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 sixth play from Lignitzer and comparing it to techniques shown in cross nineteen 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. Comparing the Plays
The SimilaritiesBoth systems contain a way to remove the opponent’s buckler. Interestingly, both systems perform this disarm by holding the sword and buckler in the buckler hand, then use their sword hand to grab the opponent’s buckler. The DifferencesOne of the significant differences between Lignitzer and the I.33 technique is how the sword is held to counter the actions. The Lignitzer action is best described as half-swording where the sword is held about halfway down the blade with the buckler hand. In contrast, I.33 holds the buckler up towards the sword's crossguard with the buckler hand. Closing ThoughtsIt has always fascinated me how similar these techniques are. Paulus Kal also includes a technique like this and has a different way to hold the sword as well. The fact that these techniques are similar and replicated across two-hundred years of manuscripts has always made me wonder if it is truly coincidental. That being said, if you are trying to disarm the opponent’s buckler in the middle of a swordfight, maybe there are only so many ways to perform this action which results in these systems having similar techniques.
0 Comments
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 ComparisonCross 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
The SimilaritiesDepending 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 DifferencesSimilarly 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 ThoughtsOne 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 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 ComparisonCross 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
The SimilaritiesThe 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 DifferencesThis 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 ThoughtsAdmittedly, 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 |
Proudly powered by Weebly