It has been a year since I wrote my in depth interpretation of i33. It wasn't really my interpretation, it was an exploration of the interpretations of others. While I think some of it is correct in practice, I'm not happy with it and plan to take down most of my posts so as not to clog up the search engines - it is not my intention to put out false or misleading information with this blog - but I will keep the interpretation as a PDF download for posterity.
The following is all my opinion.
I33 is a tough nut to crack. It seems like there are as many different interpretations of its plays as there are i33 practitioners, and it is clear to me that i33 is not thought of very highly by the competitive fencing community.
The problem with i33 is that we are only given a bare-bones explanation of what the fundamentals of the system are.
We are told that there are seven wards that anyone using a sword and buckler will use, whether trained or not. With the exception of Longpoint, these wards are open positions (with only the buckler to defend), and they seem optimised for making strikes in 7 directions (down, down and right, right, down and left, left, up and left, up and right). There is some verse that suggests that maybe only 3 of the wards are worth using, but this is cryptic and just a guess. Each ward is given several plays where we see the ward against mostly sword forward positions (some of which are named, some not) or against 'special wards', and only very occasionally against a ward itself. This gives us a building block of wards, counter wards and special wards.
The sword forward positions look like attacks, but they are not named as attacks. It is uncertain whether they are meant to represent counter wards, attacks, or sometimes both. However, the counter wards seem to be in opposition to the strikes that are likely to be made from the ward, depending on your interpretation. We never explicitly see a strike being made from a ward, but the counter wards suggest to me that strikes from wards are to be expected, even if we don't use them ourselves. We do, however, see some attacks that could be thrusts or could be cuts being made from the counter ward positions. These happen when we are told the defender has neglected their defences. It is unclear whether this means the defender has failed to form a counter ward position themselves, whether they fail to defend at all, or whether they defend with buckler only. If you assume the counter ward positions are themselves attacks, it could be argued that these secondary attacks are 'remises' around the opponent's buckler. This suggests that i33 contains cuts (or expects them), as well as thrusts to the left of our buckler (a stichslach), over our buckler (suggested in at least one image), to the right of our buckler (suggests by the Loingpoint ward), and under our buckler (suggested in the plays of Krucke). However, it tells us little of how and when we use them.
There is a lot of binding taking place in i33. An overbind is always represented as having the fencer's sword over the other's, and an underbind by being under. Binds therefore usually happen towards the 'camera', and this necessitates the fencer's positions swapping a lot, with one fencer on the left now on the right, etc. It is not obvious why some of the binds happen in some of the plays - it is a defence against an attack, is to prevent an attack, it a preparation for our own attack? - and this is mostly compounded by the fact that the images themselves contain no information about what the swords are doing in 3D space. When someone is in the counter ward of Krucke, this looks like the sword is hanging straight down, but this doesn't seem to be anatomically sound, and the position could equally be interpreted as having the sword held completely horizontally to the left or somewhere in between. When a bind happens, it looks like the fencers are pointing their swords to the floor, but it is unclear whether this simply represents their swords are pointing towards the 'camera'.
There is also the question of Vor (before) and Nach (after). Any action that your opponent takes will be a reaction to your own action. If you want your opponent to perform a particular action in a play - let's say they are to bind your sword - this has to be because their options have been narrowed. This must be due some sort of threat (Vor) that you have presented or communicated to them that has compelled them to defend (Nach). Or, you could make an invitation (Nach) that they have decided to act on by attacking you (Vor). In i33 we are told which fencer is 'besieging' the other, but it is not clear who really has the Vor and from whose perspective we should be viewing the plays. It is not always clear why the fencers are taking the actions they are taking - is this just a convention of the plays, or are their actions logical and necessary to defend themselves or to attack safely?
Lastly, the images are untrustworthy. They tell us information, but not enough. They are completely 2D drawings. Any Z information, such as whether the sword is pointing towards or away from the 'camera' is either not present or is depicted by X and Y placement. For example, is that unnamed 'hanging ward' in the play of third ward (12r) really hanging down, or is the sword horizontal and facing towards the 'camera'? This is anyone's guess. The only way to tell is to try out the plays in different variations to see what works. There may be multiple options that work equally well.
Oddly enough, once the initial bind happens, the follow-up actions seem mostly straightforward, with minor differences in how low the bind has been made, etc.. For me, the biggest question is therefore what action is being taken to start each play? It is a direct attack? Is it an approach under cover of a counter ward? Is it a feint? Is it an invitation?
I think we can interpret i33 in several ways that make sense. I have called these the Obsesseo first interpretation, the Direct attack interpretation, and the Demonstration pruposes only interpretation:
Obsesseo first: I33 espouses a system where we may only attack our opponent (who is in a ward) with a special Obsesseo ('siege'), which involves entering distance with a counter ward that covers against the opponent's direct line of attack. If the opponent hesitates, we attack with a thrust or cut from our counter ward position. However, if we are in a ward, we can try to counter the counter ward position in the ways described. The positions that look like they could be attacks in i33 are therefore counter ward positions. There are no direct attacks.
Direct attacks: I33 shows a fencer in a wards, and a fencer attacking (besieging) that ward with a direct attack. The attack is made in direct opposition to the most likely attack that the opponent can make from that ward. The direct attack forces the opponent to defend, and it is this defence that leads to the bind and the follow-up actions. If direct attacks are made as feints, the direct attack ends in a counter ward position. In this sense, direct attacks and counter wards are the same. A parry made against a direct attack is little different to a preparatory bind made against a counter ward. Each play therefore shows us the wards being attacks with different types of attacks - from above, from below, from the side, and a thrust - depending on which attacks are viable against that ward.
Demonstration purposes only: I33 is a teaching book. It doesn't show any real attacks being made because this would be unsafe. The manuscript shows the priest teaching the student to form certain positions with the sword that could represent attacks, counter wards or parries. The priest then places his sword in such a way to represent a bind and then the student reacts to that bind. It is a way of training that is more about positions and geometry, and the lessons are broadly applicable - it doesn't matter how you get into the bind in a certain play; all that matters is how you react to that bind. The key lessons are which positions you can form from which wards, what binds are then made (e.g. as a result of a parry) and what you can do from there. It tells us little about how we could get into those binds, e.g. do we attack first, do we defend and parry, etc.
I've taken 4 examples of the initial action in a play and the bind that follows, and I've interpreted it according to the 3 interpretations:
Table 1: 4 plays, 3 interpretations
Image | Obsesseo first | Direct attack | Demonstration purposes only |
  | I have approached you with my Schutzen (parry or counter ward, like halpschilt but covering the right side). You voluntarily bind at the mid-point on my blade to prevent my attack. We are now in an inside bind and can do similar things to each other. | I am cutting at you from my right side at the left side of your face, with a horizontal (or diagonal) cut above my own buckler. This forces you to parry with a bind that looks similar. We are now in an inside bind and can do similar things to each other. | Priest asks student to hold out his sword in the shown position. Priest binds the sword in the same way. This is just to demonstrate that if you are in an inside bind you will be in similar positions and can do the same things as each other. You can get into this bind in multiple ways. |
  | Priest forms the position of Krucke and closes distance. This closes off his low right line. Student voluntarily binds this to try to force a thrust underneath. Priest thrusts first. | Priest, or student, has attacked low. This has been parried with the Krucke, and the parry can then be turned into a low thrust underneath depending on who is stronger in the bind. | Priest demonstrates the Krucke. He asks student to bind the Krucke with his own Krucke. Priest demonstrates that a thrust can be made underneath. You can get into the bind in many ways. |
 | Student forms halpschilt, covering his right side, and enters distance. If the priest does nothing the student attacks. The priest opts to 'fall under' by forming his own halpschilt like position and gaining an inferior bind. The student knows this will lead to a stichslach and so binds. | The student is making a direct attack to the head of the Priest. The priest defends against this with 'falling under' (which in this interpretation is a defense using both sword and buckler to form an outside bind) and tries to make a Stichslach thrust to the inside. This is parried by the student with a bind over to the right side. | Student places his sword in the halpschilt position, which could represent a parry, an attack or a counter ward. The priest places himself in a similar position. They are in an outside bind. The priest can perform a stichslach from an inferior bind (for example if his attack had just been parried). |
 | The student forms an unnamed hanging cover and closes distance. He will thrust if the priest does nothing. The priest volunteers to bind over the student's sword (unclear if this is before or after thrust is attempted), and student grapples. | Student is making a mittelhau attack from his left side towards the right side of the priest's face. The priest is forced to parry this with an overbind. The student closes to grapple. | The priest asks the student to form a hanging ward. The priest overbinds the sword. You will often find yourself in this position. From here you can grapple or do other things. |
What do you think?
I've been scratching my head over this for a while. I think there are merits to all three interpretations, but also problems.
The Obsesseo first interpretation makes several assumptions that are not really supported in the text of i33, but perhaps not refuted either. The first is that there is something called an 'Obsesseo' as a class of action. However, my reading of the text suggests that 'besieger' is really just referring to the Agent, and besieged as the Patient, and 'siege' is used more liberally throughout than this interpretation would have us believe. The idea that I33 espouses a particular 'recipe' for attacking by first forming a counter ward position seems to have been formed through the reading of a few select passages of text. For example, in 2r we are told it would be dangerous to attack low, and in another passage we are warned of the dangers of attacking the head without a 'shield knock'. These are both given in the context of this particular play and can't be taken as warnings to never directly attack. On the other hand, the plays themselves do support the forming of 'counter ward' positions rather than direct attacks, however as I've shown above, this isn't the only interpretation. From my personal experience, the Obsesseo first method isn't intuitive. You are vulnerable to direct attacks when you are in a ward, and people learning the system will make direct attacks and catch you 'off guard'. I33 must be able to deal with, and give, direct attacks otherwise it isn't a system of fencing. However, the main thing going for this interpretation is that it is more closely supported by the text than others. We are never told that the positions in i33 are attacks, and they are either referred to by name (e.g. halpschilt) or as 'this position'. It is unclear to me whether the text is therefore referring to the static position the figure in the drawing is standing in, or the position (or action) that the drawing is representing. For example, if I cut an Oberhau and someone takes a photo mid-cut, is the photo showing me standing in halpschilt, or is it showing me mid-cut? Both are true. As you can tell, I am less than convinced by the Obsesseo first interpretation, however it was the interpretation I believed until now. I think this simply represents one tactical option.
The direct attack interpretation has a lot of merits. It is aggressive, in that it both expects and gives attacks. It is also flexible: it allows for direct attacks and the forming of counter wards, which are simply direct attacks that are half-completed. These can be used as covers or as feints. The plays seem to work well as direct attacks, however there are some problems. The first is that i33 doesn't explicitly say that attacks are being made. The second is that several of the positions that look like attacks need to be interpreted as horizontal strikes, which the images do support but equally can be interpreted in other ways. In particular, the 'falling under' action needs to be interpreted as a defence, and the image only loosely supports this; we would need to assume the image in this case is very stylised and not wholly accurate. Lastly, one of the positions called 'Schutzen' would need to be interpreted as an attack, unless this play is different to the others, whereas a Schutzen in other places seems to be a parry. I'd say that the direct attack interpretation may be the most practical, as well as being flexible, but its main problem is that it is less well supported by the text. We'd have to assume that parts of the text are unclear or misleading. For example, we'd have to assume that halpschilt is representing a cut from above, rather than (or as well as) a position. I do not think this is much of a stretch, but it can be a little problematic. I personally like this interpretation because it can help us to better understand the positions, including the counter ward positions. If we assume that the plays need to work as both direct attacks or as indirect (i.e. Obsesseo first) attacks, then the geometry needs to work for both. This also opens up i33 to a larger number of tactics than in the Obsesseo first interpretation - i.e. direct attacks, feints, parry and riposte, counter attacks, feints in time, etc.
The demonstration purposes only interpretation is very interesting. It matches the concept of the book, which is a priest teaching a student. It matches the text, in that the priest is often asking the student to form certain positions, and then the priest forms a position, and then shows what the student can do from there to attack or defend. It assumes that what we are really being shown are positions and binds that we might find ourselves in: neutral inside or outside binds, underbinds, overbinds, etc. We can conceivably find ourselves in these binds in multiple ways: you attack, I defend; I attack, you defend, etc. What then follows are the actions we can do from these binds, and we can use these actions regardless of how we get into these binds, with the key consideration being who has the initiative to act first. This elevates the lessons in i33 to be broadly applicable, and also means that plays do not strictly need to make martial sense. Of course, it is up to us to find real-world applications for the techniques, but we won't necessarily find these by following the plays to the letter (or to the image). I'm not sure how well this interpretation is supported or refuted by the text in i33, but this interpretation certainly would allow us to distil the plays down into broad lessons that we could then apply, in a way that is not too dissimilar from the plays of Lignitzer:
Lignitzer play 1: From the Oberhaw (downward cut) when you drive the Oberhaw to the man, set your sword with the pommel inside your buckler and at your thumb, and thrust in from below up to his face, and turn against his sword and let it snap-over. This goes to both sides.
I33 equivalent (first play, my text): When you are in an outside bind, such as if you have parried your opponent's blow with halpschilt, if your opponent is weak in the bind he will try to Stichslach you if you attack his head. Bind his sword to your right, shield knock and then attack his head. If you are weak in the bind, you can do the same.
I must admit, however, that the 'demonstration purposes only' interpretation is a bit of a 'cop out'. It allows us to take these broad lessons and apply them however we want. Want to make direct attack? Sure! Want to approach under cover of a ward? Sure! However, until a time machine is invented, I cannot see us gaining a definitive understand of how the priest wants us to fight in 'the i33 style', so perhaps distilling i33 down into its general lessons would be the most sensible thing to do.
What do you think? Are you following any of these interpretations, and how well do they work for you in sparring?
Comments