Comparing I.33 and Lignitzer: Play V

Today we will continue the series comparing the sword and buckler systems of I.33 and Andre Lignitzer. Today’s post will be discussing the fifth play from Lignitzer and comparing it to techniques shown in cross thirty-eight and cross two of I.33.
​
As a reminder, I.33 starts each of its 40 plays with a cross in the top left of the image. To compare Lignitzer’s system with I.33, a cross that is most similar to Lignitzer’s play will be selected. If the sixth play in I.33 is referenced, then it will be identified as cross 6.

​Why Cross 38 and Cross 2 Was Selected For Comparison

​Cross 38 includes an attack that most resembles the sturtzhaw or a plunging thrust depending on how you interpret the attack. Cross 2 includes an attack to separate the sword and buckler of the opponent that could function like an Andre Lignitzer attack shown in the fifth play.

​Comparing Lignitzer Play 5 to I.33 Cross 38 and Cross 2

Lignitzer Play 5
Item, from the Sturtzhaw:[Dropping cut] pretend as if you want to thrust over his shield into his left side, and go with the point under and through, and thrust inside his shields[inside both sword and shield] to the body, and turn Indes to your left side. If he defends against this, take his right leg with the long edge.

• Cod.44.A.8 Translated by Keith Farrell

​Summary:

1. After performing a cut that changes through, reach up to strike from the left side and then cut in to the head.
2. Separate the sword and buckler and push in with the attack.
3. If the opponent lifts their sword and shield to cover the attack, attack their leg.

I.33 Cross 38 and Cross 2
​38: [Image of the priest preventing a shield-strike by the student Note that the Priest here prevents the blow executed previously…”
2: [Image of the student delivering a tread-through] “…Here the student, following the Priest’s advice, performs an action called stepping through…”
[Image of the Priest with an overbind against the student] “…Whence the verse: ‘Clerics thus “flip”; ordinary combatants do not unless they are ‘covering’.”

• I.33 translated by Jeffrey L. Forgeng

Summary:

1. In cross 38, Plunging thrust or sturtzhaw to prevent a shield-strike.
2. In cross 2, gain an over-bind and deliver a nucken towards the opponent’s head to separate the opponent’s sword and buckler.

​The Similarities

​Depending on your interpretation of I.33, the attack to counter a shield-strike shown in cross 38 could be a Sturtzhaw or a plunging thrust. Regardless of which attack is carried out, the positioning of the sword compared to the result of the first action in Lignitzer’s play is similar. Next, in cross 2, I.33 shows a nucken to separate the sword and buckler of the opponent which has a similar result to the indes and thrust combination shown by Lignitzer. Finally, I.33 recommends defending with either a schutzen or a nucken, either resulting in a high defense that would raise both the sword and buckler which sets up the final action of Lignitzer. Unfortunately, I.33 does not show the attack to the leg like Lignitzer performs.

​The Differences

​Similarly to the fourth Lignitzer play, the chaining of attacks that Lignitzer highlights is not explicitly in I.33. Even with trying to make the Lignitzer actions fit into the I.33 art and techniques, the connection is loose. More realistically, the only similarities this play has to I.33 is the fact that these are positions that can occur in a sword and buckler bind which may create openings.

Closing Thoughts

​One of the bigger challenges when comparing this play to I.33 is the fact that equivalent attacks between the two systems generally end the I.33 plays instead of setting up a sequence of attacks that Lignitzer shows. I believe this highlights a fundamental difference between I.33 and Lignitzer’s techniques touched on previously. Andre Lignitzer prefers to attack into the bind while I.33 prefers to focus on manipulations of the opponent’s sword before committing to an attack.

​Next post in the series: Comparing I.33 and Lignitzer: Play VI