Lignitzer's First Play of the Buckler

[@swordandshield]

Hi sword people! Would you like to receive weekly up-dates on weapons research, sword-fighting, living history and more straight into your inbox? To read previous newsletters and to sign up, go here: exciting-pioneer-6049.ck.page/a8f72e8432

[@llanthdawg]

Very interesting interpretation of the old training manuals! Love the way y’all explain it.

[@swordandshield]

Thank you.

[@christianalbers1474]

Roland, you really do the best videos. And they are getting better and better. When you look back 20 years, so much has happened. When i watch the videos i feel i have understood everything. thanks for the great input and the big motivation. greeting from ex hammaborg member Mark

[@swordandshield]

Thank you very much for your kind words, Mark

[@HistoryNeedsYou]

Well done for advising the audience to question both sources and interpretation.

[@kyletoelle]

More please!

[@ianalexander6977]

Awesome! Are you going to do all the plays?

[@swordandshield]

Hopefully at one point. This sequence was recorded during a workshop, and I did not cover any more Lignitzer then.

[@ianalexander6977]

Roland Warzecha thanks for removing the comment thread there (I guess it was you). We were getting a bit out of hand!

[@swordandshield]

Hm, which comment thread was this? I am not that quick to remove replies.

[@ianalexander6977]

Roland Warzecha hmm strange. We were discussing the use of science in manuscript interpretation. But it wasn’t very edifying for either of us I think and probably not especially productive.

[@Louis-vp5ez]

Hey Roland, könntest du ein Video speziell über deinen Buckler machen? Wie er gebaut ist etc., habe mir überlegt, den selben/einen ähnlichen selbst zu bauen. Super Video! Weiter so!

[@swordandshield]

Informationen zu originalen und Trainingsbucklern findest Du in meinen FB-Alben: facebook.com/pg/Dimicator-266934476773420/photos/?tab=albums

[@Louis-vp5ez]

Danke :)

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Awesome video!

[@thrawn235]

This is in fact almost the same as Ringecks Longsword, It almost looks like Liegnitz adapted the Longsword plays directly. In Ringeck you even have a few more possible "paths" but the general idea is the same. You do one action and if your enemy counters you counter that (and so forth) In Ringeck there are sometimes multiple almost equivalent options. The one you choose depends on the exact way the opponent acts, and the relative positions of you and the sword (oben abnehmen and unten?! abnehmen for example)

[@swordandshield]

I agree.

[@Ulf_Ulfurson]

I like this video very nice and it is an inspiration for me.

[@boring5718]

His stance and structure looks a lot like how they are in the illustrations.

[@swordandshield]

I take this as a compliment.

[@kanubeenderman]

6:31 - important to keep feet moving and pivoting - you can't get caught flat footed, you have to keep moving due to the many many different counter moves and parries. When dealing with sharp blades you can't stand there and debate who has the center - no time for an 'oops' moment. Watch how kendo fighters move. Strike and move.

[@Matthias_S85]

Intriguing dagger placement.

[@swordandshield]

I was surprised to find that this authentic placement actually never gets in the way.

[@derkernspalter]

Funny thing is, this kind of dagger is indeed called bollock dagger. And if you take a closer look at the shape of the hilt you will know why it is called so and why it is worn this way :P

[@dermachtigebar714]

Ich bau mir deinen Buckler nach :) hab' n paar Infos eingeholt. Mal sehen ob's was wird. Super Video!

[@swordandshield]

Cool!

[@sparrowhawk81]

Ceding blade actions are wonderful.

[@rickjarmin]

How do we find the video of walking on the balls of one's feet?

[@Wolfuskaktus]

Muss ich unbedingt ausprobieren

[@Wolfuskaktus]

Super Video

[@Sfourtytwo]

Lignitzers first play [80r] Hie heben sich an die stuck mit dem pucklär Die maister Andre lignitzer gesatzt hat her nach geschriben Das erst stuck mit dem pucklär aus dem oberhaw Merck wenn dw den oberhaw treibst zw dem mann So setz mit dem knopf dein swert Inwendig auf deinen pucklär zw deinem daumen vnd stich Im von vnden auf zu° seinem gesicht vnd wind gegen seinem swert und laß vber schnappen ~ So first it says cut not bind cautiously . Secondly it says that you should thrust from below so no winding in above. It is the same play as the first zornhau play in most Liechtenauer tradition books. ... haut er dir den von seiner rechten seiten oben ein zu dem kopff, so haw auch von deiner rechtenn von oben an alle versatzung mit im zorniglichen einn auf sein schwert, ist er dann waich am schwert, so scheus im den ort gericht fursich lanckh ein und stich im zu dem gesicht, oder der prust und setz im arm

[@LangerName]

I beg to differ on this one, I don't think they are the same. From my point of view, the Zornhau is clearly stated as a reaction to an Oberhau by my opponent, while the first play of Lignitzer is the initial attack started by myself (wenn dw den oberhaw treibst zw dem mann / when you strike a cut from above to the man), so it's clearly aimed at the opponent, not their weapon. At 2:15 they are doing exactly what is written, doing the Oberhau and thrusting from below. Only when this fails, they wind and only when this fails, they do the Um/Überschnappen. The thrust from below is just never seen, because it gets abandoned once you realize your opponent is not granting you the centerline.

[@swordandshield]

In a transcription of the original source (44 A 8, 80r, transcription Dierk Hagedorn) it says: *"| Das erst stuck mit dem pucklär aus dem oberhaw | Merck | wenn dw den oberhaw treibst zw dem mann | So setz mit dem knopf dein swert Inwendig auf deinen pucklär zw deinem daumen | vnd stich Im von vnden auf zu° seinem gesicht | vnd wind gegen seinem swert | und laß vber schnappen ~"* Which I would translate as: "The first play with the buckler from the oberhau: Note that when you drive the oberhau towards the man, then put your sword with its pommel onto your buckler's inside close to your thumb, and thrust up at his face from below, and wind against his sword, and let ”spring over” This is all it says. You may read the initial line *”when you drive the oberhau towards the man“* as "When you strike an oberhau at the man", but this is already your interpretation, not an information contained in the text. As for the thrust: Lignitzer's play as described in 44 A 8 on 80r does not mention any bind to be a pre-requisite for a follow-on thrust. Your second quote is not from that source. So again, while your assumption that a Zornhauort may be contained in this play may be a valid one, it is your interpretation. It may be closer to the historical truth than mine. Or not. So I see no conflict to what I show in the video, although you might argue that in the video you see two windings, while the instruction mentions winding just once.

[@Sfourtytwo]

Roland Warzecha I would suggest you ask a hundret fencers to show you a right oberhau and test how many will do the action you show

[@swordandshield]

And what authority do a hundred modern fencers have in your opinion?

[@Sfourtytwo]

Roland Warzecha Well the could all remark that Lignitzer is a companion text of the Liechtenauer tradition and as such it is quite interresting that it does not really fit within that tradition but perfectly fits your interpretation of a relatively obscure sword and buckler source of which we only have three quarters of.

[@pizdamatii5001]

great work as always! i have one question though: in the final part of the play, you say you do an 'ubersnappen', but to me it looks like you're just disengaging and doing a zwerch (at 4m58s)!? you even hit him from the left side. maybe i'm wrong, but my understanding is that a snappen just means that your sword snaps forward when you get to a certain position and clear your opponent's blade and his/her pressure suddenly disappears, no?

[@SpecArch96]

pizda matii Meyer gives us two examples of 'umbschnappen' in his handwork section for the longsword. The first instructs you to, once who have held down your opponents arm or sword with your quillon block (or schilt), then you should strike him with your blade without releasing him. Basically levering your strong against his arm or sword so that your weak flicks, or snaps, into his face. His second example is if your has you in the same position that you had in him in the first example, then move your pommel over his right arm (releasing your sword from this hopeless bind), stepping with your left towards his right and let the short edge snap towards his head. The dominant position that appears in both example is result of a handwork Meyer calls reversing. Start with a neutral bind in the inside. Reversing is when you turn (wind) your short edge into the other guy's sword whilst apllying downward pressure. The end position has the reverser with crossed wrists and his sword above the opponents, point crossing it and directed somewhat groundwards on the left side. The opponent (you in the second example) are assuming a similar but opposit position, under the opponents sword, point to the ground, wrists NOT crossed on your right side. This second example is mechanically very similar to Lignitzer's play, Meyer's schnnapen being done with the short edge is also performed similarly to a Zwerch, so I would wager what defines 'Schnappen' is that the strong stays somewhat in place, whilst the weak 'Snaps' to its target. Thus Schnappen could be an oberhau, a zwerchhau, a schielhau or whatever so long as it is mechanically similar in its execution. Apologies for the long reply, and not being Roland ;), but I feel like these two example illustrate Schnappen as a mechanical term rather than a specific technique.

[@swordandshield]

There is no explanation of the term "überschnappen" in Lignitzer. But it makes perfect sense to a German speaker: If the pressure becomes too great, you just release the tension to spring to the opposing side.

[@7dayspking]

I got a message from you in my inbox Roland but I couldn't read it because our entire thread seems to have disappeared. It's even more of a shame as Protoguy's and Ian's responses which was also in my inbox has also disappeared.

[@swordandshield]

Bizarre. I recall responding to you and the other person, an archeologist. That was an interesting conversation on academic methodology and the reconstruction of historical swordsmanship.

[@7dayspking]

+Roland Warzecha It did look like it was going to be an interesting discussion, unfortunately I didn't see where it led. Perhaps check the spam box for this video, it's possible youtube's automated systems marked the thing for whatever reason.

[@cloudcleaver23]

It's hard to tell from the video, are you actually meeting the opposing sword edge-on-flat and then twisting to get the edge-on-edge bind?

[@grinofthegrimreaper]

sharp swords bite into each other, that twist is necessary to "unstuck" your blade. Without it you couldn't perform the techniques correctly. It looks weird here because the swords are clearly blunt, so they slide onto each other instead of biting. Always train as if using real sharp weapons ;)

[@swordandshield]

While it is true that you can make a sharp sword bite and grab an opposing blade, most of the time there really is no need for that if you know how to position your blade in order to be superior. These days, all our binds and the associated blade alignments are very subtle and lithe, as this has proved superior, (as many participants of the Berlin Buckler Bouts can attest to!)

[@neilmcg71]

Roland. Is this a fighting skill? Are there any competitive tournaments for this?

[@Tehinke]

neilmcg71 I may not be Roland bu yes. There are plenty of Sword and Buckler tournaments around the western hemisphere. Particularly Europe. The sport is known as HEMA.

[@swordandshield]

This is an interpretation of historical swordsmanship as reflected in medieval sources, so-called fight books. It was intended for duelling with sharp weapons. It has also been turned into a modern sport fought with modern saftey equipment, and according tournaments do exist, but I am not impressed with them. Learn more on my various platforms www.patreon.com/Dimicator

[@ortwinvomschildberg4717]

Was hälst du von Kyle Grisworlds Interpretaion des 1. Stücks. Die ist ja schon anders als deine kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3-pnn-rh6afnKM

[@swordandshield]

Ich sehe keinerlei Vorteil darin, als Auftakt in False Time die Stärken der Klingen ineinander zu schlagen.

[@secutorprimus]

From what you show of it, there never seems to be much cutting in sword and buckler.

[@Gloin79]

there are multiple cuts shown in this play alone?

[@pompadour_gagarin1723]

It depends on the style, for what it seems, mr Warzecha's main style (of I:33) is quite thrust-oriented but the Lignitzer plays and famously the Bolognese school (of Marozzo and Manciolino) is a lot about cuts. The cut vs thrust debate is an ever-going topic in swordsmanship, you'll find partisans of either one everywhere and even more terrifying, people who advocates for the use of both type of attacks equally...

[@swordandshield]

It is indeed very point-oriented. But it ends with a blow, doesn't it?

[@phanupongasvakiat337]

Brilliant.It is about time Occidentals show Orientals that the former should not rush over and learn the latter's martial art before learning their own first.

[@ianalexander6977]

phanupong asvakiat Mmm maybe, but Hema as it exists today would probably not exist were it not for the eastern martial arts craze that entered the west during the 70s....