Martin Siber’s Fight-Lore of 1491 AD A sword and buckler thesis on the Fechtlehre from Handschrift M I 29 (Codex Speyer) at the University of Salzburg, Austria by Jeffrey Hull Foreword The Fechtlehre (fight-lore) of Martin Siber is part of the Handschrift M I 29 now residing at Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg. This Fechtbuch (fight-book) was originally put to paper by Hans von Speyer, its compiler and editor, in the southwestern area of Germany in 1491 AD, and hence we may call this Codex Speyer.

A fine transcript of the whole Codex Speyer by Beatrix Koll of Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg is posted at: http://www.ubs.sbg.ac.at/sosa/webseite/fechtbuch.htm. I thank her for her inspiring work and gracious help, and encourage others to view it. At one time Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg had posted its own high-quality colour facsimile of Codex Speyer on the Web. Uni-Salz no longer does but hopefully someday they may post it again. Also, I thank Monika Maziarz for sharing her personal transcript of Siber for helpful comparison.

Ultimately, I chose to do my own original transcript of Siber’s fight-lore based upon the manuscript- facsimile of Codex Speyer, so that I could trust the unity and validity of my own work. Thus I made transcription of the Middle High-German manuscript and translations into New High-German and into New English. Also, I interpreted Siber’s fight-lore, by trying to let it lead me where it would. I have striven to render the text with regard for the literary, the historic and the martial. Although its wording is lively, this fight-lore unfortunately has no original pictures to go along with it – and thus I provide interpretive photographs as well. I also made a prose rendering as training-regimen. I have done my best to understand the fight-lore and to present such to the reader by this thesis.

Siber’s fight-lore consists of his teachings on the martial art of sword and shield (Schwert und Schild), which in his time was part of the greater German Kunst des Fechtens (art of fighting). I hope to show Siber’s fight-lore in context of the greater KdF by my multi-disciplinary interpretation. Any mistakes are mine.

Siber’s fight-lore has wry poetry, ironic verse and prose – the wording starkly free-flowing, earnest yet playful. It stands astride the blurred border betwixt the Medieval and the Renaissance, as a cryptic yet distilled nexus of the variety of European fencing technique, bidding one to make further study of the larger fight-books, even as it stands on its own as esoteric regimen. I hope that my translation is faithful to the original meaning of Siber, and shall prove worthy to the scholar, the fighter, and the poet.

Jeffrey Hull

Oregon

August 2004 Martin Siber: Fechtlehre

(1r-3r of Codex Speyer from 1491 AD)

(1r) Item dÿ hernach geschriebenn nüwe zettell Thusly Master Martin Siber has made and set the hat gemacht und gesetz meinster Mertin new summary written hereafter. It is a teaming of Siber und ist ein zuck auß mangerley meinster ge.. manifold masterly skirmishes. It is dealt and set fechtenn und ist geteiltt und gesetz In sechs geng into six goings. And in the summary are the ox, the und in der zittell ist der ochß und der pflug und plough, and the skull-hew – not thus as in the first scheyttell hauw nicht also als in der ersten zettell summary of the book, rather together in des puchs Sunder eyn ander uß legüng Nu hebt explanation. Now heave yourself at the foreword sich an dy vor rede und lere der zettell dar noch and the lore of the summary, and thereafter, the six die sechß genng goings.

Wer ere will erwerbenn vor furstenn Whosoever will earn honour before princes and und vor hereim Im vechtenn mit dem before lords in fighting with the sword, he is good Swertt dz ist gutt und gerecht der volge mÿ.. and rightful, who follows my lore, he is blessed ner lere der gesiget ymermere dy sechß evermore. The six goings hold wards which are genng quite preciously good, wherein is wealful halt in huott die sintt gar prißlich gutt in comprehension of the cunning of quite many goodly den woll begriffen ist vil manges gutte mein.. masters: from Hungary, Bohemia, Italy; from sters list auß Ungern Behem ÿtalia auß France, England and Alemania; from Russia, Franckrich Engellant und almania auß Prussia, Greece, Holland, Provence and Swabia. rewßen prewßen Gretia Hollant Profant und swevia

In den soltu tretten linck In the goings, should you tread left, while then, der verfurüng do by gedennck In stichenn bethink the misleading. In stabbing press strongly, starg dring so mag dir woll geling Sichstus so may you achieve it well. When you sight venster offen stan Si hinein gee dar von through the window, stand open, see through it, go schlag oder stich schnell So magstu hartt to it, strike or stab swiftly, so may you be hard- gevell in der arbeÿt d (!) vmb tritt daß ege.. felled. In the work tread roundabout – thus the vertt mach mitt Wiltu sie me hebenn daring fellow wins out. Would you raise and an ein ein (!) starcken müstu han Recht ver.. strengthen yourself: then you must have the right; nüfft ist auch gutt von großem zornn yet reason is also good. Ward yourself from great wrath, bring forsetting to such, thereby may you (1v) dich behutt zu sollicher versatzung yn achieve it well when in all your fighting you are den pring nimble. This forelore ends. dar durch dir mag wol geling In allem dinem vechten biß behende dÿ vor lere hat ein ende Der erst gangck The first going

Snell dy swech züm rechten Speed the weak to the right Durch wind im vechtenn Wind through amid the fight Den schneller do mit mach Do the speeder with might Zu beyden sitenn zwiffach To both sides twice Seins schilt starck verwindt Overwind his shield strongly Den bogenn stos schlag geswinde Thrust-strike from bow swiftly In aller arbeit umb tritt In all work tread roundabout Den rechtenn bogenn stos mitt Thrust with the right-side bow

The second going Der ander ganck Crumple within your strong Krümb in dy sterck Wind through with marking Durch wind mit merck Wind and overlope Wind vberläuff / verwoppen ortt und knouff Forweaponed point and knop Stich im zu dem gesichtt Stab him in the face Des crutz arbeitt mit vichtt With the cross work and fight Des verfurtenn knouffs das soltu gedenckenn Should you bethink the misleading knop auff din (!) haubt machstu yn krenckenn In Then you make him ill upon his top aller arbeitt vmb tritt dz egevertt mach mitt In all work tread roundabout Thus the daring fellow wins out

(2r) Der tritt ganck The third going Schil wz von tag kümpt durch zwirch gein nit krümpt dar in schauw sin sach den Squint at what comes from roof haw schiller mit mach nyms ab gar behende droe Through thwarter goes not crumpler den hauw wider in den schiltt ym starck verdring Look into his business mit uberlouff in bezwing in der sterck siner (!) Do the squint-hew with might klingenn In aller arbeitt vmb tritt dz egevertt Offtake rather nimbly mach mitt Within the strong of the blades Threaten the hew against him Strongly advance the shield at him Der virdt ganck Overcome him with overloping In all work tread roundabout Den ochßenn durch stos Thus the daring fellow wins out Mitt zwienn schrittenn groß Windt vnd wider windt Den scheitteller hauw mach geschwindt The fourth going windt / (!) den treffer bald schlag in den buch vnd vff den nack In aller arbeitt vmb tritt daß Thrust the ox through egevertt mach mitt With two big steps Wind and counter-wind Swiftly make the skull-hew Strike that hitter straight away In the belly and upon the neck In all work tread roundabout Thus the daring fellow wins out Der funfft ganck The fifth going

Durch stich den langenn ortt Stab the long-point through Zück wider stich denn mortt Withdraw stab again then morte Den plintt hauw laß prellenn Let the blind-hew bounce So magtu gen wol wellenn So may you go well and flow Hang against thus soon Hintertread and speed against At the head and to the bread-box (2v) Heng wider also baldt Thus you make of him a real gawk In all work tread roundabout Hinder tritt wider schnall Thus the daring fellow wins out Uff denn kopff in den buch So machstu auß im ein rechtenn gauch In aller arbeitt umb tritt Das egevertt mach mitt The sixth going

From roof reach and fare through With overwinding ward yourself Der sechst ganck Thwart through him really soon Then blind-hew speed anew Vom tag lang durch var Beat the point into his breast Mit verwindenn dich bewar Finally he has lost Durch zwürch ym gar baldt In all work tread roundabout Den plyntt hauw wider schnall Thus the daring fellow wins out Den ortt hauw in sein brust Noch allem dein verlüst In aller arbeitt umb tritt Daß egevertt mach mitt Finis etc Finis, etc. (3r) Ober haüw ist für stich Unter hauw schlecht bricht Overhew is for stabs Mittel hauw in die weÿtte Underhew breaks strikes Nü lüg was dz bedüte Middlehew in the width Im wechsell haüw süch die geüche Now look out for what that means Noch der versatzüng spee In changing-hew seek his folly Stürtz haüw darin dü winde For the forsetting spy Wiltü Im dz antlütz ploß finden Pounce-hew therein by winding So aüß dem scheittler His bare face you want for finding Schlag die kurtz schnid dar So from out the skuller Im unter stürtz haüw verkere Strike with short-edge there dar In sich (!) und lere Invert pounce-hew beneath Im ÿssen ort (!) nÿm war There him stab and teach Mit dem ort vff far In iron-gate make wary Bringst auch moll Ins einhorn dar Fare up with the point Din rosen Im redlin Offer at times in unicorn Zück die tressen gen gute sin Serve roses inside the roundling Schilt hauw mit trifft Tug the tresses against good sense Flÿgell oren (!) gist Hit with shield-hew Wecker will stan Wing goes above Triben strichen wil gan Waker will stand E komen noch reissen ist der sytt Driving and striking will go Schnellen uberlouff und die schnidtt Erstcoming and nextraiding beknown Speeding overlope and slashes as well

Daß ist ein gemeÿne lere Dar an dich kere That is basic lore Daß thüntt wÿssen To which you turn Dÿ künst kündent prÿssen It makes wisdom Which art and knowledge praise

(3v-4v blank) Photos:

As there were no original illustrations accompanying Siber’s fight-lore, I went ahead and had some made of myself doing the wards as I understood them. These pictures are meant to serve as guides to how the main wards and so forth were likely to have been done. The fighter’s own body, experience and idiosyncrasies may call for some variation. In the course of moving – which stills cannot show – through the wards in offence and defence, one shall go more deeply into stance, or may even go more upright, not to mention the movement of the weaponry. The pictures should be taken as working guides, and are meant as a workable portrayal.

Ox Plough Roof

Longpoint Bow Hanging Irongate Unicorn Nearby

Boar Tressen Interpretation:

By “interpretation” I mean this: to explain the meaning of something as best I know or think. The fight- lore of Siber should be realised by live training at speed and strength. As the text of the fight-lore has no illustrations, we cannot see with some visualised certainty what is meant by the words. Indeed, we cannot train now with Siber, nor with anyone living or dead who unbrokenly followed his martial tradi- tion. However, by comparison to other sword and shield sources, namely Walpurgis (WP) (about 1300 AD), Johannes Liechtenauer and Sigmund Ringeck (JLSR) (1389 & 1440 AD), Hans Talhoffer (HT) (1459 & 1467 AD), Paul Kal (PK) (1462-82 AD), Jörg Sorg (JS) (1523 AD), and George Silver (GS) (1598 AD); by contextual reading and philological comparison; and by safe, authentic, earnest physical practice of likely techniques and tactics; then hopefully a valid, accurate, and worthy rendering may be had of what Siber meant. Thus my rendering serves as a guide rather than the final word. Indeed, as hopefully my understanding of the art of fighting grows, I may need to change my thinking as time passes to better fit the truth of Siber’s teaching. Lastly, as this fight-lore was indeed for fight-training, then be warned that any and all training at things described herein is strictly and rightfully one’s own responsibility. Whether with wasters, blunts, or sharps, training is at the fighter’s own risk. Safety, trust, and awareness betwixt training partners are paramount. This lore was for teaching men armed with sword and shield how to kill. Anyone who misunderstands this warning should not take up such weaponry.

Martin Siber: Fight-Lore

(1r-3r from Codex Speyer of 1491 AD)

It seems that Siber’s Fight-Lore was finally written down, at least in part, in 1491 AD. It consists of foreword, goings, and poem (which itself bears same title), and could be thought of as a small yet dense fencing work-book. It is 3 leaves of an unnamed 158 leaf manuscript which may be called the Codex Speyer, as it is a compendium of works by various masters up to 1491 AD, as scribed by Hans von Speyer (`ha:nz fa:n `shpai-er – also spelt Hans von Spier), his name indicating that he hails from the city on the Rhein. The fight-lore is written in the more literary manner of its day, in rather cryptic verse – which may prove problematic for the modern reader. However, this was probably to give the egevertt (“daring fellow” – dealt with later) the barest minimum needed of what Siber had taught him, in an appealing form which he could memorise. Speyer gives credit to those masters for their respective parts, as listed in Appendix I. Perhaps it is safe to conjecture that Speyer chose the works he did for their utility. Siber’s fight-lore would have been part of the greater German Kunst des Fechtens (art of fighting) (KdF) of his time. For those who care, documental notes and translative & interpretive rea- soning have been relegated to Appendix III. Throughout this essay, comparisons between Siber and the other sword & buckler manuals of WP, JLSR, HT, PK, JS and GS shall suggest continuity of martial arts techniques and tactics over centuries in Medieval & Renaissance Europe.

Siber does not indicate manner of clothing. It helps to do this stuff wearing some sort of workout-suit. Indeed, it may interest one to wear the equivalent of Siber’s day, what we may call fechtkleidung (fight- clothing) – which were basically full-body wambeson-outfits, padded & gussetted yet tailored, either worn under the Gothic plate-armour (harnisch or rüstung) of that era or simply for sparring, as seen in HT, Dürer (1520 AD), and Codex Wallerstein (1470 AD). It is reasonable to imagine Siber and his egevertt dressed as such for their praxis. In any case, the text implies that the fencers are not armoured, and that they are most definitely afoot.

The following luminaries lived within three generations or so, either side of 1491 AD in Europe: Bosch; Botticelli; Charles V of Spain; Copernicus; Dürer; Elizabeth I of England; Erasmus; Giorgio; Grünewald; Gutenberg; Henry VII & Henry VIII of England; Ivan III of Russia; Jeanne d’Arc; Leo X; Leonardo; Louis XI of France; Loyola; Luther; Machiavelli; Malory; Matthias of Hungary; Maximillian I of Austria; Medicis Cosimo & Lorenzo; Michelangelo; More; Pius II (Sylvius); Rabelais; Raphael; Titian; and Vlad IV of Wallachia. Events such as the Capture of Byzantium by the Turks happened 38 years before, the Battle of Bosworth ended the English Wars of Roses just 6 years before, the Granada Conquest of the Spaniards finished the next year, German & Austrian civil-wars were ongoing, the German-French Wars for Burgundy & Italy were ongoing, and the Teutonic Order waned to extinction within 34 years after centuries of warfare.

Siber introduces his method, gives encouragement, and some techniques & tactics in the foreword; he provides technical scenarios or matches in the goings, with reference to tactics; and he gives tactical advice in the poem, with reference to technique. Siber’s fight-lore has to do with Medieval & Renaissance European sword and shield wielded in deadly pair. Siber uses the term Swertt (sword or shortsword) once; and the term schilt or schiltt (shield or buckler) thrice; and the term redlin (roundling or buckler) once. I think that my essay shall show how – in context, by cross-reference, and in active interpretation – these amount to weaponry for sword and buckler fencing.

Now, the fight-books generally assume sword in right-hand and shield in left-hand, and all techniques seem described accordingly, though one can certainly do so either way. Naturally, the shield is mainly for “forsetting” (dwl), the sword is mainly for “striking”, though the shield may strike, and the sword may forset.

According to Siber there are three basic ways of schlagen or streichen (striking):

Hew (hauw): cleaving by a sundering edge-strike of the blade.

Slash (schnidtt): cutting by a drawing, pushing or raking edge-strike of the blade.

Stab (stich) or Thrust (stos): piercing by a penetrating point-strike of the blade. These strikes are the drei wunder or “three-wonders” of KdF. It is worth considering the serious nature of the ubiquitous schlag in Siber, as I think the linguistics reveal: schlag is akin to UT slahan and OE slean = slaying; OE slecg = hammer; ON slatr = slaughter and NHD schlachten = slaughtering. Though usually it indicates a strike done by swinging a weapon, Siber utilises schlag contextually to mean any of the various drei wunder. Sometimes Siber tells the fighter to smite the foe with a single decisive strike, sometimes with multiple attritional strikes. WP calls thrusts or stabs fixura or stich, and strikes plaga or slach.

It should go without saying that striking is the utmost thing to do in swordsmanship – for it is how the fighter fells the foe.

In KdF there are three basic “timings” of vor, indes, nach (before, during, after) which are all found in some fashion in Siber’s lessons. Simply put, the timings tell you when to attack relative to when the foe may or does attack. WP calls them prior, in actu, sequi. JLSR maintain that all strikes should be “during-time”, and indeed, that:

Indes tut in der kunst waß dein hertz begert

during-time does in the art what desires your heart

Siber’s tactics tend to agree.

Thusly Master Martin Siber has made and set the new summary written hereafter.

It seems that Master Martin Siber (`ma:r-ti:n `zi:-ber) was a master (meinster) of fighting or fencing. Hardly anything is known of Martin Siber beyond his fight-lore. If his surname means “sifter”, thus some sort of flour-miller, then perhaps he came from a humble working family. It is unknown whether he was the free-fighter over his own fight-school, or the master-of-arms for the army of some atheling. Or maybe Siber was simply some nameless backcountry fighter. However, a comparison of Siber’s work to the aforesaid works of other masters finds them in much agreement about principles of fighting. Also, note that the title of Master or Meister in Europe of this time held weight of living unbroken martial tradition – unlike the relatively meaningless and over-bandied modern sporting title of maestro.

Now the new summary (dÿ...nüwe zettel) implies concise or condensed “lessons or teaching” presented in revised fashion – in other words, Siber’s fight-lore. The zettel or zedel of JLSR and other KdF share with Siber this sense of summary – for a given master can write down only so much of his lore, hence at best a briefing of his greater knowledge no matter how big the work. Also, Siber has made and set this new summary, implying personally putting it forth the way he wanted.

It is a teaming of manifold masterly skirmishes.

It seems the summary is a teaming (zuck) of masterly skirmishes (meinster gefechtenn) fought by many unnamed masters. Maybe this lore is based upon specific fights that Siber himself had fought and/or witnessed. Note here that zuck (like NHD Zug) implies meaning of “draught-animals”, indicating the harnessing together of powerful ideas that work. Siber’s summary seems a distillation of advanced or esoteric sword & shield fighting.

It is dealt and set into six goings.

The summary is based closely upon the skirmishes which are dealt and set into and thus described by six goings. Each of the goings (geng) is a set of moves or play of conflict, in active attack-versus- counter between fighter and foe, which are meant for practice of useful techniques and tactics in order to teach the fighter how to control sparring and thus win a fight. A going implies a struggle in motion, not in stasis, also understood as “play; bout; set; match; scenario”. It is basically the same as stück (play) of other KdF sources. The six goings are set in verse which must have helped the fighter achieve memorising, as was commonly done at that time with a great deal of various lore. During this time such often was not just poetry but song. The couplets in each going are always of related techniques or concepts. Even if all couplets in each going are not necessarily contiguous, they seem at least somewhat related. The couplets of the goings and later poem more or less rhyme auf Deutsch, if not in English, which generally gives some reference to which lines belong together.

Siber’s goings for sword & shield try to help one resolve specific conflicts but also to dispel general misconceptions – being not indecisive fencing tic-tac-to, but rather decisive fighting know-how. Realise that any given going means to describe but one likely or desired course from amongst manifold undescribed possibilities. These goings are like JLSR’s six stücke and HT’s eleven bilder (pictures), as opposed to a presentation of a whole system like WP, although WP does call sections thereof frustus in the sense of “going”.

And in the summary are the ox, the plough, and the skull-hew – not thus as in the first summary of the book, rather together in explanation. Now heave yourself at the foreword and the lore of the summary, and thereafter, the six goings. So in the summary are both ox and plough – which are each wards (dwl) or stances of swordsmanship. The ox (ochß) is a ward whereby you stand left-leg forward and hold the sword with the hilt high and back, such that the point is aimed at the foe’s face like a bovine horn, with the long-edge (dwl) horizontally upward, the shield held forth about chest-height facing the foe. WP shows ox as sexta; it is seen in JS; and something like it upon the left-side is described by JLSR as one takes up zwayen schilten (twin-shields).

The plough (pflug) is a ward whereby you stand with right-leg forward, hilt at waist-height, sword angled forward and point aimed upwards at the foe’s face, shield slanted forth at the side of the hilt – the fighter and his sword looking like the tillman at the plowshare. WP shows plough as halbschilt (half- shield); it is seen in HT & JS and is described by GS.

The skull-hew (scheyttell hauw) or skuller is a basic yet deadly strike. It is the apex-vertical overhew (dwl), whereby the fighter brings the sword aloft above his own skull, and hews down with the long- edge into the top of the foe’s skull. This term is akin to NHD Schädel (skull). Hence, the origin and the aim of the deed lead to this translation – physiology and philology united. Perhaps Siber groups these three techniques together as the bare minimum needed to fight by swordsmanship.

The phrase not thus as in the first summary (ersten zettell) seems to tell of an earlier summary which was part of the book, some unknown and unnamed work, not the Codex Speyer itself in which this new summary (nüwe zettel) appears. However, together in explanation is clear enough – Siber wants to present the aforesaid three techniques (ox, plough, skull-hew) here in unity, and not isolated as apparently they were in that earlier book, to help the fighter learn them as united techniques of changing tactics in the fight. Hence it seems that Siber considers this new summary in the Codex Speyer better than the first summary. Was the book an earlier version of Codex Speyer, one that also dealt with Siber’s teachings? It is presently impossible to say.

Siber speaks directly to the fighter, by imperative second-person familiar voice (now lost to modern English – thou & ye), as to student or friend, telling you to heave yourself (hebt sich) at the foreword and the lore...and thereafter, the six goings, perhaps as pun: heave your mind into the summary, as you would your weapon into the fight. He may also be suggesting that technique follows tactics, that is, learn the foreword & poem first (the “lore” per se) and then the goings afterwards.

Whosoever will earn honour before princes and before lords in fighting with the sword, he is good and rightful, who follows my lore, he is blessed evermore. Whosoever will earn honour is simple yet deep. It seems rather inclusive, especially for its time, speaking to whatever man (wer) is willing to undertake swordsmanship, be he high or low. The word will (will), whether as modal verb or as noun, with its related meanings of “want to; intend to; desire to; would”, is the cogency of erstwhile philosophy. Though now ignored or belittled by the modernist, to Medieval man it was meaningful. It explains, for example, why Cheyenne outdid Americans with their own weaponry at sabre-fighting during warfare of 1865-80 AD – he who has the will to fight when he must do so, whether with specific weapon or generally, shall more likely win. Will may not be the only thing a fighter should have for winning a fight, yet there is truth to what one of my older brothers said when we wrestled: You have got to want it.

That honour (ere) had great meaning during Siber’s time is beyond doubt, arguably more so than in modern popular culture, and needs no ruminating in this present essay, other than that a fight-master dealt with it daily more so than most of his contemporaries. Siber tells the fighter that he may earn (erwerbenn) his honour, without some need to be born with it, even before princes and before lords in fighting with the sword (vor furstenn und vor hereim Im vechtenn mit dem Swertt) by learning his fencing lore (lere), as perhaps most men had hitherto been forbidden to do. This is the idea of a man of lower class earning honour, which actually would have been part of renewed thinking of the early Renaissance, whereby a lower-born man need not stay locked in fealty or thralldom, yet could now better his lot in life with the implicit right to defend himself. Even the lowest born man, bereft though he be of aristocratic lineage, could advance himself if by bravery, talent, need or chance he had proven himself a real fighter, whether in homeland’s militia or as a freebooting mercenary. Indeed, by the 15th CentAD, noble knights and peasant levies were giving way to mercenary soldiery as the preferred sort of army fielded by European princes & lords.

Perhaps a picture of Irish fighters by Dürer, from 1521 AD, treats of this idea of the armed common man, as its caption tells:

...Dy Krigermen in Irlandia hinde England [sehen so aus]...also gend dy Armen in Irlandia...

...The warriors in Ireland, beyond England, [look as such]...thus go the poor in Ireland...

And so regarding sword & buckler vis-à-vis the common man, perhaps Shakespeare gives us an idea of their mutuality by his time, if not far sooner (recall Yeoman), when in Henry IV, Pt 1 (about 1598 AD), Hotspur arrogantly mocks Hal as:

...that same sword-and-buckler Prince of Wales,

...I would have him poisoned with a pot of ale. Which was as much as saying:

...may that low-born fighter die,

...by a poisoned low-class drink.

What Siber meant by sword (Swertt) was likely any of the shorter permutations of Oakeshott-Type XIV, XV, XVI, or XVIII. Such shorter single-handed well-tapering double-edged swords were gene- rally of 20-30 inches (50-75 cm) blade-length, of 2.0-3.5 pounds (0.9-1.6 kg) weight, and were fine for hew, slash, or thrust, whether fullered, diamond, or mixed-section. In the Bavarian work Liber Chronicarum (1493 AD) we can see woodcut-prints of coeval German arms & armour, notably here, swords or shortswords of OT-XV or XVIII – for example, that whereby Lucretia thirls herself. A famous historical example of the sort of weapon meant would be the sword of Henry V of England, an OT-XVIII. It should be noted that shorter swords of earlier OT-IX, X, or XII could just as well be plied in the manner of the fight-lore, especially as some of these undoubtedly survived rehilted in later fashion into later times. Such “shortswords” are illustrated rather clearly in WP and HT. It is of note that PK and Libr.Pict.A.83 (about 1500 AD – after WP) each show small “bastard-swords”.

To go along with this sword, one needs a shield – which I deal with now though the thing actually appears later in the text. What Siber meant by shield (schilt or redlin) was likely a “buckler”. Contextually this makes sense for the era and the techniques – for honestly, the larger board-shield of Viking, the kite-shield of Norman, and the heater-shield of Crusader prove clumsy if not impossible with the teachings here. Really two kinds of smaller shield prove wieldy – either the buckler or the targe. The buckler, called buckeller or bucklier by HT and bückler by JLSR, was more or less a metal dome with a handle spanning inside it, not really different than a boss or umbo, succinctly equated by HT with a kleiner schild. The targe which was basically a wooden disc – though Italian versions called rondella were metal – with straps for the arm. In turn, the buckler proves better than the targe for Siber’s method.

Bucklers were variously shapen – plain & smooth, truncated, pointed, studded, or even rippled and ridged. Some looked like crinkly sea-shells as in HT, or like leering demon-masks as in PK or Liber Chronicarum. Bucklers were about 8-15 inches (20-38 cm) diameter, and 3-5 pounds (1.4-2.3 kg) weight. Most were circles, though some were squares, diamonds or trapezoids, and some even wing- shaped.

Thus the “shortsword” and “buckler” are what we may rightly take Siber to mean whenever he says “sword” and “shield”, and would be congruent with what are clearly shown in WP, HT & JS. This was a common enough pairing for the fighter of this and previous times, whether he was knight or freeman on the battlefield, or whether he was townsman or countryman on street or highway. Note that measures and remarks for the actual weaponry that I utilised are in Appendix II.

It can be argued that the legacy of European sword and buckler goes back at least to the English of 600-800 AD, as bosses with grips spanning no farther than their girth have been found in England dating to that time in contrast to other coeval bosses with grips and board-spanning spars united, thus the former indicative of either being for little shield, or being itself a buckler.

I would argue that the buckler must have existed amongst the contemporary Irish, since Tain Bo Cuailnge (8th-12th CentAD) tells often of warriors armed with sword & shield, and specifically shortsword & buckler. The weaponry are described vividly, as witness:

[Cruscraid] sciath bemmendach go faebor chondula fair, claideb co n-eltaib det...

[Eogan] cromsciath comfaebur chodualach fair...[is] colg det iarna innud.

[Cruscraid] bore a scallop-edged smiting-shield, and an ivory-gripped sword...

[Eogan] bore a curved shield with sharp plaited rim...[and] tusk-handled dirk.

We know that the shortsword & buckler became ubiquitous throughout Europe no later than 1300 AD as WP witnesses, and as the Yeoman of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (1386-99 AD) is said to bear:

...By his side a swerd and a bokeler

And on that other side a gay daggere...

...By his side a sword and a buckler

And on that other side a bright dagger...

If the Yeoman is assumed to be a lightly armoured fighter, being something of a ranger-sergeant, he is no less warlike for his arming with sword & buckler, as he is the trusted henchman of the crusading Knight. Indeed, the title character of Udall’s Ralph Roister Doister (1534-41 AD) speaks inclusively of warring armourial variety when he remarks:

Sirs, see that my harness, my target, and my shield,

Be made as bright now, as when I was last in field,

...I would have my sword and harness to shine so bright,

That I might therewith dim mine enemies’ sight...

Amid the many wars between the time of these two literary works – for example, during the Wars of Roses (1399-1486 AD) – there must have been many a man armed with sword & buckler. The serious wielding thereof existed and continued in Germany and England until about 1650 AD – far longer than in Latinic Europe, obsessed as it became with rapier and all that – and even later in Scotland as sword and targe, until about 1750 AD.

It was most likely that any KdF fighter who fought with sword & shield also knew dagger, and maybe falchion and longsword (degen, messer, langschwert), for the manifold fightbooks (fechtbücher) make quite clear that KdF was a whole myriad of martial arts. These diverse weaponry shared many of the same techniques & tactics. I hasten to emphasise that the Teutonic swordsman was also a wrestler – he would have been one from childhood. This was doubtlessly the norm of Siber’s time, as clearly witnessed by manifold cunning techniques of KdF wrestling (ringen) similar and equal to the best Japanese Jujitsu, as shown in multiple KdF sources such as JLSR, HT, Ott’s ringkampf (battle- wrestling) in Codex Speyer, Wallerstein & Dürer. Frightening description of deadly Germanic wrestling goes back many centuries before, notably in hero-sagas like Beowulf. More about “wrestling” later.

In wielding the sword, I suggest a firm yet supple grip, like a flexible hammer-grip – certainly not a useless foiling-grip. In wielding the buckler, I suggest a strong but unhindering grip and arm. You can vary your sword-grip with a “thumb-press” as shown in HT, whereby you slip your thumb over the cross and press at the ridge or fuller of the blade, or by slipping the ring-finger over the cross, either of which may give better control to a strike.

Now some issues which Siber does not address. There are two basic yet distinct ways of handling the weaponry in relation to each other: “apart” or “twained”. When apart, the sword strikes at one place while the shield forsets at another or withdraws to armour the body. When twained, the weaponry move together against the same area, the forsetting shield covering the hilt and hand of striking sword. Apart seems typical of HT. Twained seems typical of WP & JS, and JLSR calls it zwayen schilten (twin-shields), though it is arguable whether JLSR preferred it or not. Furthermore, there are two sorts of twained-handling: either with wrists “inline” (hands slightly separate & both thumbs upward) – or with wrists “crossed” (shield-hand thumb-downward, crossed over or under sword-hand thumb-upward). Although inline and crossed differ, the sword-hand & hilting are warded, just at differing flanks; both sorts are seen in WP & JS; each seems bestly done with a smaller buckler.

Apart-handling lets you withdraw the shield for sake of momentum aiding sword’s striking-power or merely to keep stance-balance – though realise that the clever foe could exploit such opening of the hands & arms, as shown in HT. Yet as per HT, apart lets you overwind & strike independently. Incidentally, it is arguable whether your shield faces your flank or the foe in any given ward.

Twained-handling is protective of both your hands, and aids in keeping your sword & buckler between you and foe’s sword – essentially the idea behind the constant shifting thereof by WP called muatio. However, some may find it awkward, and at times negate the advantage of independent action of the individual weapons by its unity, and can let the foe trap both your arms, as shown in WP & JS. Indeed, WP often warns one of dividendo, whereby the foe violently divides one’s twained weaponry by hewing above or below. WP also acknowledges the need for weaponry to be separacio, which is de facto apart.

Curiously, neither HT nor WP give us a terms for their respective preferred handlings. Since Siber addresses neither apart nor twained, it seems likely that one’s best judgement should be the guide, and I am left with advocating a balance of the two for his method – indeed a given ward or strike may dictate one or the other. Naturally, some wards are apart (ox, roof, tresses, iron-gate, boar), while some are twained (plough, long-point, hanging, unicorn), and others yet are sort of a mix (bow, nearby) – though such may or may not change as you flow (dwl) amid the fight, forsetting & striking.

Just so it goes not unsaid: when the sword moves then also moves the shield – as sword offends the shield defends.

And the point of all this is that Siber thus tells the fighter he shall be good and rightful (gutt und gerecht) by following his fight-lore (lere), that he shall be blessed evermore (gesiget ymermere). Such claims were made commonly enough during the Medieval & Renaissance for all sorts of undertakings, and seem to reflect Siber’s presumed earnest desire to relate such a major undertaking to Christian holyness.

The six goings hold wards which are quite preciously good, wherein is wealful comprehension of the cunning of quite many goodly masters: from Hungary, Bohemia, Italy; from France, England and Alemania; from Russia, Prussia, Greece, Holland, Provence and Swabia.

The six goings have wards which are quite preciously good (gar prißlich gutt), being wieldy & useful. Now the wards (huott) are each “fighting-stances” made in balance with sword in right-hand and shield in left-hand. The word is akin to AHD hutta (hut or shelter) and to OE hod (hood).

By and by, Siber deals with four main wards, which he calls ochß (ox), pflug (plough), langenn ortt (long-point), and tag (roof). These are basically the same as the vier leger (four stances) of JLSR & other KdF – excepting that what Siber calls langenn ortt they tend to call alber (fool).

Wards are dynamic and not static – when standing these are filled with potential energy, ready to release kinetic energy when driving (dwl) your strikes. Siber’s wards are not merely defence yet offence. These wards were customarily taught – as per genetic majority, for sake of simplicity, and by need of uniformity of training – right-hand dominant, though they could be done from either side, more or less identically. It makes sense to take stance neither too upright nor too deep, yet in balanced middle (as HT), with resolve to maintain integrity of your center and your flanks. The idea of “balance”, though not stated by Siber, is common enough to KdF, as waage or vaage. The colourful names of the wards in KdF are indeed poetic in that they are metaphoric. Wards are called custodia or obsessio by WP and either hutte and leger in other KdF sources. WP warns not to stay back in stance for too long.

Also, Siber is not so much talking up the worth of his own “style” of fighting or fencing, but the worthin- ess of the six goings as he says again that these are based upon the wealful comprehension (woll begriffen) of the cunning (list) of many goodly masters from throughout Europe, as witnessed by the dozen named countries which spanned that warlike continent.

Though all the named countries are significant, of special note in the list are the lands of Alemania and Prussia. Firstly, Alemania (almania), which is where Siber seems to have lived, is and was most of the Alpenland, in whose dialect of German (Alemannisch) the fight-lore is written. It is a name used in English as late as 1588 AD by Marlowe in his Doctor Faustus where he refers to Almaine rutters (Alemanic riders), and 1598 AD by GS who referred to the esteemed high Almaine fencers. Secondly, Prussia (prewßen), which was the fortress-state by which contemporary Europe measured its military ability, with its warrior-monks and armed vassals, whether as an enemy to its worthy eastern adversaries of Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Hungary (at times an ally) – or indeed as proving grounds for the young knights of its western neighbors of the other Germanys, England, Sweden, Den- mark, Scotland, Italy, and even France (especially after the purge-royale against the Templars in 1307 AD), who would join their ranks either permanently or as allies in one of their many reysen (more about that later). German crusaders had achieved their lordship of Prussia by means of the Teutonic Order, founded in the Outremer about 1190 AD, which eventually became the war-machine of Siber’s time, albeit then waning. Although the significance of each named country could be elaborated, we must leave it at that.

Lastly, a query: By casually delineating three country-groupings (each beginning with auß = from), does Siber suggest three main traditions, styles or schools of European fencing, similar yet distinct, which existed around 1491 AD? I think this is of interest for further study, and can only conjecture here.

In the goings, should you tread left, while then, bethink the misleading. In stabbing press strongly, so may you achieve it well.

In the goings you tread or step mostly to the right, where you can stay readily behind your shield as well as putting the most might into most of your strikes. But should you tread left then try misleading the foe – to “feign or fake” valid attack, at one place where the foe is vulnerable only to strike another. Misleading (verfurüng) involves not just “ploys and tricks” of weaponry, but also of bearing and movement – quickly creating “illusion”. You should do this as such exposes you more readily to the foe’s sword and because you cannot hide your own sword behind your shield, as opposed to treading right, which exposes you closer to foe’s shield and you can better hide your sword from view behind your own shield. It is a tactic pervading JLSR & KdF. Generally, your sword can mislead by moving falsely, by “changing” (dwl) in mid-swing; and your shield can mislead by blocking some of foe’s sight or as moving distraction – but of course, the foe’s weaponry can do the same. Thus the fighter finds one of the foe’s “openings” (blößen in JLSR, HT and KdF generally), or sets up “work” (dealt with just below) that leads to such.

These openings are basically four (hence the vier blößen of KdF), corresponding to the body quartered by a cross “+”. One can make it more complex and think of eight openings by adding another cross as “x”, the segno. Really any gap big or small that is open or bare to a strike can be a opening. It should be realised that anything in swordsmanship – ward, strike, forset – leaves some opening, even as it covers or seeks them.

When stabbing (stichenn) at such openings, the fighter should press strongly (starg dring) into the foe with his body behind the strike, to really pierce him through. This goes for a great deal of striking in general, such that you should put as much of your body with needed torque – arms, legs, waist, hips, shoulders – into it as you wisely can.

When you sight through the window, stand open, see through it, go to it, strike or stab swiftly, so may you be hard-felled. In the work tread roundabout – thus the daring fellow wins out. When you sight through the window with sword & shield, the “space” around or between your weaponry, then it is best to stand open (offen stan), to see through properly, such that the pair are not held tightly to your own body, and tangle or stifle, and you must go to it (gee dar von) without tarry so you may strike (with the edge) or stab (with the point) swiftly the foe at best chance, and thus you shall be hard-felled (hart gevell) by felling the foe. Try not to lose sight of everything in that window, by narrowly focusing as you may fall prey to misleading yourself – rather see the big picture as you sight the foe’s openings and any counters he tries. The idea is not to miss chances to strike when you see them – for to tarry is draining. This hardly differs from the doubly-meant observation written about 1595 AD by a certain English raider named John Donne, in his poem To His Mistress Going to Bed:

The foe oft-times, having the foe in sight,

Is tired with standing though he never fight.

The idea of “open-standing” in Siber is to take stance just out of “range” (dwl) where the fighter has one or both his arms above, hence shield and/or sword aloft, making the body open, to aid a variety of moves and allow sighting of foe’s openings. Siber’s open-stance exposes yet deceives: the fighter can mark the foe therefrom, with vantage of much retaliatory potential should the foe beset him before he besets. Perhaps Siber’s offen stan (stand open) could be regarded as counterpart to his durch var (fare through) in his sixth going.

Siber’s offen stan seems the same as that of stand freylich (stand freely) in JLSR longsword and HT sword & buckler; and use of fry, fryes, freyen (free) for stances, strikes, and forsetting (dwl) is found in JLSR & shown and described by HT – whether for longsword, falchion, sword & buckler, or cavalry sword – and seems the same as offen (open) in Siber’s sense. The equivalency of offen and frei is demonstrated by the German idioms: es steht ihm offen zu gehen and es steht ihm frei zu gehen – either phrase meaning in English: as it stands he may go. The illustrious GS calls the wards of “roof” and “tresses” (both dwl) for sword & buckler the open fight.

When the fighter and the foe are in the work (in der arbeÿt) they are basically at “infighting”, struggling at close range. In work they find themselves at some sort of mutual opposition. When at crossed swords, locked at an impasse near crossguards, it is “binding”. Although Siber’s method makes no direct reference to binding, it does in fact happen in his third going during “offtaking” (dwl) , and it does happen in sparring often enough. WP shows binding as ligacio or religacio; it is something which PK shows & calls anbinden (onbinding). Often in Siber’s method he tells one to do “winding” – for both sword and shield (dwl). Winding for sword means you wind, twist or turn your blocked sword quickly at the fulcrum of the elbow or wrist to bring it around to strike from another angle, often pivoting your sword either at or around foe’s shield or sword. Winding for shield means you wind, twist or turn your shield to get the foe’s blocked sword out of the way. WP shows such winding for shield as vertere. In doing Siber’s method, there in fact arises “wrestling”, which is to grapple, wrap, throw or break the foe, and more broadly can involve trapping or taking the foe’s shield or sword, and punching & kicking him. It can be utilised alone or in unison with armed moves. WP shows wrestling as luctacio; and it is shown by HT, PK, JS; and is described by JLSR & GS. This triad of binding, winding, and wrestling (binden, winden, ringen) are common to JLSR, HT and all KdF; and along with striking and forsetting, you get what constitutes Siber’s work (arbeitt), which later he more or less equates with “fight” (vichtt) itself in his second going.

Please note one crucial distinction: winding in Siber’s fight-lore can mean both that of the sword and that of the shield – and for shield it is more or less another way to say “forsetting” (dealt with soon below). This meaning may be unique to Siber’s sword & shield summary, and requires, like a lot of his phrasing, contextual reading of what seems the best kinetic flow (dwl) for the fighter. It makes sense given the duality of sword & shield. However, Siber & JLSR do seem to use winding in a similar sense for the sword if not the buckler – see fourth going below.

While at work, the fighter should tread roundabout (umb tritt), should be a daring fellow (egevertt) who initiates not just responds, whereby he treads lively, to the foe’s flanks or past and behind him, and so forth, rather than just moving linearly or standing in place, in order to win out – not to show nice form, nor to entertain, nor to be genteel – but to slay the foe. By treading (tretten or tritt) Siber generally means to step by taversing one foot forward or backward past the other, from balance to balance. Treading helps keep you from being hit and helps you to hit mightily. It should also be realised that “footwork” – whether standing or stepping – can vary situationally, and that no absolute should be maintained, whether in my descriptions of the goings or in one’s sparring experience. Just be ready to tread roundabout as you deem best – whether this means treading, hop-stepping, side-stepping, or switching (all dwl). The idea is that real historical fencing tends to be as circular as linear, if not more so, really “fighting in the round”, which includes awareness of front and back attacks (as in HT), above or below, and from sides or flanks.

Now egevertt or “daring fellow” (like NHD Gefährte) has a mixed sense of “comrade, risker, danger- mate”, akin to JLSR’s use of gefer (danger); and with sense of mach mitt as “going through (hardship)” or “taking part in (group)”, we arrive at my rendering that indicates Siber speaking to some fellowship of those who understand true fighting – whether his students or fighters generally. Again, Siber is concerned that the fighter win the struggle.

Would you raise and strengthen yourself: then you must have the right; yet reason is also good.

Siber then offers some ethical yet utilitarian advice, perhaps with regard to both natural and secular law, to accompany the ruthless combat technique. He states that if you would raise (hebenn an) and strengthen (ein starcken) yourself – better your lot in life and make your body stronger by physical rigors of fight-training – then you should fight when it is warranted, when you are right (Recht) to slay a man, only for heavy reason (vernüfft). The reality of Siber’s Austro-Germanic world was chaotic indeed with manifold internal & external threats to a person’s life often making for self-defensive need. Yet I think that here also a certain moral- ity is addressed at least briefly, as it was by JLSR’s vorrede regarding the morality needed for chivalry, by Ritter-Dichter like Eschenbach, and likewise through the changing ages of German warriorhood into modern times. With that in mind, if we accept that a man’s ethics and craft are one (as that soldier Wittgenstein maintained); and that martial virtues are worthy only when furthering good in the world (as eventually Rommel concluded); we may be aware then of the ethical difference between military science and martial art. Similar ethos, whatever its stark utility, is actually behind Silver’s advocacy of sword over rapier, when he says to train for slaying foes on the battlefield rather than murdering one’s fellows in the streets, and likewise when JLSR say that longsword art is meant for war. It is simply this question: What is the worthwhile fight?

Ward yourself from great wrath, bring forsetting to such, thereby may you achieve it well when in all your fighting you are nimble.

When Siber tells you to ward (behutt) yourself from great wrath (großem zornn), it could be twofold. Here Siber certainly tells you to ward yourself from a strike we may term “wrath-hew” (zornnhauw), a diagonal long-edge overhew driven from behind the shoulder with all the body fully, while treading either forward or backward, swinging from high right to low left, ideally through foe’s torso. Wrather is typically driven from the ward of “tresses” (dwl in poem), or simply from roof (dwl). Wrath-hew is shown clearly by HT for sword & buckler, and described by JLSR and Meyer (1570 AD) for longsword, perhaps also called vaterstreich (father-strike) in KdF. Despite the danger of wrather, it is something you can counter if you bring forsetting (versatzung) to such – which means to put foe’s strike out of the way from hitting you by your shield or sword. Also, he seems to tell you to ward yourself from being filled with great wrath (großem zornn), so that your mind is not unbalanced but clear as you fight – like mushin (empty mind) of Kenjitsu.

Now, Siber’s versatzung or forsetting can be understood as “displacing, parrying, deflecting”, or even “intercepting, moving, setting aside”, or seldomly “blocking”. Now versetzen are fundamental to KdF. Forsetting is readily understood to mean: setting the foe’s ward or strike out of the way by shield or by sword, which is best done dynamically not statically, and while treading. You put foe’s weapon away with your weapon before his ever reaches you. Now forsetting can be understood in three ways, relative to the timings of KdF:

Before-time (vor) – you set aside foe’s warding sword with your striking sword or winding shield.

During-time (indes) – you set aside foe’s striking sword with your striking sword or winding shield.

After-time (nach) – you set aside foe’s striking sword with your warding sword or warding shield. The fighter forsets with his shield by winding (turning or diverting) the foe’s sword aside, which is done bestly while the fighter strikes with his sword at the same time – though this may not always be possible, so one must strike forthwith. If the fighter forsets the foe’s sword with his sword, then he does so best if he strikes the foe as well in the same movement, if possible. Incidentally, JLSR longsword seems to maintain that before-time is the ideal way of forsetting, as per his vier versetzen (four forsetting) which attack the foe’s wards before he attacks, although JLSR give ample examples of doing so in during-time & after-time as reality demand.

I think that forsetting with the sword works best when the blade-to-blade contact involves the “flat” (flech of KdF – one of its broad unsharpened planes or faces) of at least one of the blades, and not by opposing one blade’s “edge” (schnid – the sharpened bevel – dwl) against the other. The flat of your blade allows you the advantage of the steel’s flexibility and lets you get rid of the foe’s blade by gliding away quickly to strike him. Your sword’s edge remains sharper, its blade lasts longer and healthier, and has far less chance of shattering. Such technique of utilising the flat to forset is shown clearly by HT for falchion, sword & buckler, and cavalry sword, who calls it gewenter hand (wended-hand) or epicher hand (ebbing-hand), whereby the fighter forsets by “ebbing” or curling his sword-hand at the wrist to meet the edge of the foe’s blade with the flat of his own blade – and each time associated with versetzt (forset) by HT. This is also arguably shown in WP. Thus flat-to-flat, edge-to-flat, or flat-to-edge – but not edge-to-edge – is the best way to go in forsetting. For those who need further convincing, see the third going below.

Lastly, you are reminded that you may achieve well (wol geling) forsetting of “wrath” and so forth when in all your fighting (vechten) you are nimble (behende). What Siber relates here is that not just strength and might but also dexterity and precision are needed to fight well – indeed, nimbleness of both body and mind – when dealing with wrath of sword or wrath of mind.

Some thoughts about Siber’s vechten: I render it as fighting because that was what it was. Although “fencing” is not wrong, it is not as right as “fighting”, which is truer to Siber’s meaning of vechten, than the sadly corrupted and blanded meaning of “fencing” today. Fighting says it best – striving to win by savage ruthless combat. In this case, it is by whatever means that sword & buckler let one do so.

This forelore ends.

Thus Siber’s statement of purpose, as it were, now ends.

The first going This may begin as fighter wards in plough and foe wards in plough.

Speed the weak to the right

Wind through amid the fight

You speed the weak (snell dy swech) – the half from middle to point – of your blade by dropping it down, back & around to your right quickly as you “hop-step” or “cock-step” (stepping such that feet keep same precedence) the same way, to overhew the foe’s right-side by sword, as you wind through (durch wind) with your shield amid the fight (vechtenn) to cover and/or forset any thrust by foe. I think that “speeding” is like moulinet or “windmilling”, what could be called rundstreichen or “roundstriking” – diagonal overhewing driven fully around by swinging circularly, with or without treading. One could assert that speeding is a grand form of winding. It seems somewhat akin to umbschlag of JLSR longsword. See “speeder” just below.

Do the speeder with might

To both sides twice

If however the foe treads back and “avoids” (dwl), then tread forth and do the speeder, which is to overhew diagonally in successive bisecting circles through the foe’s body. The speeder (schneller) is meant to overwhelm with strikes or at least repel him, and can be done rather quickly with sword by itself and shield withheld, or with sword & shield in twain, but maybe then not so quickly. Such a flurry can launch attack in before-time, and can break binding, but must be done with might (mach) by trea- ding forth (as here) or back, lest it be useless. It should not be done to establish a pattern but to hit the foe in flurry, and hence to both sides twice is quite enough. The speeder could be thought of swinging the blade in a “round”, thus comparable to rownd for great-sword of Man Who Wol (1450 AD), and probably Rundstreich of other KdF: indeed, the speeder to both sides twice, equaling four strikes in the round, is perhaps the same as “two double-rounds” (ij. doubylrowndys). Some may like to shift slightly the little-finger over the pommel to allow a more rotative grasp, as sometimes illustrated in Viking Age manuscripts. The speeder can be done from many angles & either side, with or without treading, and most amount to either crumpler (dwl) or wrather. Such striking combinations are valuable to do since single attacks are often unreliable decisively. A flurry of four strikes is JLSR’s fourth stück.

Overwind his shield strongly

Thrust-strike from bow swiftly Yet if the foe avoids these and retreats to ward again in plough, then you flow into bow (bogenn), which is a ward whereby you stand left-leg forward & hold the shield high and somewhat to your right yet facing the foe, the sword held with hilt high and blade sloping downward and crossed over shield-arm just behind the shield, with the long-edge toward the foe – looking sort of like archery bow & arrow. The “bow-ward” is akin to the “hanging-ward” (dwl). This sort of left-side bow is shown unnamed in HT (dwl). WP seems to have a related ward called vidilpoge (fiddlebow) which differs from Siber’s bogenn in that WP’s blade points upwards and the shield is lower. However, one can shift easily enough from WP’s vidilpoge into Siber’s bogenn and back again.

From bow you tread forth right and overwind (verwindt) or “get over” the foe’s advanced shield strongly with your sword by thrust-strike (stos schlag) downward over his shield into his body – as a “diving-thrust” or “pounce-hew” (dwl) – as your shield either knocks away Foe’s shield or runs cover below. Hence, “overwinding” is simply either “through-faring” (dwl) – closing & entering – and getting over the foe’s shield with your sword (whereupon you strike); or through-faring and getting over the foe’s sword with your shield (whereupon you grapple & strike) (dwl in sixth going). WP shows overwinding as circumdatis. WP shows “thrust-striking” as stichslach (stab-strike).

In all work tread roundabout

Thrust with the right-side bow

Again, as dealt with previously, be active in your work, stand not still but tread roundabout (vmb tritt); and in context of this particular going, proper footwork is key to making deadly thrust (stos) with your right-side bow. It is of note that this differs from the left-side bow (dwl in sixth going), where the fighter overwinds the foe’s sword-arm, and may have his weaponry over more to his left-side instead. Maybe the right-side bow could be considered a riskier and rarer gambit, if perhaps more surprising. This part also reminds us that wards may be taken upon either right or left.

The second going

This may begin as fighter wards in roof and foe wards in roof.

Crumple within your strong

Wind through with marking The foe overhews, so you tread or leap forth right and crumple (krümb) within your strong, which is to “crumple-hew” inside the strong (sterk) – the half between cross and middle – of your blade at the weak of his blade, at the flat of either blade or both, in order to forset his blade with your flat and/or “short-edge” (dwl) and strike his right-side with your long-edge in one move in during-time, covering high as needed with your shield. If your strike fails because foe binds with sword or forsets with shield, then you wind through (Durch wind) your sword to get around such by turning the point against him, with marking (merk) – notice, awareness – of next opening for you to thrust, your shield covering against any counter-strike. In the text “your strong” is literally dy sterck or “the strong” – hence judgement-call at interpreting, which is reasonable here. Purely speaking the “crumple-hew” (krümpthauw) or crumpler is a diagonal overhew to the foe’s right side with either edge, whereby you crumple your sword-arm across your centerline to strike and/or forset. The idea is that you drive your sword to reach an oblique attack. Now, to crumple into the foe’s blade may seem at odds, if not anathema, to the nature of sword & shield – more like something to be done only with longsword. However, I think Siber tells us of it here for that reason – it is the uncouth thing to do, unforeseen by the foe. Such an odd thing as this shows that unlike weaponry may sometimes use like means to achieve the same goal. Thus sword & shield have both orthodox and unorthodox means of wielding. This amounts to countering foe’s tactic of “erstcoming” by tactic of “nextraiding” (both dwl in poem). This compares closely to JLSR’s longsword:

so ainer zu dir schlecht, so far im krump daruff: vnd so haust du daßeekomen

so someone strikes at you, so fare him crumpler thereupon: and so you hew that erstcoming

Wind and overlope

Forweaponed point and knop

Stab him in the face

So, if you fail at that and ward now in plough and foe wards in long-point (dwl), and then he hop-steps to stab you low, to the bollix or guts, then you must wind (wind) away his strike with your shield as you overlope (vberläuff) his attack with your forweaponed point and knop (verwoppen ortt und knouff) – your ready sword – to stab (Stich) him in the face as you either “hintertread” (step behind yourself – dwl in fifth going) or stay put yet torque your body to drive it.

Now, this is because foe mistakenly thinks that he can low-thrust under your ward by driving only so far as he needs to keep from running into your sword yet still undercut you. However, you must high-thrust – which can indeed outreach him. Thus Siber’s “overloping” is to lope your blade over the foe’s blade to attack his nearer opening – you hew or thrust high as he does so low – to counter-strike him during- time. One may think of overloping as “overreaching, overpassing” or even “surpassing”. It is seen in HT (see third going), and is described well for longsword by JLSR. In practice, I have found that any given high hew or stab can drive further than its counterpart low hew or stab by the length of one hand- width – which one may confirm this himself by comparing a thrust at navel-level to one at face-level. This sort of counter-strike is as hazardous as it is hard-to-stop. When you can, you may lessen the hazard by “avoiding” (dwl) as you overlope. Note the translative choice of archaic knop meaning “pommel” (OE cnop > ME knop = knob), said [`kno:p] or [`kna:p].

With the cross work and fight

Should you bethink the misleading knop

Then you make him ill upon his top

Yet if foe back-treads and forsets this with shield up from below, then go with it to catch his shield with the cross (crutz) hooking lower rim, to work and fight (arbeitt...vichtt), by pushing it away as if to hew with blade from above – yet instead should you bethink to utilise your knop in a misleading manner, then simply hammer that down hard upon his top (haubt = head) , when he instead foresees the attack from the blade, as you hop-step inside and stifle foe’s sword with your shield, and thus make him ill. I determined the manuscript in error and translated the possessive article from second-person (din) into third-person (his) – for you would hardly be advised to strike your own head. The idea here again of misleading or “trickery”, is common throughout KdF – and in this case such knapping by knop is more quickly done than overhewing by blade. This sequence revisits the idea of treating the whole sword as forweaponed – ready and charged to smite as needed. The cross may help you at times to do work in offtaking (just dealt with), or to fight by smiting therewith in “morte” (dwl).

In all work tread roundabout

Thus the daring fellow wins out

Again, do not stay still, try always to tread as you work, or for that matter, when you strike, to fight mightily and cunningly, and thus does the daring fellow most likely win out. These two lines repeat as refrain throughout.

The third going

In the manuscript this “stanza” has a scrunched text-body if not a downright mess of syntax. So as to make syntactical and tactical sense, I had to move one line which I think was a scribal misplacement, and change an incongruent predicate adjective, to make a couplet now meaningful. Otherwise, it would stand as disparate nonsequiter if not nonsensical. Thus corrected, it stands as rhyme and sensible kinetic advice (a significant goal). My amending in translation was to put the last and orphaned line (In/ Within...) and pair it with a previous line (Ab-nimm/Offtake...); and instead of a singular possessive adjective (seiner/his) to use a definite article (der/the), which left a final triplet before refrain. Such jumbles of phrasing and errors of possessives are known, for instance, in Wallerstein, and other KdF sources. The amending should thus square the stanza with the martial reality of two adversaries who each wield but sword and shield.

Thus said, this going may begin as fighter wards in either roof or tresses and foe wards in roof.

Squint at what comes from roof

Through thwarter goes not crumpler

You squint (schil) at the foe to counter an overhew he makes from roof (tag). What happens is foe overhews by wrather or skuller so you do the “squinter”, by making a short-edge overhew to his upper- right opening as you either hop-step forth, side-step left, or stand your ground and withdraw shield upwards to cover high, thus stopping foe’s attack and striking him. The “squint-hew” (schilhauw) is a strike whereby you end up squinting along the length of your lofted sword as you drive it by striking with the short-edge over your shield upon your left-side, in a quick snapping manner that turns the hew into a high stop-thrust/slash as well at its nadir. The roof (tag) is a ward whereby you stand left-leg forward with the sword held overhead or overshoulder, the blade angled upward and back, the shield held advanced chest-height before you facing the foe.

Now the squinter is a contentious one – definitions in KdF are divergent as to what it is exactly, and modern interpretations can be quite disagreeable. Sometimes a KdF master gives barely any description, or he gives a confusing if not pointless description. Sometimes an interpreter provides a controversial yet workable interpretation. My definition is probably no less troublesome, but I think mine does make sense for the weaponry and has vantage of being distinct and simple.

In this sequence, you stop foe’s overhew by beating him to the punch at his sword-side, because you go left not right from/in your stance. If you did tread forth right in this sequence, you would no longer be driving squinter, but rather a sort of crumpler which foe could much more easily forset by shield withdrawn high. Also foe does some of the work of his own demise by running into your point as he tries to drive his overhew. Compare to JLSR’s longsword:

Schill in den ober haw behend, blyb daruff wilt du end Squint into the overhew nimbly, whereupon you would remain until end

Regarding the roof, from it any overhew may be driven. You can shift from roof into tresses, bow, or iron-gate as needed. Whether one does roof overshoulder or overhead is preferential if not situational. The roof was a common ward, as seen in 11th CentAD English illustrations. WP shows roof each side: secunda (like Siber’s) and tertia (at left-shoulder with right-leg-forward). It is shown by HT & JS, and is described by JLSR & GS.

However, if you ward in roof or tresses and the foe wards in roof and strikes by crumpler (krümpt) then you can stop it from going through by the thwarter (zwirch). The “thwart-hew” (zwirchhauw) is done rightly as a high “underhew” or “middlehew (both dwl) to foe’s upper openings. Here it is done by striking with your long-edge into his unfinished crumpler to his arm or body – so you may undercut him before he comes round to overcut you – with shield shifted to cover high-right & behind where sword had been – hence covering your head, neck, and shoulder – as you tread back left, driven by your swinging arms and turning body. The thwarter tends to break any “overhew” (dwl), as JLSR maintain.

Regarding the idea of “covering”: however unnamed by Siber, he would be in tactical agreement with WP, who advises often with shield to make schutzen (covering) of the opening to your body where foe most likely aims or retaliates as you strike at him.

Look into his business

Do the squint-hew with might

Hence, you must look into foe’s business (sach) to deem what gambit foe’s betrays from roof and thus reckon what best to do from your high-ward – either squinter breaking skuller or wrather; or thwarter breaking crumpler.

Note that Siber’s schauw sin sach hardly differs from JLSR’s besich sin sach; and is again suggestive of open-standing, as the latter associate it with free-standing as stand freylich. You may think of “look into his business” as analogous to “taking his measure”. If you choose to do the squint-hew (schillerhauw) then do so with might (mach – like NHD Macht), a reminder that you have not vantage of treading, so put as much of your body into it by stepping as you may and torquing into the strike. This sequence here has you doing squinter from either roof or tresses, but under other circumstances you can also do squinter from “iron-gate” (dwl) or “boar” (dwl). Offtake rather nimbly

Within the strong of the blades

If you ward in tresses and foe overhews from tresses then forset his weapon by wrather while either treading forth right or “switching” (to stay in place yet exchange precedence of feet without passing); and then from the resultant hard-binding offtake (nyms ab) him rather nimbly (gar behende) within the strong of the blades (klingenn), at the flat of foe’s blade with your long-edge, to take off quickly from his weapon with your weapon and shift or wind precisely to thrust and/or slash by sword to his upper openings while you cover hilt-hand with shield (hence your weaponry twained), as you either tread again, stay put, or “side-step” (stepping laterally to a flank). This sequence is similar to one in JLSR longsword, who relates his nyms ab (take off) to this advisement:

Ver dir ober hawet zorn haw ort im dröwet

Whoever overhews – you wrath-hew and turn point against him

And this sequence also has a mix of techniques similar to JLSR’s first & second stücke for sword & buckler, notably in the first as one takes up a sort of left-side ox in zwayen schilten (twin-shields) – thus as in Siber’s sequence here one is very transitorily in twained weaponry. As this wrather-versus- wrather is highly dangerous, you must use dexterity within proper during-time to achieve it and with the needed footwork. Your then offtake your weapon quickly from the bind with foe’s weapon to smite him. This is an instance where something analogous to other KdF is assumed to take place, however unnamed – binding.

Siber’s “offtaking” is to launch your own strike from binding by shifting or winding, perhaps by pivoting at the strong and/or cross. It can be thought of also as “offnimming, negating, abating, outcasting”. Generally speaking, if you should offtake with sword & buckler, then try to keep or put your shield between you and the foe’s sword as you do so. Even if you fail to hit, offtaking may allow in carry- through to fall back into an open-stance to regain yourself, mark a new opening, or start a new gambit. WP shows offtaking as exprimere deorsum; and it is found in KdF longsword as abnehmen (offtaking). However hard it is to understand by describing, it is simpler to understand by doing, like much of fencing.

As far as doing this within the strong of the blades, here blades should be regarded as flat(s), and Siber’s phrase may be modified more exactingly as “within the flat-strong of the foe’s blade”. No fighter should practice as if the edges of his sword were meant to strike the edges of the foe’s sword – that is what the flats are for, if not the shield. Indeed, edges are meant to strike the foe.

For example, JLSR tell the longswordsman that from binding after thwarter:

...schlag in am schwert mit gekreutzten armen hinder seines schwertß klingen...

...strike in at the sword with crossed-arms and behind his sword-blade...

And JLSR state furthermore that to forset with crumpler:

...haw im krump zur flechen...

...hew him crumpler to the flats...

Thus arguably “blade” & “flat” seem synonymous when speaking of forsetting and various other techniques in KdF. Again, such interpreting is physics and philology united. Also, to forset in the first place within the strong makes it more likely that you can strike the foe forthwith.

Threaten the hew against him

Strongly advance the shield at him

Overcome him with overloping

This is the remaining triplet. Instead, if you would threaten the hew (droe den hauw) from tresses against the foe in plough, while you strongly advance (verdring) the shield at him, then by your open- stance you coax him to thrust low with hop-step as he withdraws his shield to aid extension, and so by overloping his attack by wrath-hew to his extended arm as you withdraw shield to forset his point as you tread back or switch, and thus overcome (bezwing) him. This same sequence in shown quite clearly by HT. This overloping can be done also against the foe who would underhew the fighter. This sequence exemplifies the use of weaponry apart, as well as misleading (like the second going). Just how one advances the shield is not said, yet I urge the fighter refrain from use of PK’s overextended arm, as it is infirm & intractable – rather try HT’s outreaching arm, as it is flexible & winding-ready.

In all work tread roundabout

Thus the daring fellow wins out

The same as dealt with already.

The fourth going

This may begin as fighter wards in ox and foe wards in roof.

Thrust the ox through

With two big steps

You thrust (stos) your sword out of ox (ochßenn) through the foe, driven not simply by your arm alone but with your whole body as your legs take you forth two big steps (zwienn schrittenn groß) to charge over him. You can do this by stabbing him with sword in the first step, and slamming him with shield in the second step – or by ramming him with sword & shield twained before you like a steely wedge – perhaps while holding your dagger in your shield-hand as well (see “roses”, dwl in poem). WP seems to show similar thrusts from ox.

Wind and counter-wind

Swiftly make the skull-hew

However, if the foe forsets with shield and overhews with sword, then you must wind that strike away with your shield as you tread back, and counter-wind (wider windt) your sword up above to roof as you tread forth to make the skuller. The principle of winding in after-time to renew your attack is hence underscored. Perhaps here it is helpful to consider OE windan meaning “flying, waving, circling (in the air)”. Siber’s wider windt (counter-wind) with sword may have analogy to JLSR’s wind gegen (wind against) in his first and sixth stücke. Here the counter-wind makes for an overhew; but at other times if your foe winds against you then you counter-wind your point to thrust. Note in the transcript that the windt after geschwindt seems needlessly redundant if not nonsequiter.

Strike that hitter straight away

In the belly and upon the neck

Yet, if foe forsets again with shield and would then strike you by hew or thrust, then after “avoiding” with tread back, you should tread forth again and strike (Schlag) that unfriendly hitter straight away with your sword in the belly by thrust, and as he folds over, upon the neck by slash, hence after-time countering. Such belly-thrusts are also seen in WP, HT and PK. Now “avoiding” is the great unspoken presence of KdF fight-books. It is the unnamed yet logical outrider of many other named moves in the fight-books, and is worthy alone. Avoiding is simply “dodging” – the fighter keeps from being stricken by not being there. By turning, twisting or treading he makes a “void” where he was, and hence where the foe’s strike harmlessly now goes. However, avoiding can and should set up other moves – letting you flow away from a strike to drive a counter-strike. Avoiding is found in JLSR longsword as what one may paraphrase as laß nider (netherletting) – the idea being that the fighter lets the foe’s strike go down unhindered to its nullifying nadir, by simply treading or shifting out of harm’s way. JLSR also associate this with “nextraiding” (dwl – full quote there). Such de facto implication of avoiding is found throughout KdF sources. Thus you must not be afraid to sense when avoiding should be done, even when Siber does not come right out and say it. The aforegoing three strikes – hew, thrust, slash – are the drei wunder (three-wonders) of KdF.

In all work tread roundabout

Thus the daring fellow wins out

As dealt with before.

The fifth going

This may begin as fighter wards in long-point and foe wards in tresses.

Stab the long-point through Withdraw stab again then morte

The foe wrath-hews, and withdraws his shield as he treads forth, so you stab the long-point (langenn ortt) through simply by hop-step and up-tilt of your sword to let him thirl himself as you shift shield to cover high near body. Now long-point (langenn ortt) is a ward whereby you stand right-leg forward and hold forth your sword angled downward & point aimed between foe’s feet, with short-edge upwards & hilt before the right-hip, with shield held next to the hilt & facing outside the shield-arm. From long-point you can stop-thrust against any overhew – though like anything, it should not be thought sure-fire. WP shows long-point as septima or longort (long-point) – and also calls it once albersleiben (fools-body); and similarly JLSR call it alber (fool) for longsword. Siber’s long-point is apparently like the alber or yßen pfortt (fool or iron-gate) of Andreas; and is similar to a ward shown in JS; yet it is unlike Siber’s own “iron-gate” (dwl). In the sense of fool, this ward indeed seeks to fool the foe into attacking, to which the fighter counters. Long-point may seem too limited in its offence, however as WP shows, one can underhew therefrom, not just thrust.

If the foe avoids or forsets your thrust, then you withdraw (zück) your sword to undergripped “half- swording” as you tread back; wherefrom you stab again from below with tread forth to some opening; and as you withdraw you shift hilt-hand to grasp blade’s sweet-spot and let go with shield-hand as you carry through to swing it hilt-first from above to then morte (mortt) foe with pommel and/or crossguard as you tread back. Note that Siber’s zück can mean not just “withdrawing” but rather “pulling (back)” or “tugging” (dwl); and is analogous to “drawing (from sheath)”. JLSR use the word in this sense sometimes.

Now half-swording is to strike with both hands holding the sword sort of like a cudgel or staff, whereby the shield-hand grips or clamps shield and blade together, the rim of your shield locked against the cross, thus to lend might and accuracy to stabbing or slashing. I have interpreted this by back-tracing from what is required to arrive sensibly at the later morte. Half-swording is done seldomly with sword & shield, though it is found in JLSR & PK as halbschwert; and is seen in JS, where the blade is utilised to slash. With longsword, half-swording is done mostly and often in armoured fighting, found in Hundfeld of Codex Speyer as the kurzschwert (shortened-sword) (not to be confused with “shortsword”), described by JLSR, and seen frequently in HT as gewauppertort or brentschirn (armed- point or firepoker).

The “morte-strike” is an inverted sort of half-swording, done by gripping at the sweet-spot of the blade to smite with the pommel like a mace and/or the cross like a mattock – and in this way you can also rake & catch with the cross as you swing. Siber’s mortt is akin to the longsword version of mortschlag or mortstreich (murder-strike) in HT, to the tunrschlag or dünderschleg (thunder-stroke) of HT and Lew of Codex Speyer respectively, described by Lignitzer in Danzig Fechtbuch (1452 AD), and is seen in Gladiatoria, Mair, & Liberi. Admittedly, Siber stands alone in advocating this compared to the other aforesaid sword & buckler sources. Your shield should run cover for you during these moves, a help-mate to its sword. Despite modern historical-commonplace to the contrary, this sort of thing can be done, and was done in the past. The fighter may want to do half-swording & morte-striking, or fencing in general, while wearing some sort of leather gloves for armed sparring and so forth, as shown throughout WP & JS. Admittedly, this part of the going seems as strange and haphazard as the infamous sixth stücke of JLSR, however unsimilar otherwise.

Let the blind-hew bounce

So may you go well and flow

As you ward in long-point and the foe wards in tresses, you may choose instead to hop-step and strike by blind-hew (plintt hauw) to the right-side of foe’s head, and let it bounce (prellen) down into a strike of his advanced left-leg as you tread back. I take blind-hew to mean a diagonal underhew, more of a slap or slash, to the foe’s head which “blind-sides” him, and by letting it bounce, strike and tread, so may you go well and flow (wellen) in the fight.

As here the blinder lets you attack the foe in before-time and set up a more decisive strike, though at other chances it lets you rebuff his attack in during-time or break out of binding. It can be done after a wrath-hew. Naturally, “bouncing” to a lower opening is congruent with and aided by gravity and blade- flex, and thus is germane to “flowing”. Note importantly, that here a leg-strike is made, which was indeed a serious sort of cut to make, despite what modern-anachronism conceits say otherwise – just ask Jarnac. WP’s Priest tells of using his devious strike of nucken (nodding) in similar manner to this blinder. Leg-strikes are in WP, JLSR, PK, JS & GS – and are common enough to KdF.

The whole idea of flowing is that if you miss with a given strike you should nonetheless be moving such that you may flow into driving something else, whether strike or forset or otherwise. You are fencing not just out of but into and through the wards, hopefully moving with harmony of body – revisiting the idea of how one drives the aforesaid speeder.

This going broaches the subject of striking: as you may have noticed, whether hauw or stich is used, they are not always strictly used to mean a cleaving strike with the edge (as the former) or a thrusting strike with the point (as the latter). Such is the nature of much description in fightbooks of KdF, and any “ideal” consistency should not be expected 100% of the time – such inconsistency should be accepted for what it is, much as the nature of fighting itself is always inconsistent.

Hang against thus soon Hintertread and speed against

At the head and to the bread-box

Thus you make of him a real gawk

If the foe rebuffs all this and wrath-hews, then hang (Heng) against thus soon, which is to make a quick recovery into “hanging”, a ward whereby you stand left-leg forward and hold your sword-hilt to your right aloft and point downward, blade advanced and angled diagonally across and before your torso, your sword-hand palm out, knuckles up, thumb down, with your shield crossed over and paired with your hilt and facing the foe and covering your sword-hand, such that the dome & flat shed glidingly and flexibly the foe’s overhew. The “hanging-ward” is akin to the aforesaid bow-ward, but is more exclusively for forsetting than the other. WP shows a sort of hanging as krucke (crook), and likewise JS; it is shown by HT; and is ubiquitous to KdF longsword under various names (hengen or hengenort). It is of note that hanging is the ward which is naturally made when a fighter draws his sword from either opposite or same side. Anyone who has done so from a sheath suspended from a simple baldric can attest to this – though it helps to toss such suspension aside for unhindered fencing. From hanging you can shift easily into the ox or boar (dwl). Now you forset the strike of the passing foe as you hintertread (Hinder tritt) – whereby you tread your right-leg crossed behind your left-leg – while you speed a hew against the foe, at the back of his head while you lower your advanced shield to cover your body, and then forthwith return-step to middlehew to his bread-box or belly – to strike him high then low with the “old one-two”. This hintertread is perhaps early proof of German swordsmanship already having what later would be called volte or incartata by rapier fencers (albeit for foining). It is also of note that “hintertreading” is utilised in wrestling – as a step behind oneself or foe, to enter or throw or counter – as per hindertretten of HT’s wrestling. In any case, if you have done this well, then you make a real gawk (gauch) or “fool, lout, dolt” of the foe, for his fencing is no better than that of a Gaukler (clown or juggler). Some wisdom regarding most any field is summed up in this old phrase: The gawk gainsays the unbeguiled as gauche.

In all work tread roundabout

Thus the daring fellow wins out

As dealt with erstwhile.

The sixth going

This may begin as fighter wards in roof and foe wards in tresses. From roof reach and fare through

With overwinding ward yourself

The foe wrath-hews so you shift your sword from roof, over and down, as you raise your shield to ward now in left-side bow, and as you forset foe’s strike you reach (lang) inside it with your advanced shield and fare through (durch var) by hop-step. Now “through-faring” is really just closing and entering. It lets you do overwinding (verwindenn) around the outside of the foe’s sword-arm with your shield as his strike wanes, to grapple and trap his arm between your shield-arm and body, in what is really a bit of wrestling, while finally you strike him as you may from roof with your sword – and thus you ward yourself (dich bewar). Siber’s overwinding from left-side bow seems akin to HT’s übergryffen (overgripping) from a similar but unnamed ward. Such “sword-taking”, which is to grapple and/or trap the sword-arm, is seen in WP, HT & PK. Any of this amounts to wrestling . You can overwind with help of a “shield-hew” (dwl). Siber’s durch var seems the same as durchtreten (through- treading) of WP; and the same as einlaufen (inloping) of HT & JS sword & buckler and JLSR longsword. Perhaps Siber’s offen stan (stand open) could be regarded as counterpart to his durch var (fare through).

Thwart through him really soon

Then blind-hew speed anew

Beat the point into his breast

Finally he has lost

Instead, as you ward in roof or iron-gate (dwl) and the foe wards in roof or tresses, you thwart (zwürch) through the foe before-time or within his wrath-hew during-time with tread forth right, thus really soon (gar baldt), to strike him by sword below your shield as it covers high-left. Again, compare to JLSR’s longsword:

Zwerch benimpt, was vom tag dar kümpt

Thwarter counters what comes from roof

You then blind-hew by return in-line (out of “nearby” – dwl), with tread forth or back, and carry it through to speed anew (wider schnall) by swinging sword behind & around to beat the point (ortt) from above into foe’s breast, while you either stand your ground or gather-step, driving him backwards & down to ground – thus finally the foe has lost (verlüst). Note that this thwarter differs from others aforesaid, not a high underhew, but a truer middlehew (dwl), above or below foe’s shield; and that the “down-beating” is something of a pouncer (dwl), its finality similar to a half-sword thrust with longsword shown dramatically in Wallerstein and by Dürer, which one may prefer here as variant. You may have noticed that Siber seems to advise strike-combinations, like unto virtually all KdF, and universal to all sensible fencing worldwide, notably Musashi, among others.

This sequence is about taking or keeping the before-time – you hit foe with so much that he knows not what to do.

In all work tread roundabout

Thus the daring fellow wins out

As dealt with afore.

Finis, etc.

The six goings are now finished, with the poem following.

Overhew is for stabs

Underhew breaks strikes

Middlehew in the width

Now look out for what that means

Rather straightforward stuff here: Siber offers general advice in his poem of tactical techniques, of technical tactics.

When the foe makes stabs (stich) at you (to pierce), then you can counter it by overhew (Ober haüw), which is any down-driving hew from above – wrath, crumple, skull, and so forth. You may use your overhew here by treading back and long-edge forsetting foe at his weak-flat.

When the foe makes strikes (schlecht) at you (to cut or cleave), typically by overhew or middlehew, then a fitting counter is the underhew (Unter hauw), which is any up-driving hew from below. You may use your underhew here to break (bricht) foe’s strike by treading forth and long-edge striking his body. Any underhew is helped by pushing the sword with your arms & torquing with your whole body.

Note that my rendering of schlecht as “strikes” is a judgement-call. Perhaps there is also a pun here on schlecht as “simply” – for as Nietzsche remarks in Genealogy of Morals, both schlecht and schlicht meant “simple, basic, plain” in the centuries before the Thirty Years War (1618-48 AD), bereft of any negative connotation (bad, ill, poor), as admittedly some maintain. In context of varying dialects and differing parts of speech, a brief survey of some KdF reveals: JLSR seem to use schlecht to mean either “strike” or “simple”, schlöcht for “strike”, schlechen for “strikes”, and schlachen or schlagen for “striking”; HT uses schlag or schlecht to mean “strike”; Lew uses schlecht or schleg to mean “strike”; and Lignitzer uses slecht, schleg and schlagk interchangeably for “strike”. In HT’s wrestling schlecht or schlag can mean “punch, slam, sweep”. I chose to render Siber’s schlecht as “strikes” because it makes for typical counterpart to “stabs”: as this matter of words can be put through ordeal of deeds, one can find the simple truth of the efficacy of through-faring & underhewing the foe to “break” or counter his stikes as most settling of doubt. In any event, the countering of stabs and strikes by Siber’s means are common enough in KdF.

Now the middlehew (Mittel hauw) is simply to tread and hew horizontally through the middle of the foe generally with long-edge, in the width (weÿtte) of the fight and foe to end it readily. In the broader sense of “wideness, range, expanse, breadth”, Siber tells us here that you should be familiar with how the middlehew allows you to find your weapon’s best striking-range, going across the breadth of your utmost reach. Again, proper footwork is needed to make any of these strikes mightily.

All KdF have various hewing which are over, under, and middle.

And do look out for (lüg) what that means – do this yet let not the foe do this to you! A simple yet hard thing to learn – not only to wit but to understand the meaning of the basic lessons, as these are best to know and are known best by doing them through earnest praxis at arms with skilled partners. The translation of lüg as “looking out for” is supported by similar use in southwestern German dialects as “looking out” or “peering out”.

In changing-hew seek his folly For the forsetting spy

Pounce-hew therein by winding

His bare face you want for finding

The changing-hew (wechsell haüw) or “changing” is simply to drive a given strike at one opening, only to change or shift its course midway to another (if not the opposite) opening altogether and thereby you seek his folly (geüche – akin to gauch). Changing can be done in any timing. This can apply to your unhindered strike, or especially if you spy (spee) that the foe makes forsetting (versatzüng) of your strike, then by winding get over or around his sword or shield and then pounce-hew (Stürtz haüw) the foe, which is simply to strike from above with your hilt raised high to let you drive a diving-thrust of the point & edges either high or low. Pouncing says it all, for you fall upon the foe like a wild hunting beast, your sword plunging into the prey as you beset him. Here you want to find any opening between or behind the foe’s shield and body, perhaps bestly to his bare (plöß) face. Note that here plöß is an adjective meaning “bare”, yet is of course related to the idea of “opening”. A permutation of pounce- hew is in WP, and is utilised in JLSR & PK. Finding openings between shield & body seems obvious enough in WP. The technique of changing-hew embodies the tactic of misleading. The pouncer can be done readily enough from ox, roof or bow.

So from out the skuller

Strike with short-edge there

Invert pounce-hew beneath

There him stab and teach

Hence to change from out the skuller (scheittler), as if you were to make this typical long-edge overhew, you instead wind your blade mid-air to strike the foe with the uncouth short-edge (kurtz schnid) thwarter, there high to the side of foe’s head instead of top. You may do this with help of thumb-press, as the “short-edge” is the one which faces your wrist, as opposed to the oft-used “long-edge”, which faces your knuckles. You may instead invert pounce-hew (verkere stürtz haüw), by changing sword from downward-thrust above & outside foe’s shield into an upward-thrust beneath his shield, by scooping the pommel down and point upwards, there to stab (s[t]ich) his body and teach (lere) foe a lesson he shall not forget. Siber’s “inverting” (verkere) is a form of winding, and thrusts thereby are driven like “spiraling”. WP shows inverting, but does not seem to name it, though his vertere (actually his winding with shield) is linguistically tempting. This pouncer turned low-thrust is the same as what happens in the fifth stück of JLSR:

Item, vß dem stürtzhaw: thu, alß so du im zu der lincken sytten über sinen schilt wollest stechen; vnd far mitt dem ort vnden durch, vnd stich im inwendig sines schilts zu dem lybe. Vnnd - "indes" - wind vff din lincke sytten.

Thus, out of the pounce-hew: do it as if thou willst stab him to the left side above his shield; rather fare through below with the point, and stab him to the body inside his shield. And – “during-time” – wind at thy left-side.

And like that play you may follow with a long-edge leg-strike, allowing you to flow into the iron-gate (addressed forthwith). JLSR term other similar longsword moves as verker. The inverting here may be driven from ox through plough; or if reversed, from boar through unicorn (both dwl). I determined that sich was a scribal error, a misspelling of stich.

In iron-gate make wary

Fare up with the point

Offer at times in unicorn

Other gambits are to make wary (nÿm war) in ward of iron-gate (ÿssen [pf]ort), to bait the foe to overhew at upper openings. Just what Siber meant by the ward of iron-gate is uncertain, perhaps idiosyncratic. The “iron-gate” that I advocate is a ward whereby you stand left-leg forward, shield advanced facing the foe, sword-hilt held at right-hip with curled wrist, blade pointing back & downward, and above & parallel to the thigh (not the shin) – your blade ready to swing like a ferrous portal to halt the foe. WP shows iron-gate as quinta; something like it is seen in HT (which differs as point-forward open-stance); it is seen in JS; and seems described by GS as bearing right-side ward. One may make the obvious devastating underhew from iron-gate, but as WP shows, one may also thrust.

You may find yourself in iron-gate after an overhew or speeder. Though hard to fence from iron-gate, the utility of its deception and the might of the underhews, leg-strikes and thrusts which the fighter may make therefrom are often underappreciated if not misunderstood. By iron-gate you can bait the foe to overhew upper openings which you can counter; or from it you can easily shift into hanging. Note that I assume this passage has a scribal error – thus I render ÿssen ort as if it were misspelling of ÿssen pfort. I think that the scribe got ahead of himself and mistakenly wrote the same word twice – wrongly the first anticipating correctly the second. This seems reasonable to me, as the two ort are aligned upon virtually the same vertical axis in the manuscript; and because eisen pforte is prevalent in KdF sources.

Another gambit, which you may do out of iron-gate, is to tread forth or back and fare up (uff far) with the point (mit dem ort) of the sword angled high above in twain with shield to move into or to forset and/or strike into the ward of unicorn (einhorn) – which I think is a ward whereby you bring the sword & shield together to highest angled apex with point forward, the arms extended straight, right-leg for- ward, and the body perhaps leaning forth a bit to allow its looming tilt – like the horn of the mythic horse. Thereby you offer (Bringst...dar) your lower openings instead, as at times (auch moll) you reckon needful. By unicorn you can offtake to hewing or slashing, wind into pouncer, or simply drop your blade or shield to break a thrust; it is really the inverting of long-point. Lowering the unicorn presents the threat of the point at foe’s face, like an extended plough. WP shows unicorn as superior langort (high long-point), and so does JS.

With either iron-gate or unicorn you can set up foe for some sort of counter, and naturally you can use these either separately or together by changing, to achieve counter-strike. Moving from iron-gate into unicorn can break a skuller only then to drive a skuller (as driving through kron or “crown” in JLSR longsword) – while moving from unicorn into iron-gate can break a leg-strike only to drive the same at foe (as described by GS). Though each can lure the striking foe to harm, both iron-gate and unicorn are tricky and take some cunning, and perhaps be not held too long. These tend to set traps for the foe to be stricken during-time or after-time.

Lastly, the counterpart of iron-gate for the left-side should be noted here, although it is neither named nor described in Siber’s lore, though I found it happened in my practice, which here we call “nearby” (neben of KdF) – a ward whereby you stand right-leg forward, sword-arm across body with curled wrist, hilt at left-hip, blade pointing back & down, and above & almost parallel to the thigh, your shield- arm crossed over your body to cover it with shield. You may end up in it after driving wrather or speeder; from it you may blind-hew or underhew; and you can drive back & forth between it and iron- gate by leg-strikes. This ward is similar to the start of sword-drawing from the sheath of your baldric. The “nearby-ward” should be treated as tricky yet fleeting, like iron-gate – and middlehews can be driven betwixt both wards. One may crumple-hew or wrath-hew from both iron-gate and nearby. WP shows nearby as prima; it is seen in JS and HT (1459 AD-colour); and features in the falchion of HT and Dürer.

Serve roses inside the roundling

I guess at roses (rosen): it may mean “dagger & buckler held in twain”, especially if, perhaps, there were bucklers that were faceted to look like roses, combined with the “thorn” of the dagger. Now you serve (din) the foe this metaphorically ironic bouquet by forsetting & striking inside his roundling (redlin), which seems simply to mean “buckler” – thus you attack some opening behind his own shield, a tactic familiar to KdF, or perhaps you dig with the “thorn” or your dagger just inside his buckler to its hand. Naturally, if roses is such, then along with his sword the fighter makes a triple threat of weaponry against his foe. Such unnamed gripping of both dagger & buckler is seen in HT, where it forsets. If redlin hence Rädelin are the same as Rodeln, which Egenolph (1529 AD) equates with Bucklier in his six stücke for sword & buckler (which virtually copy those of JLSR), any of these words implying “little- wheel”, then we have something of a match. Obviously, the dagger was the most common side-arm of Europe for centuries, either side of Siber, a weapon that anyone could own. Tug the tresses against good sense

Here Siber finally states by word something which has featured prominently in this essay – “tresses”. I think that Siber’s tresses (tressen) is a ward whereby you stand left-leg forward & hold your sword behind the right-shoulder hilt-high & point down – thus like the long hair of a woman which flows down her back – with shield held advanced chest-height before you facing the foe. Thus from it overhews like wrather may be driven, and in fact, I think that what Siber calls “tresses” would be the same as what other KdF sources tend to call zornhut (wrath-ward). Tresses lets you “rev-up” for a really powerful strike.

However, Siber offers a tactical warning: that to tug (zück) the tresses, thus your sword – either in effort to mislead or to pull back to strike again – is done against good sense (gen guten sin). If you ward there already, then it is faulty to try to mislead so far from the action; and if you withdraw there, then you may be too far back to quickly strike again. Either case is folly against a fast wily foe who may smite you during-time. Perhaps he suggests that tresses, however threatening, is better as a starting attack than for recovery and renewed attack.

WP shows tresses as quarta; HT shows it unnamed but quite clearly, and it seems described by JLSR & GS. Perhaps the name of “tresses” displays parallel thinking to that of Fiore’s name for a similar stance called posta di donna (lady’s-ward). Although tresses may seem somewhat limited, one can strike wrather or crumpler and then flow into pouncer – much as one can do so from roof.

Hit with shield-hew

Wing goes above

Waker will stand

If you hit with (mit trifft) shield-hew (Schilt hauw), then you simply strike the foe, his sword and/or shield with your shield (smiting with dome or punching/hacking with rim), to attack him in a somewhat unexpected way. Shield-hew can let you strike him directly, knock away his shield, make an opening to strike, or set up overwinding. This is seen in WP as schiltslach (shield-strike), HT as an elbow-shove; is clearly seen in PK & JS; and it is advocated by GS. You may next quickly drive from the ward of “boar” (eber of KdF), as gleaned by back-tracing, to make the wing (Flÿgell). The wing is either bent arm and shield together flipped upwards, or is shield-arm wound into crossed-twained – whichever, it goes above (o[b]en gist) to forset any strike therefrom or to flank, and lets a thrust follow through at foe as you tread forth. Note that I determined oren to be in error, thinking oben (above) was intended. The “boar-ward” is not named by Siber, but is something I found suited to this specific part and elsewhere in Siber’s lessons – so I include it here as salutary to the fighter. The “boar” is a ward whereby you stand left-leg forward and hold sword low, waist-height at hip, pointing at the foe – ready to strike like swinish tusk. It is the inverting of ox, but can be thought of as a cocked-back plough, though differing legs are forward. Indeed, Andreas states that plough for sword is the same as boar for falchion – and as such, Dürer shows it once for falchion & shield. The boar is a vicious ward from which to fight, and again is a natural to fall into after sword-drawing, and one can sort of hide the sword behind it. This ward is like one in WP, and can be back-traced in HT & PK.

So anyway, from this boar you can drive your sword straight into foe as let by the lofting of your wing. Realise that if you move not your shield in proper timing, you could stab your shield-arm with your own sword. Such use of wing not only lets through your waiting thrust, yet covers against a skull-hew, and lets you follow with a second and downward shield-hew (smiting with its rim), if you must. It should be said that shield-hew can be utilised in this sort of fighting quite often and from any angle; and it reminds us that the shield can be a weapon itself – and of course combined technique is the way to go.

Despite the appeal of such complex gambits, forget not basic gambits like the waker (Wecker), which is simply the crumpler, and is so called by Andreas – for it awakens the foe to the side of his head as he least expects it – as it will let you stand (stan) your ground simply and decisively.

Driving and striking will go

Erstcoming and nextraiding beknown

Speeding overlope and slashes as well

Now to finish the fight-lore: Siber recalls fundamentals such as driving and striking of the sword are to be done as you go – as you move, tread, pass – by footwork and torque, not by staying still; and indeed will go (wil gan) together, for you should drive your strikes with your whole body if needed. Driving (Treiben) your striking (Streichen) well is done by treading from balance into balance as you hit with your weapon with full might in needed timing. Some think the best way to achieve this is by moving weaponry first followed by body when driving forth; and moving body first followed by weaponry when driving back – compare GS’s true time & false time. Driving and striking well are the same as flowing well in fight.

The timings of before, during and after are dealt with in this couplet. We may take erstcoming (e komen) at face-value, as another way to call the tactic of striking in before-time, which WP calls prior, and which HT calls by name of zulegen (onlaying) for his longsword. WP tells his Student the importance of before-time or erstcoming: Unde qui prior vadit prior erit ad faciendum dampnum suo aduersario.

Thus he who steps first and struggles first causes damage to his adversary.

However, nextraiding (noch reissen) takes some translative explaining. Firstly, noch has kinship to “nigh” or “near” (OE neah), as well as with the superlative “next” (OE niehst). Secondly, reissen has kinship to “raiding” or “rushing” (OE ræsan). Let us explore the history of the latter: considering context of the lore’s time and place, the Alemannisch word reissen is most likely of same meaning as Preußdeutsch word reysen, which as utilised throughout the German-speaking world of 1491 AD would mean “raiding”. By that time it would have been used with that sense for nearly three centuries hitherto, not only as witnessed by the manifold documents and chronicles of the Teutonic Order, yet by most all Germanic Ritterschaft as well, who would have known and taken to this meaning if they did not already speak it in their manifold dialects, since they had been ongoing partners in the frequent crusading forays and campaigns east of Prussia, whether the knighthood was Alemannic or otherwise. This reysen could also mean “rushing” or “racing”, which are accurate in a looser yet older sense. The cognate OE ræsan is of interest to this meaning, as the 755 AD entry from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us. It relates how King Cynewulf fought Earl Cyneheard, for EC came spoiling to avenge his brother’s death by KC at the door of KC’s mistress, so KC:

...þa ut ræsde on hine ond hine miclum gewundode...

...thereout rushed upon him and him mightily wounded...

And it is of great note that by the end of the 14th CentAD the Middle English reisen most definitely had the same meaning as reysen of Preußdeutsch as witnessed by the Knight of Canterbury Tales:

Full oft time he hadde the boord bigonne

Aboven alle nacions in Pruce;

In Lettou had he reised, and in Ruce...

Fully oft-times he had the champion-seat Mostly in the nation of Prussia;

In Latvia he had raided, and in Russia...

Now, a superlatively literal rendering of noch into “next”, put together with a contextual rendering of reissen into “raiding” gives the fighter the holistically right tactical idea: nextraiding (noch reissen) – the foe attacks so the fighter counter-attacks into it or avoids then attacks – hence “raids next” – thus striking in during-time or after-time. JLSR state nachraisen superbly for longsword versus both hew and thrust:

Aber ain nachraisen:

Item wann er dir von oben zu hawet laß er dann sein schwert mitt dem haw nider gen zu der erden so rayß im nach mitt ainem haw oben zu dem kopfe ee er mit dem schwertt uff kumpt Oder will er dich stechen so mörk die wil er das schwert zu im zücht zu dem stich so rayß im nach und stich in ee wan er sinen stich vol bringt.

Thus another nextraiding:

When he hews at you from above, then let his sword with the hew go nether to the Earth, so raid him next with one of the hews from above to the head before he comes up with the sword – or if you mark that he would stab, because he withdraws the sword to thrust, then raid him next and stab him before he fulfills his stab.

And of course these tactics of erstcoming (striking before-time) and nextraiding (striking during-time or after-time) should be so natural and customary to you that they are well beknown (der sytt – literally “custom or habit”).

And lastly some germane techniques, perhaps here together at the end because maybe they were favourites of Siber: Speeding, the overlope and the ever useful slashes (die schnidtt) most definitely should be known as well.

That is basic lore

To which to turn The basic lore (gemeÿne lere) has now been told unto you – to it you may turn (kere) in time of need. Every attack has its counter, and every counter has its attack. This is the stück und bruch of HT and all KdF.

It makes wisdom

Which art and knowledge praise

Siber speaks of these virtues in personifying verse, common to the poetic speech of his time. The greater sense that I have gained from Siber is that the wisdom (wÿssen) of the fight means the fighter needs knowledge (kündent) of technique and tactics yet must also be a creative fearless improviser who thus understands it as the art (künst) of fighting. If it all works together rightly, then in effect these all praise (prÿssen) one another. Siber’s fight-lore ends.

*****

Martin Siber’s Fight-Lore of 1491 AD a prose rendering as training-regimen

This prose rendering of mine is more or less a severe abridgement of my interpretation, distilled for the swordsman. Thus it requires that one has made himself familiar already with Siber’s techniques & tactics. This training-regimen should lead one to realise the goings, which should likewise lead one to sparring. Good luck!

Foreword: Master Martin Siber has made and set this new summary of sword & buckler fencing. It is a veritable teaming of skirmishes fought by many masters of the art of fighting. It is dealt and set into six goings, which are matches or bouts that Siber and/or other masters fought. And in the summary are wards, or dynamic stances, with colourful names such as ox and plough, and strikes like the mighty skull-hew – not presented in isolated manner, as it seems they were by an earlier unnamed unknown book, but rather here together in explanation to help us learn them as united techniques of changing tactics in the fight. So heave oneself at the foreword, the poem, and the six goings – altogether making Siber’s summary of deadly sword & buckler fight-lore.

Whoever will earn honour before princes and before lords in fighting with the sword would do well to follow Siber’s fight-lore – and it may even make the Fighter good and holy. The six goings, which are like set-plays for training two swordsmen, have wards which are wieldy & useful – for they teach the Fighter the cunning techniques and tactics of many goodly masters. The lore is based upon how these sundry masters fight all over Europe – whether in Hungary, Bohemia & Italy; or in France, England & Alemania (where it seems Siber lived); or in Russia, Prussia, Greece, Holland, Provence & Swabia.

In the goings the Fighter treads or steps mostly to the right where he can stay readily behind his shield – so if he treads left then he should remember to mislead, as such exposes him more readily to the Foe’s strikes. In stabbing the Fighter presses strongly by putting his body into it and/or treading so he may achieve it well. When Fighter sights for openings through a window of space around or between his weaponry, then he does it best when he stands open, and when he sees through it, then he goes to the opening with his sword to strike or stab swiftly. Such offence-as-defence makes the Fighter hard to kill. In the work or infighting of binding, winding, and wrestling, the Fighter treads roundabout – thus the daring fellow wins out. Now some ethical yet practical advice: If the Fighter would raise and strengthen himself by his fighting, then he must have the right to fight, some valid reason to do so. The Fighter must ward himself from great wrath – whether the great wrath-hew or the unbalanced feeling of great wrath within his mind – and he must bring forsetting to such, which he may achieve well when in all his fighting he is nimble of body & mind. This foreword ends.

First Going: Fighter wards in plough and Foe wards in plough. Fighter speeds weak of his sword to his right, down back and around, as he hop-steps same way, to overhew at Foe while he also winds through amid the fight with his shield to cover and/or forset if Foe thrusts. However, if Foe treads back & avoids, then Fighter treads forth to overwhelm him by doing speeder with might to both sides twice, a flurry of windmilling to repel or remove Foe. Yet if Foe avoids these and retreats to ward again in plough, then Fighter wards now in bow, and treads as he overwinds Foe’s shield strongly to thrust- strike his sword from bow swiftly, and his shield either knocks away Foe’s shield or runs cover below. In all work Fighter treads roundabout, and thrusts with this right-side bow.

Second Going: Fighter wards in roof and Foe wards in roof. Foe overhews so Fighter treads forth as he crumples within his strong at the weak of Foe’s blade to forset & strike Foe in one move as he covers high with shield – yet if Fighter fails because Foe binds or forsets, then Fighter winds through his sword with marking of next opening to thrust while he covers with shield. Yet if this fails and now Fighter wards in plough & Foe wards in long-point and then hop-steps to stab low, then Fighter winds away the strike with his shield as he overlopes Foe’s attack with his forweaponed point and knop – his ready sword – to stab Foe in the face as he either hintertreads or stays put & torques body to drive it. Yet if Foe forsets this with shield up from below, then Fighter goes with it to catch Foe’s shield with the cross hooking lower rim, to work and fight, to push it up away as if to hew with blade from above, yet Fighter should bethink the misleading knop and simply hammer it upon Foe’s top to make him ill as he hop-steps inside and stifles Foe’s sword with shield. As this going tells, in all work Fighter treads roundabout, thus the daring fellow wins out.

Third Going: Fighter wards in roof or tresses and Foe wards in roof. Foe overhews by wrather or skuller so Fighter squints with short-edge at what comes from roof as he hop-steps, side-steps or stands ground and withdraws shield to cover high, to stop Foe’s attack and strike him. Yet if Fighter wards in roof or tresses and Foe wards in roof & strikes by crumpler, then it goes not through Fighter’s thwarter to Foe’s upper openings, with shield shifted to cover high behind head as he treads back. Fighter must look into Foe’s business to deem what gambit Foe betrays from roof, to reckon whether to strike with squinter or thwarter from his high-ward. Fighter does the squint-hew with might by hop- step and/or torque. If Fighter wards in tresses and Foe overhews from tresses then he forsets him by wrather with tread or switch, and quickly offtakes from the hard-bind rather nimbly within the strong of the blades, and precisely shifts or winds to strike Foe’s upper openings as shield covers hilt-hand, hence weaponry twained, as he treads, stays put or side-steps. Instead, if Fighter threatens the hew from tresses against Foe in plough while he strongly advance the shield at him, then by Fighter’s open-stance he coaxes Foe to thrust low with hop-step and withdraw shield, and so by overloping Foe’s attack with wrath-hew to his extended arm as he withdraws shield to forset the point with tread back or switch, hence weaponry apart, thus the Fighter overcomes Foe. Yes, in all work Fighter treads roundabout, thus the daring fellow wins out.

Fourth Going: Fighter wards in ox and Foe wards in roof. Fighter thrusts the ox through with two big steps, to charge over Foe – either smiting him with sword & then slamming him with shield; or ramming him with sword & shield twained in wedge. If Foe forsets with shield and overhews with sword, then Fighter winds it away with shield as he treads back and counter-winds his sword up above and treads forth to swiftly make the skull-hew; yet if Foe forsets with shield then strikes by hew or thrust, then Fighter avoids by tread back, only to tread forth to strike that unfriendly hitter straight away with sword, by thrust in belly and by slash upon neck. Naturally, in all work Fighter treads roundabout, thus the daring fellow wins out.

Fifth Going: Fighter wards in long-point and Foe wards in tresses. Foe wrath-hews and withdraws shield so Fighter stabs the long-point through simply by hop-step forth and up-tilt of his sword to let Foe thirl himself, as he covers high with shield near body. If Foe avoids or forsets, then Fighter withdraws to half-swording as he treads back, stabs-again from below with tread forth, then strikes from above by morte as he treads back. Instead, Fighter in long-point hop-steps and strikes by blind- hew to head of Foe in tresses, then lets sword bounce down into strike of Foe’s advanced leg as he treads back – and so Fighter may go well and flow. If Foe rebuffs all this and wrath-hews again, then Fighter hangs sword & shield against it thus soon, forsets sword of passing Foe, hintertreads while lowering his shield to cover while he speeds sword against him, at the back of Foe’s head and then return-steps to middlehew or stab Foe in bread-box – and thus Fighter makes of Foe a real gawk. And, in all work Fighter treads roundabout, thus the daring fellow wins out.

Sixth Going: Fighter wards in roof and Foe wards in tresses. Foe wrath-hews from roof Fighter shifts sword over and down as he raises shield to ward now in left-side bow, and as he forsets Foe’s strike he reaches inside with shield and fares through by hop-step, thus by overwinding Foe’s sword-arm with his shield to grapple, and by striking with his sword from roof, Fighter wards himself. Instead, as Fighter wards in roof or iron-gate and the Foe wards in roof or tresses, Fighter thwarts through the Foe before- time or within Foe’s overhew during-time, thus really soon, with tread forth to strike him by sword as shield covers high. Fighter then blind-hews by return in-line out of nearby-ward, with tread forth or back, and carries through to speed anew behind & around to beat the point from above into Foe’s breast, while either standing ground or gather-stepping behind foe to throw him over hip – thus finally the Foe has lost. In all work Fighter treads roundabout, thus the daring fellow wins out.

Poem: This deals with tactics applied to techniques: Overhew is for countering Foe’s stabs, and underhew simply breaks strikes from above by striking Foe, while middlehew thrown in the width of the fight and the Foe, across one’s range, can end it well for the Fighter. Now look out for what that really means – do it and let it not be done to you! In changing-hew seek Foe’s folly by feigning strike to one opening only to shift sword mid-air to another – in this spirit, Fighter should spy for the forsetting of his strike by the Foe, and change it typically into a pounce-hew by winding the blade, perhaps finding his face left bare of shield. Hence to change from out the skuller, Fighter may wind it into thwarter and so strike with the short-edge there to side of Foe’s head instead of top. Fighter may invert pounce-hew by changing sword from thrust above Foe’s shield into thrust beneath it, there to stab his body and teach him fatally. Other gambits are to make wary in iron-gate or conversely nearby, to bait Foe to overhew at upper openings, only to fare up with the point of sword in twain with shield, whether to simply move into or to forset and/or strike into the ward of unicorn, wherefrom Fighter offers lower openings at times instead – and of course reversed. Either way Fighter sets up Foe for some sort of counter, and indeed Fighter can use these luring wards either separately or together by changing, to achieve his counter- strike. Gambits such as when Fighter serves the Foe roses, whereby he forsets & strikes Foe with shield & dagger held together, inside Foe’s own roundling, a triple threat along with sword. More tactical wisdom is that Fighter tugs the tresses against good sense – for to try to trick Foe with such a faraway blade or strike again therefrom may be folly. If Fighter hits Foe with shield-hew, then he may next quickly drive from boar-ward to make the wing, which is either bent arm and shield together flipped upwards or is shield-arm wound into crossed-twained, which goes above to forset Foe’s strike therefrom or to flank, and lets a thrust follow through at Foe, and perhaps another shield-hew. However, despite the appeal of such complex gambits, Fighter must not forget a basic gambit like waker, which is crumpler by another name, as it will let the Fighter stand his ground simply & decisively. So to finish Siber’s fight-lore, the Fighter recalls such fundamentals as: Driving and striking will go and go together – which is simply to drive any strike by treading & torquing, by moving the whole body – the same as flowing well in the fight. The tactics of erstcoming (striking before-time) and nextraiding (striking during-time or after-time) should be so natural to Fighter that they are beknown. And lastly techniques of speeding, the overlope, and the slashes should be known as well. That is the basic lore to which one turns in need – every attack has its counter, and every counter has its attack – and that makes wisdom, which the art of fighting and knowledge praise.

*****

Bibliography:

Primary Sources: The Archaeology of Weapons; Ewart Oakeshott (auth & illus); Barnes & Noble; New York; 1994 (2nd edit)

Codex Speyer (Handschrift M I 29 or Fechtbuch); Hans von Speyer (edit & comp); Beatrix Koll (transcr); (transcript thereof & formerly also facsimile); Almania; 1491; Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg; 2002;

Das Deutsches Wörterbuch; Jacob Grimm (auth) & Wilhelm Grimm (auth); Universität Trier; 2003;

Jörg Wilhalm’s Fechtbuch; Jörg Wilhalm / Sorg / von Huter (auth); Germany; 1523; Bibliotheca Regia Moacensis; Armaria; 2003

Liechtenauer’s Sword & Buckler Teachings; Keith Myers (auth); ARMA Web-Site; 2001;

Medieval Combat; Mark Rector (transl & interp); Hans Talhoffer (auth); Bayern; 1467; Greenhill Books; London; 2000

The Medieval Art of Swordsmanship: Facsimile & Translation of Royal Armouries MS I.33; Jeffrey Forgeng (edit & transl); Chivarly Bookshelf; Union City; 2003 (from 1300)

Medieval Swordsmanship; John Clements (auth); Paladin Press; Boulder; 1998

Meister Hans Thalhofer: Alte Armatur und Ringkunst; Hans Talhoffer (auth); Thott 290 2º; Bayern; 1459; Det Kongelige Bibliotek; Copenhagen; 2003;

The Northern Crusades; Eric Christiansen (auth); Penguin; London; 1997 (2nd edit)

Records of the Medieval Sword; Ewart Oakeshott (auth); Boydell Press; Woodbridge; 1991 Ritterlich Kunst; Sigmund Ringeck (auth); Johannes Liechtenauer (auth); Stefan Dieke (transcr); Mscr. Drsd. C 487; Bayern; 1389 & 1440; Sächsische Landesbibliothek-Dresden; Die Freifechter Webseite; 2001;

Sword & Buckler Plays of Liechtenauer & Ringeck; Jeffrey Hull (transl); unpublished; Oregon; 2004

Walpurgis (Manuscript I.33 or Tower Fechtbuch); Anonymous; No. 14 E iii, No. 20, D. vi.; Germany; 1300; Royal Library Museum; ARMA Web-Site; 2000;

The Wars of the Roses; Terrence Wise (auth); Gerry Embleton (illus); Osprey; Oxford; 2000

Secondary Sources:

Albrecht Duerer’s Fechtbuch Art; Albrecht Dürer (illus); Handschrift 26-232; Nürnberg; 1520; ARMA Web-Site; 2001;

Altenn Fechter anfengliche Kunst; Christian Egenolph (auth); Alexander Kiermaier (transcr); Franckfurt am Meyn; 1529; Die Freifechter Webseite; 2001;

American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots; Calvert Watkins (edit); Marion Severynse (edit); Houghton Mifflin; Boston; 1985

Anglo-Saxon Thegn: AD 449-1066; Mark Harrison (auth); Gerry Embleton (illus); Osprey Publishing; Oxford; 1993

ARMA Interview with Hank Reinhardt, August 2001; ARMA Web-Site; 2003; Avoiding the “Commonplace” in Historical Martial Arts; Russell Mitchell (auth); HACA Web-Site; 2001;

Beowulf; Seamus Heaney (transl); WW Norton; London; 2000 (from 700-900)

Chaucer’s Poetry; Geoffrey Chaucer (auth); ET Donaldson (edit); Ronald Press; New York; 1958 (from 1385-1400)

Cheyenne Dog Soldiers; Afton; Ellis; Halaas; Masich (edit); University of Colorado Press; 2000 (from 1869)

Codex Wallerstein; Gregorz Zabinski (transcr & transl); Bartlomiej Walczak (transl & interp); Paladin Press; Boulder; 2002 (from 1470)

Consolation of Philosophy; Boethius (auth); Victor Watts (transl); Penguin; London; 2000 (rev-ed) (from 525)

Danzig Fechtbuch; Peter von Danzig (auth); Monika Maziarz (transcr); Preuszen; 1452; ARMA- Poland; 2004;

Duel of the Century: The Judicial Combat of Jarnac and Châtaigneraye - France, 1547; John Clements (auth) & Belinda Hertz (auth); ARMA Web-Site; 2003;

Fechtbuch von Albrecht Dürer; Albrecht Dürer (illus); Handschrift 26-232; Nürnberg; 1520; Armaria; 2003

Fechtbuch von Paul Kal; Paul Kal (auth); Niederbayern; 1462-82; Armaria; 2003

1536; Milan; Newsidler; de Milano (compos); Jeffrey Ashton (perform); Gagliano Recordings; audio CD; 1997 (from 1536)

Flos Duellatorum; Fiore dei Liberi (auth); Hermes Michelini (transl); Italy; 1410; Knights of the Wild Rose; Calgary; 2001;

Genealogy of Morals; Friedrich Nietzsche (auth); Francis golfing (transl); Anchor Books; New York; 1956

Gründtliche Beschreibung; Joachim Meyer (auth); Alexander Kiermaier (transcr); Straßborg; 1570; Die Freifechter Webseite; 2001;

A Guide to Old English; Bruce Mitchell (auth & edit); Fred Robinson (auth & edit); Basil Blackwell; Oxford; 1986 (rev 4th ed)

Infantry Attacks; Erwin Rommel (auth & illus); GE Kidde (transl); Manfred Rommel (intro); Greenhill Books; London; 1990 (from 1937)

Kings and Queens of England and Great Britain; Eric Delderfield (edit & auth); DV Cook (auth); David & Charles; Newton Abbot; 1975

Liber Chronicarum; Schedel; Wolgemut; Pleyenwurff; Alt; Koberger; Füssel; Nürnberg; 1493; bound uncoluored Latin edition; Wilson Collection; Multnomah County Library

Libr.Pict.A.83; anonymous fightbook; Germany; 1500; Armaria; 2003

Life in Medieval Britain; Mike Leighton (writ & prod); Stephen Clinch (edit); Lowry, Swanston, Brown (contr); Cromwell Films; Great Britain; 1995

Magister Andreas: Fencing Instructions for Sword and Messer; Mike Rasmusson (transl); Beatrix Koll (transcr); MS I 29; University Library Salzburg; 2003; The Martial Artist’s Book of Five Rings; Stephen F Kaufman (transl & inter); Musashi Miyamoto (auth); Tuttle Publishing; Boston; 1994 (from about 1645)

The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe; Sydney Anglo (auth); Yale University Press; New Haven & London; 2000

Medieval Europe: a Short History; C Warren Hollister (auth); Alfred Knopf; New York; 1982 (5th edit)

Medieval Life; Andrew Langley (auth); Geoff Dann (photo); Geoff Brightly (photo); Dorling Kindersley; London; 1996

MS 3542: The Harleian Mauscript Analysis Project – Parts I & II; Hutton; Hick; McLean; Brown; Clements (transcr, transl, edit); England; 1450; ARMA Web-Site; 2001;

The Myth of Edge-On-Edge Parrying in Medieval Swordplay; John Clements (auth); ARMA Web-Site; 2002;

Norton Anthology of English Literature Volume 1; MH Abrams (edit); WW Norton; London; 1993 (6th ed)

Ordo Virtutum; Hildegard von Bingen (compos); Sequentia (perform); BMG; audio CD; 1998 (from 12th Cent)

The Panorama of the Renaissance; Margaret Aston (edit); Thames & Hudson; London; 1996

Paradoxes of Defense & Brief Instructions; George Silver (auth); Steve Hick (transcr); Sloan MS #376; London; 1598; ARMA Web-Site; 2000; Parzival; Wolfram von Eschenbach (auth); AT Hatto (transl); Penguin Books; London; 1980 (from 1210)

Ralph Roister Doister; Nicholas Udall (auth); Clarence Child (edit); Riverside Press; Cambridge; 1912 (from 1541)

Sigmund Ringeck’s Knightly Art of the Longsword; David Lindholm (transl & interp); Peter Svärd (illus); Johnsson & Strid (contr); Sigmund Ringeck (auth); Johannes Liechtenauer (auth); Paladin Press; Boulder; 2003 (from 1389 & 1440)

Tain Bo Cualnge; Senchan Torpeist (auth-attrib); Ernst Windisch (transcr); S Hirzel Verlag; Leipzig; 1905 (from 9th-12th CentAD MSs)

Twenty-Five Counters to One Cut: Simple Sword and Buckler; Stewart Feil (auth); Armaria; 2003

The Wittgenstein Reader; Ludwig Wittgenstein (auth); Anthony Kenny (edit); Blackwell; Oxford; 1994

The World of Dürer: 1471-1528; Francis Russell (auth); Time-Life Books; New York; 1975

*****

Appendix I: Codex Speyer

The original manuscript resides at and belongs to the Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg.

The URL of its transcript is: http://www.ubs.sbg.ac.at/sosa/webseite/fechtbuch.htm

The transcription there is the 2003 copyright of Beatrix Koll and Universität Salzburg.

Here are the contents of that work at the Uni-Salzburg Web-Seite: (1r-2v) Martin Siber: Fechtlehre

(3r) Fechtlehre

(5r-7r) Magister Andreas: Fechtanleitungen für Schwert und Messer

(10r-44r) Meister Johann Liechtenauer: Fechtlehre für das lange Schwert

(46r-117r) Hans Lecküchner: Messerfechtlehre

(119r-126v) Meister Ott: Ringkampflehre

(129r-130r) Ringkampflehre

(130r-136v) Meister Lew: Fechtlehre zu Fuß

(137r-141r) Meister Martin Hundfeld: Fechtlehre mit dem kurzen Schwert

(143r-146r) Fechtlehre für den Kampf mit der Lanze zu Pferd

(146v-158r) Fechtlehre für den Schwertkampf zu Pferd

Appendix II: Weaponry Utilised by Author

Here are measurements and remarks for the actual sword, buckler, and dagger that I utilised for this essay:

Shortsword

Oakeshott-typology: Replica of OT-XVI overall length: 869 mm mass: 1362 grams blade-metal: “1085” high-carbon steel blade-length: 686 mm (fullered for 470 mm, diamond for last 216 mm) blade-width (at shoulders, midway & 100 mm from tip): 67, 48 & 32 mm blade-thickness (at shoulders, midway & 100 mm from tip): 4.5, 4.5 & 4.5 mm pommel: bronze wheel with raised center (OT-K); 52 mm diameter, 27 mm thick grip: leather-wrapped wood; 109 mm long, 20 mm thick crossguard: steel crescent (OT-7); 225 mm broad, 23 mm thick center of percussion (from shoulders): 470 mm point of balance (from shoulders): 105 mm percussion-quotient (COP divided by BL): 68.5 % balance-quotient (POB divided by BL): 15.3 % percussion-balance length (COP minus POB): 365 mm percussion-balance quotient (PBL divided by BL): 53.2 %

This sword proved to be quite wieldy for the techniques and tactics described in Siber. I contrast it as somewhat heavier yet dynamically balanced than the lighter yet statically balanced replica of an OT-VI which I had utilised too. I found this OT-XVI replica to track well in thrusting yet to have a hefty presence in slashing and hewing. The stuff in Siber could be done decently with a variety of OTs, yet the OT-XVI is outstanding overall, and originals of the type doubtless would have existed and been wielded during his lifetime. Such swords were common enough in Europe about 1325-1500 AD. This replica was made by Windlass.

Buckler

diameter: 331 mm mass: 1360 grams thickness: 1.0 mm This buckler is simply a smooth blackened steel dome, with a wood & leather grip over a flat-iron handle spanning within. It ended up luckily about the same weight as the sword. It is a replica of generic design, common enough in Europe of 1200-1600 AD. It winds and axles well.

Dagger

overall length: 475 mm mass: 455 grams blade-length: 315 mm (diamond) blade-width (at shoulders & 50 mm from tip): 43 & 21 mm blade-thickness (at shoulders & 50 mm from tip): 5.5 & 3.5 mm pommel: brass mushroom; 31 mm diameter & 15 mm thick grip: leather-wrapped; 130 mm long & 35, 20, 26 mm thick (guard, midway, pommel) crossguard: brass rectangle; 45 mm broad & 7 mm thick point of balance (from shoulders): 10 mm

This double-edged steel coulter could be called either a late ballock or early rondel, a typical enough design found throughout Europe of 1300-1500 AD. Really a design for stabbing, it can be utilised for slashing too.

Appendix III: Documental Notes and Translative & Interpretive Reasoning

Siber does not actually tell or show us exactly how to do any of his techniques – warding, striking, or forsetting, nor any of his winding or treading – nor does he explain his tactics. He really does not make much clear – other than he means the “daring fellow” to win the fight. Thus said, I did my best to arrive at a small yet complete method from his summary. Although Siber’s verse is rather laconic and enigmatic, seeming quite open to interpretation, his key terms, much comparison to other sword & buckler sources, and my own praxis led me at last to my final rendering. I found that Siber’s unique fight-lore shared martial validity with the greater Kunst des Fechtens. Now, the Mittelhochdeutsch (MHD) dialect of Siber is Alemannisch (Alemannic), which was/is found in Switzerland, western Austria, parts of Bavaria, and in Alsace – hence much of the Teutonic Alpine. I based my MHD transcript upon magnified and careful perusal of a high-density colour facsimile of Siber’s part of Codex Speyer. I made my own transcription so that I could take full responsibility for my assertions.

Both the Neuhochdeutsch (NHD) and New English (NE) translations leave out MHD scribal redundancies, and leave NHD separated prepositional nouns which are either normally prefixed or unusually suffixed – like the rhyme-friendly joined equivalents in MHD – as such, noted by hyphenating (-). I have tended towards British spellings for the English throughout. In rare cases, I found need to name the unnamed – some few techniques arrived at logically as one moves through the goings – sparingly denominated, generally cross-referenced to other relevant sources, and with notice given. The rather ungrammatical MHD text would not have hindered the fechter under masterly mentorship during the 14th-16th CentAD, for the verses were to remind him of what he must have been taught already in physical training – he would have understood the poetry even if the modernist does not. Other anomalies and/or odd phrasing are trusted to the friendly reader’s realisation of translative judgement and the desire to retain the original literary voice. No theory of literary criticism holds sway here. Unlike academic modernity, it must be understood that verse & poetry of Medievality had a listening life – it was not just seen & read, yet was mostly spoken & heard. If my rendering of the text seems archaic and atavistic, then it is because swordsmanship is inherently so relative to modern times. The whole idea was to reckon what works.

Lastly I state the following: I was vernacular and often literal in my translating, as I am weary of partial and/or modernist versions of sundry other fight-books. Why bother trying to further fight-book knowledge in ones own language if one refuses to go all the way by fully rendering a given source – especially if the key terms are left in the original language? I chose not to do as such, because I think that a more literal translation is more accurate yet more forgiving – and certainly more lively. Also, If my wording runs counter to established vocabulary then perhaps the establishment needs to reconsider its wording. I ask the reader to keep an open mind and give my rendering a chance. My translations treat English and German as the sister-languages that they are. No apology from me thusly. I have made philology my guide to translation and kinesiology my guide to interpretation. Thus I have tried to follow the wisdom of King Alfred:

hwilum word be worde, hwilum adgit of andgiete

sometimes word for word, sometimes sense for sense

***** About the Author: Jeffrey Hull has been training in European fighting arts the ARMA way for about five years now. Previously he trained in Asian martial arts. He holds a BA in Humanities.

Acknowledgements: My thanks to Stewart Feil, Geoffrey Gagner & Lisa Kline, the Grimm Brothers, Beatrix Koll, Donald Lepping, Monika Maziarz, David McGirl, Multnomah County Libraries, Keith Myers, Phú Hòa & Hankins, Portland Community College, Brian Pugh, Deirdre Ryan, Bartlomiej Walczak, Windlass – and Martin Siber.

Mittelhochdeutsch transcription, Neuhochdeutsch & New English translations, the interpretation, the imagery, and the whole work are the 2004 copyright of Jeffrey Hull.