Comparing I.33 and Lignitzer: Play IV

Today, we will continue the series comparing the sword and buckler systems of I.33 and Andre Lignitzer. Today’s post will discuss the fourth play from Lignitzer and compare it to cross twenty-five 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 25 Was Selected For Comparison

​Cross 25 was selected because of the inclusion of a thrust after an attack was made. However, these plays are quite different and we will see later in my analysis why selecting a I.33 comparable play is a challenge when analyzing Lignizter’s fourth play.

​Comparing Lignitzer Play 4 to I.33 Cross 25

Lignitzer Play 4
Item, from the Mittelhaw: (middle cut) make the Zwer (thumb-gripped high middle cut) to both sides, and the Schaittler (separation cut) with the long edge, and thrust in from below to him.

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

​Summary:

1. Cut with a zwerchhau from the lift and the right.
2. Pull attack down to create opening.
3. Thrust in at the opponent.

I.33 Cross 25
[Image of a student cutting under the Priests arms “…the Student meanwhile hits the Priest’s arms.”
[Image of the student delivering a thrust] “…Here, as the priest feels that his arms have been hurt and draws himself back, intending to deliver a blow, the Student pursues…”

• I.33 translated by Jeffrey L. Forgeng

​Summary:

1. Cut under the arms of the opponent.
2. As they are retreating, deliver a thrust.

​The Similarities

​The main similarity between these two plays is the concluding thrust to strike. Both plays use a cut-like action to create the opening for the thrust. However, Lignitzer’s Schaittler appears to be more of a way to pull the opponent’s hands down to create the opening for the thrust as opposed to I.33’s approach to cut from below, then strike while the opponent is retreating or setting up a cut.

​The Differences

This play highlights a foundational difference between the two systems. I.33 does not appear to use a thumb grip to cut at the opponent with a Zwerchau. I speculate that this is primarily because of the separation of the sword and buckler this type of cut generally creates. I.33 would rather the fencer keep the sword and buckler hands close while in the bind to create favorable binds. 
​
Because I.33 does not deliver these high cuts, the Schaittler action also does not appear to be explicitly part of I.33. However, the concept of lowering your opponent’s arms with an over bind is certainly highlighted in the I.33 system. In another section of I.33, the fencer is advised to be cautious whenever they are in an under-bind because their head is exposed. The thrust delivered by Andre Lignitzer in this play certainly would fall into this high threat that can occur if the fencer loses the bind.

​Closing Thoughts

Admittedly, it was a challenge to find a I.33 play that was similar to this Lignitzer play, more so than the other plays analyzed. The main hurdle is the lack of zwerchau-like images included in I.33. A thrust from an over-bind is common enough but in many cases, I.33 appears to use the shield-strike instead of a thrust when the over-bind is achieved so the connections between these two attacks is also dubious.
​
This inclusion of the zwerchau in Lignitzer also makes the fourth play the most important when comparing I.33 and Lignitzer. So far, there has been a great deal of overlap in the setup actions for a strike. The main differences seen between the two systems being the concluding actions where Lignitzer will attack the legs while I.33 will not. Now, with the fourth play, we see variation in the binding actions to set up an opening.

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