Fencing is a continuous art form that may have changed and evolved over the centuries as weapons and language changed, but it was never 'reinvented' (until the late 20th and early 21st century with the rise of HEMA and WMA). Fundamentally, fencing is fencing and, while different systems emphasise different aspects (the cut vs. the thrust, point online vs. open guards etc.), understanding one system (e.g. 19th century sabre) can help us understand earlier systems. I believe this is true for i.33, and therefore attempts to reconstruct i.33 that seem strange and overly different to other fencing systems are unlikely to be 'correct'.
I.33 describes a system of fighting with sword and buckler that, at first may seem unintuitive, but in my (albeit limited) experience makes perfect sense when you think about it in the context of later fencing systems, and for me it solves some problems with other systems. For example, studying i.33 has given me a better understanding of longsword fighting, particularly around the question of how to safely attack an opponent. This gives me some assurance that the interpretation is 'correct' (or it at least works).
I.33 can be divided into 'wards', 'counter-wards' and then various specific attacking or defending techniques. Much confusion arises because the illustrations in i.33 often seem odd when taken at face value or out of context. But the fighting system it describes is quite intuitive and elegant.
I will describe the i.33 approach to the fight using 5 principles and 6 stages.
5 Principles
Principle 1: All people fighting with a sword and buckler will naturally use 7 wards.
With the exception of ward 7, these wards are all 'open' fighting positions. We will explore them in another post. Suffice to say, if your opponent is in one of these wards, they can launch a strike or thrust at you.
Principle 2: As with Lichtenauer's longsword, attack is the best defence (however, see principle 3)
Later German sources speak about vor (before or initiative) and nach (after). The person who 'seizes the vor' (often interpreted as attacking first) has the advantage and forces the opponent to 'act in the nach' (i.e. to react and defend themselves). If you are in the nach then you are not attacking me and so are no threat - eventually one of my strikes will hit you, unless you try to seize the vor (e.g. with a parry [block] and riposte [a counter attack]). However, seizing the vor is dangerous, and much text (e.g. in Joachim Meyer) is dedicated to defence rather than attack.
Principle 3: Defence is the best attack!
No, this is not a contradiction of principle 2; rather it is an expansion upon it.
The problem with an 'attack, attack, attack' mentality is, particularly among new fencers, they will attack while being attacked, leading to double kills (or doubles). This is because they have not yet learned 'indes' ('meanwhile'). Most HEMA practitioners believe that indes means 'to simultaneously defend and attack' - for example, if I am in the nach and my opponent is making a strike, I could act in 'indes' by making a defence and a strike at the same time (easier to imagine with a sword and buckler, but achieved in longsword using the 'master strikes'). Unfortunately, I think this is an incorrect interpretation as Joachim Meyer is quite explicit on what indes means. To paraphrase, indes is the ability (borne from experience) to 'see' or 'feel', in the moment when you have parried your opponent's sword (or they have parried yours), what your opponent is going to do next. Are they going to make a second attack, or are they going to stop attacking and start parrying? Without indes, both opponents are just 'guessing' and playing a deadly game of rock paper scissors. (Out of interest, in every fencing exchange, two 'blind' opponents would double 1/3 of the time assuming each opponent was equally likely to attack or defend).
Unfortunately, indes does not work so well at the start of an engagement with an opponent. I may have never fenced him/her before. I have a long way to travel (usually 2 steps or more) before I can actually hit my opponent, which gives him/her a long time to react. Lastly, I have no idea how they will react - will they defend against my attack, will they do nothing, will they flee, or will they flinch and launch a simultaneous attack that kills us both?
Principle 2 says that I should be the first one to attack, to seize the initiative. I.33 teaches us that the way to do that is to enter with a counter-ward, which is itself a 'defensive' posture. Without exception, these counter-wards 'block' or obstruct the opponent's primary strike, and defend the attacker against a flinch-reaction. They allow the attacker to close distance relatively safely, and position the attacker ready to defend if needed. Lastly, they allow for a quick strike or thrust from close distance if the defender fails to react to this 'coming in'. (As a bonus, they also add a moment where I can stop my attack and change the course of action depending on how my opponent reacts - by 'striking' into a counter-ward, I haven't yet committed to an attack).
HEMA practitioners who have perhaps dabbled in I.33 (including myself in the past!) get this wrong (and I'd say the same about many longsword practitioners). It is tempting for a sword and buckler practitioner, during sparring, to stand around in 'half-shield' (one of the i.33 counter-wards) out of distance and allow the opponent to attack them. I.33 says this is wrong. Similarly, in longsword, we see people stand out of distance in ochs - which itself can be considered a counter-ward against vom tag - but it only works if the person in ochs has entered distance into ochs, and is close enough to their opponent to block/obstruct the primary attack from vom tag (and close enough to make an attack on their opponent from ochs if their opponent fails to react).
In i.33, the act of closing distance to your opponent with a counter-ward is called an obsesseo ('siege'). Each ward has several possible siege's.
Principle 4 - Control your opponent's sword before you attempt to hit them.
Throughout i.33, we see that the goal is to maintain control over the opponent's weapons, first by obstructing their primary attack with a counter-ward, then by attacking in a way that obstructs their weapons, or by binding over the opponent's weapons using either or both the sword and buckler.
Principle 5 - It works both ways.
Let's say I'm the attacker. I see my opponent is in ward A, therefore I approach them in counter-ward B. I have the advantage because I've acted first, therefore I am guaranteed to defeat my opponent, right? Wrong! Counter-wards can defeat wards, and wards can defeat counter-wards. I.33 shows us the fight from both people's perspectives and how to win. This means the techniques in i.33 can be used by both 'attackers' and 'defenders'.
However, the first person to enter usually has the advantage, so long as they pre-empt their opponent's reactions.
Bonus principle - if there was going to be a 6th principle to add to this list, it would be 'get in close'. I.33 deals with close-up fighting, getting past the opponent's buckler. It does not deal with standing at long range making strikes at your opponent's buckler hoping they will magically get through.
The 6 stages of a fight in i.33
If I was to summarise the i.33 approach to the fight, it would look something like this:
Stage 1, Before the fight: Opponent and I are out of distance (2 steps or more away from each other). We are jostling for position, circling, calling out insults, moving from ward to ward - the usual stuff you do at the start of a fight.
Stage 2, The coming in: I see my opponent has settled into (or is moving into) ward X (let's say a position with their sword over one of their shoulders). Seeing my opportunity, I step forward and 'strike' into an appropriate counter-ward that defends me against the most likely strike my opponent can make (I have no intention to hit him with this strike). I wait for a moment (a heartbeat, really) to see what my opponent will do.
Stage 3a, I attack: My opponent fails to react, or perhaps they look like they are about to retreat or change ward. I therefore step forward again, this time attacking my opponent over/under/around their buckler. Ideally my attack has seized up their sword and/or buckler so that I'm protected from any flinch response they may make. They are dead, and I've won. Here endeth the lesson : )
Stage 3b, They attack: Alternatively, my opponent launches their own counter-attack. This might simply 'bind' my sword and prevent my intended strike/thrust - go to part 4. However, if I'm slow to react they may even be able to strike or thrust around/over/under my buckler and reach me - I'm dead and they have won : (
Stage 4, I defend: I see their strike coming in and I react by parrying and binding their sword down to the ground or by making another appropriate defensive action.
Stage 5a, I control and win: I've bound my opponent to the ground (or displaced their weapon in some other way). Depending on what side of me their sword is, I now use my buckler (using a technique called a 'shield knock') to continue the bind or bind both their buckler and sword, and I use my sword to simultaneously strike. Alternatively, I 'step through', meaning I step past their sword and buckler, and strike. They are dead, and I've won. Yay me!
Stage 5b, They control and win: However, if they anticipate my defensive action in part 4, they can carry out a disengage, allowing them to get on top of my sword, carry out a bind, a shield-knock, or to 'step through' and strike - basically all of the things that I wanted to do in part 5a. Boo!! Hiss!!!
Stage 6, We grapple: There is one last recourse I can make if my opponent manages to get control of my sword or buckler, and that is , before they strike me in the latter half of part 5b, to separate my weapons (in i.33, sword and buckler are often held together) and try to grapple my opponent. Of course, if given the opportunity, the opponent can also grapple.
These 6 stages to a sword and buckler fight appear again and again in i.33. Together with the 5 principles, this is the foundation to understanding i.33.
In the next post, we will look at how i.33 as a book is structured.
Comments