not to defend too lazily16, so clearly this forestalling effect is also not expected to be 100% effective.If the Opponent counterattacks, it is on a direct line and from above.
There are perhaps two techniques in 3227a which could indicate an Opponent using counterattacks. They are the Twer and possibly the Schil.
Twer: “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).”
Schil: “This same cut counters everything that a buffalo (that is, a peasant) will cut down from above, as they often do, and also counters the same as the crosswise cut (as was described earlier).”
The Twer specifically is recommended as an option for vorschlag. Meaning that the Fencer can launch a vorschlag which also defends against an attack, in this case an overhead cut. Presuming that the Codex also expects the Schilhaw to be used offensively as other Liechtenauer sources do, that provides two options to the Fencer for attacking with opposition to an anticipated counterattack.
We can make two conjectures from this: If an Opponent is going to counterattack at the time of the Fencer’s vorschlag, it is expected to be a direct counterattack straight from their position. It also seems to be expected that overhead cuts are the usual way this is done.
What is also noteworthy is what the Codex does not mention.
There aren’t mentions of anything I can see which suggests an opponent will double-hit or afterblow the Fencer.
Rising false edge cuts at the hands do not appear, at least not explicitly anyways17. Rising false edge cuts are a popular counterattack option in modern HEMA, so the lack of them in 3227a is noteworthy.
While a retreating step is implied (in my opinion) in the Opponent’s blade defences and in withdrawing from the bind, the Opponent does not seem to retreat a great deal or to use “backpedal and counterattack” tactics, another popular modern HEMA tactic.
The text does not mention specific guards or positions from the Opponent. The Opponent is either attacking or defending, but their starting position doesn’t seem to matter to the Author18.
Feints are also not given as a tactic for the Opponent. The Fencer has the option of using the “failer” technique, most often interpreted as a feint. Feints are also provided in the Other Masters chapter, which may imply that the expected opponents knew and used them. Still, the main body of the Codex does not specifically talk about the Opponent using feints and does not give tactics for the Fencer against feints19.
Summary
We shall conclude by summing up all we have covered so far.
The Codex identifies “bad fencing”, which most especially seems to be fencing in excessive ways: Excessive aggression and reliance on strength, or excessive showiness.
The Opponent discussed in the rest of the Codex does not seem to fall entirely within either of these archetypes. The mention of peasants defeating masters with the vorschlag implies that the Codex’s tactics can be applied successfully even against skilled opposition.
The main body of the Codex provides us with textual evidence for a wide variety of actions and tactics from the Opponent:
The Opponent uses disengages.
The Opponent will defend with the blade, either Hard and Strong or Weak and Soft. In their defences, they bring the point forward. I suspect that bringing the point forward means a threat of a stop thrust or riposte thrust as well.
The Opponent can take the Nachschlag after a successful defence, with the following possible options directly identified:
A cut
A pommel strike
A Twerhaw
Or pushing forward in an upper hengen.
Point forward blade defences implies a retreating step in my opinion. The Nachschlag options given are mostly close range, implying a direction change to collapse the distance.
The Opponent can withdraw from the bind, possibly to prepare a new attack or simply to try to escape the engagement.
The Opponent can attack first and take the vorschlag from the Fencer. If the Fencer defends and ripostes or counterattacks, the Opponent can also recover into a parry and defend the riposte or counter.
The Opponent can perform the Vorsetczen technique, implying also that they can use the Vorsetzcen for all applications given:
Disrupting guards
Deflecting attacks
Coming onto the Fencer’s sword.
The Opponent can bind onto the sword in a softer way, presumably as preparation for other techniques (Disengages, Natterzunge, direct thrusts)
We also have evidence within the text for general behavioural assumptions from the Author about potential opponents.
The Opponent is expected to prioritize defence if under threat and does not seem to be expected to use doubles or afterblows.
The Opponent is particularly concerned about the threat of the point, and the Author expects this can forestall an Opponent’s offensive actions.
The only evidence for counterattacking from the Opponent seems to be the mention of direct overhead cuts in the Twer and Schil techniques. Indirect counterattacks or rising cuts at the hands do not seem to be acknowledged as counterattacking options.
There is little indication that the Opponent is expected to use feinting techniques.
So what is our overall takeaway?
Ms3227a expected its student to face opponents who were competent fencers, who prioritized their defence, and whose actions were generally “direct”. Direct attacks, simple parry-ripostes, and direct counterattacks are the general ‘flavour’ of the tactical landscape portrayed. That does not mean a brutish style: These opponents are also expected to be competent at techniques which rely more on finesse, like the disengage. The point is, as the text says, very central: The Opponent defends and binds with the point forward and the Fencer uses the point heavily to threaten, forestall, or to hit.
So, in my modern practice, my ideal opponent for using textual tactics and techniques would be someone who prefers to defend point forward, and who prefers these kinds of direct fencing actions.
What strikes me about all this is that the Codex Opponent is a very generic character. A wide variety of fencing approaches from an opponent could fit within the parameters of the text.
I think this shows some of the brilliance of Ms3227a: The text is not strictly limited about what kind of opposition you will face. It provides technical building blocks and tactical principles which can be used on a wide variety of opposition, and to create novel solutions to novel problems.
At the same time, analyzing the kind of opponent expected by the Codex also helps me better understand the Codex’s limitations. I admire and appreciate Ms3227a greatly, but it’s an early 15th century fencing text that represents one specific point of view at one specific time in the history of fencing. It’s not possible for this text to capture all of the diversity and possibilities of fencing, and it would be unrealistic for students to expect this.
My plan from here in my own training is to take this understanding of the Codex Opponent and see how I can set up my opponents to act in similar ways. I hope that if I can fence to force my training partners into these behaviours or actions, I can make better and more consistent use of the Codex’s own teachings.
Do you agree with my analysis? Do you disagree? Drop me a line and let’s discuss, and I hope you have happy fencing!
Consider the virtue of courage. A deficiency of courage is cowardice, an excess of courage is foolhardiness. The right kind of courage is neither deficient nor excessive, but balanced between caution and boldness.
An overly aggressive opponent often runs into the extended point. Someone behaving with a lot of show-offy moves can be interrupted by a rapid direct attack.
See the Codex’s gloss on Changing Through, Fol 34v.
I have practical experience behind this as well. Opponents who are particularly good at deceptive bindwork with disengages are often beatable with a well executed and committed direct attack.
Consider the “Krump to the Flat” play from the Lew and Danzig glosses for a potential example from a KdF source of a technique like this.
Which I think means having bodily structure behind your blade action.
Which I think means using the Strong of the blade.
Or parry-riposte, depending on how you interpret Czornhaw-ort.
Fol 24r: “Don't allow yourself to become relaxed or hesitant, nor defend too lazily, nor be willing to go too widely or too far around.”
They can be reconstructed with the building blocks present in the text (i.e: An unterhaw at the closest available target which you can most surely reach). We may also suspect that the Krauthacke given in the other masters chapter could target the arms.
Intriguingly, the Krauthacke also resembles tactics for lower guards given in the contemporary works of Fiore dei Liberi. A hint at common tactical patterns perhaps?
Fol 32r: “Also understand that you counter all the lairs and guards with cutting, so that as you cut boldly toward someone, they must flinch and cover themselves. This is why Liechtenauer doesn't say much about the lairs or guards, but rather maintains that you should be concerned with winning the Leading Strike before your opponent can”
The idea of using Schiessen if the opponent attacks wide or long could be read to include using Schiessen against an opponent’s feints. This has worked for me in sparring recently. Still, it is a bit of a stretch of the text.