The basic strikes of different longsword systems

When we think about the basic strikes of the martial arts we practise, it can be easy to assume that other systems have a similar set of basic strikes. After all, the body only moves in so many ways, right? Except that is demonstrably false, because different sources describe different sets of basics.

Each source sets out the basic actions without much explanation for them, because why would you need to justify what the basic actions are for your system? They are clearly the fundamental building blocks and everything else builds upon them. No justification required.

But when different sources and different systems discuss different sets of basic strikes, we might quite reasonably wonder why that is the case. Why the differences? What is it about the different strikes that qualify them as the basics, and why would the master choose that particular set of strikes over any other set? Why the inclusions and why the exclusions? 

These are important questions to ask if you want to be able to converse about the rationale behind your chosen system in a deeper, more useful fashion. To offer a useful stepping stone, this article will offer a few examples of different sets of basic strikes from different longsword systems across the 15th and 16th centuries.

The Nuremberg Hausbuch

The anonymous Nuremberg Hausbuch, compiled around c.1425, describes that every strike is one of just two basic types:

• Oberhaw (cutting from above)
• Underhaw (cutting from below)

The book is a little unusual in that it does give a reason for this: everything comes either from above or from below. It doesn’t come much simpler than this!

These basic strikes are congruent with Aristotle’s physics, which are referenced elsewhere in the treatise, and it could be argued that much of Liechtenauer’s system is based on Aristotle’s physics.^[1] Furthermore, much of the medieval way of thinking involved opposites, almost in binary opposition to each other, and this could be a further explanation of the starkly opposing nature of these two strikes.

Liechtenauer’s Drei Wunder

Liechtenauer’s method contains the concept of the Drei Wunder, the three ways of causing damage with the blade of the sword: 

• cuts (violent application of the edge, starting far away from the target)
• thrusts (application of the point into the target)
• slices (structured dragging of the edge, applied from close to the target)

Every action with the blade of the sword falls into one of these categories. However, while the Liechtenauer sources acknowledge these as the methods by which techniques cause damage, they are not by themselves the techniques of the system. They really count more as qualifiers of techniques than as basic techniques. Nonetheless, it is worth including them here in this article for discussion.

Fiore dei Liberi

Fiore dei Liberi, writing between 1400 and 1410, describes three basic strikes on both sides (and the thrust):

• Fendente (cutting from above)
• Mezzano (cutting across)
• Sottano (cutting from below)
• Punta (the thrust)

What is quite interesting about this set of strikes, from my point of view, is that the Fendente is described in a very particular fashion, and it follows a very particular line: downward from above, through the cheekbone and the teeth, through the body, exiting around the knee on the other side. That is a very steep cutting angle, maybe 20 or 30 degrees from vertical, and certainly not 45 degrees.

The Sottano is described as following that same line back up from the ground, making it a rising cut with what is again a very steep angle. The Mezzano, however, is any cut that goes between these two; it could potentially be a descending cut about 35 or 40 degrees from vertical, it could be a horizontal cut at any height between knees and teeth, or it could be a rising cut about 35 or 40 degrees from vertical, or anything in between.

This shows (in my opinion) that Fiore was concerned that his students perform the Fendente down a very particular line to achieve the maximum effect with that technique, and that they do something very similar with the Sottano. He didn’t care so much about the Mezzano and saw it more as a multi-purpose technique that could hit a variety of targets in a variety of ways, and that could solve a variety of problems.

Also, he considered the thrust to be one of the basic strikes of the system. This is different to the Liechtenauer method, where the thrust is not a technique as such, but merely one way of causing damage with the edge of the blade. This is quite a different conceptualisation of how to fight with swords and is (to my mind) one of the important differences between the systems.

The Kolner Fechtbuch

The anonymous and undated Kolner Fechtbuch, which I believe was written between c.1500-c.1540,^[2] begins with a flourish to describe the “v. hewe”. These could be five strikes (‘V’ being the Roman numeral for five), or they could be four strikes (‘v.’ being short for vier, which is the German for four). My current interpretation of this sequence gives the following four strikes on each side:

• Oberhaw (cutting from above)
• Zwerhaw (cutting across, above the shoulders, with the thumb beneath the blade)
• Mittelhaw (cutting across, below the shoulders, perhaps with the thumb above the blade when striking from the dominant side (or from both sides))
• Wechselhaw (cutting from below and changing it into another cut from another angle)

The book doesn’t actually talk about the Zwerhaw, but it does seem to talk about short edge cuts above the head into the Schilt position (what Liechtenauer would call the left Ochs) and other strikes, possibly with the long edge, into the Sturtz (what Liechtenauer would call the right Ochs). It is my current interpretation that these techniques would be called the Zwerhaw if we made the comparison with Liechtenauer’s method.

That being said, this is really quite an interesting set of basic strikes! It includes the Oberhaw, of course, because the simple strike from above is a staple of the Germanic systems. However, it doesn’t contain any generic Underhaw, it instead has the Wechselhaw as the preferred item coming from below. What that seems to be saying is that if you must strike upward from below, then use it as the first part of a sequence of actions that improves your situation and leads towards a better cut (the Oberhaw) as the final action.

The other two basic strikes are the Mittelhaw and Zwerhaw. Now, if the Mittelhaw were to be defined simply as a horizontal cut, then that might suggest that the Zwerhaw is a rising strike (since descending strikes are already covered by the Oberhaw). However, I think that is reading too much into the notion when we base it upon an overly simple first assumption.

Instead, if we look at where the Zwerhaw and the MIttelhaw end up at termination, and what body parts they are targeting, we see that the Zwerhaw goes above the shoulders and typically targets higher openings, and the thumb is placed beneath the blade to facilitate the stronger structure for attacking these higher targets. 

We see that the Mittelhaw is usually sent at the body or legs, rarely at the head, and that the thumb might be above the blade when striking from the dominant side. The thumb might even be above the blade when striking from both sides, which is what seems to be described for the use of the Iberian montante. 

This makes a valuable differentiation between the Mittelhaw and the Zwerhaw, and differentiates between the techniques primarily by the structure with which you form the strikes.

Hans Sachs, Der Fechtspruch

In the 1540s, the master poet Hans Sachs wrote his poem Der Fechtspruch, in which he had a conversation with a fictitious captain of the Marxbruder fencing guild. In the conversation they discussed the basic curriculum of the Marxbruder, and when the poet asks what the basic techniques are that students would learn, the captain provides the following list:

• Oberhaw (cutting from above)
• Mittelhaw (cutting across)
• Underhaw (cutting from below)
• Flugelhaw (a specific type of Underhaw, probably as part of a sequence)

It is interesting that the fourth basic strike is a more specific example of the third basic strike. Every source that discusses the Flugelhaw in the 16th century agrees that it is a rising cut with the long edge, although sometimes it comes from the left and sometimes from the right, sometimes by itself or sometimes as part of a sequence. There is quite a lot of variation in terms of how the Flugelhaw is described in the different sources.

What we might surmise from this list is that there are broadly three types of strikes (from above, from below, and generally across), and that the best rising strike is the Flugelhaw (I prefer the version where it rises from the left with crossed arms, hitting to the hands or elbow with the long edge), which is often taught as part of a sequence.

Sequences seem to be a staple feature of many of the 16th century sources that could potentially be described as representative of gemeinfechten (common fencing), as opposed to the very clinical stimulus-response scenarios of the core Liechtenauer system. Sequences are great teaching tools and allow people to learn the approach (the Zufechten), the work and the hit (the Handtarbeit and/or Krieg), and the withdrawal or escape (the Abzug); alternatively, they can be a god way to learn the tactic and framework of provoker, taker, and hitter (as described by Meyer in his dussack chapter).

Therefore, the basic strikes of this system would appear to be relatively generic cuts from above, from below, and from the side, and a basic two or three part sequence either to allow for a useful strike from below or to use the strike from below to set up a better strike from above).

Joachim Meyer

Joachim Meyer was a product of the guild system of learning how to fence, of gaining qualifications to instruct, and he became a master in the Freifechter guild. In 1570, he wrote a book setting out his own method of teaching fencing with a variety of weapons. For the longsword, he describes the basic four strikes as the:

• Oberhaw (cutting from above)
• Mittelhaw (cutting across)
• Underhaw (cutting from below)
• Zornhaw (cutting downward along a specific 45 degree line)

In a similar fashion to Hans Sachs’s description where the Flugelhaw is an example of the Underhaw, Meyer lists the Zornhaw which is an example of the Oberhaw. Why is this?

The Oberhaw is just any cut from above, with either edge (or either flat). The Zornhaw, according to Meyer, is a very specific strike: it is a long edge cut that descends along the Zornlini (the Zorn line), which he depicts as a 45 degree line in his cutting diagram. The same cutting diagram suggests that the Oberhaw is a straight vertical cut, although many of his stucke, techniques and sequences seem to involve cuts from above that are not perfectly vertical.

Conclusions

We can see from this short list of examples that different masters clearly conceptualised their systems quite differently from each other, and that they believed quite different fundamental building blocks to be the “basic strikes” of their system. This leads to some rather interesting speculation and discussion about why this might be the case, and why any given master might choose to include something in their list or to exclude something else.

We can find clues to answer these questions by looking deeper into the different sources and considering what other techniques and tactics the masters discuss, and how we would conceptualise their systems. I would suggest that every almost every single source mentioned above is an example of a different system, and that the only two that might share a system would be the Kolner Fechtbuch and Der Fechtspruch. 

It is too easy to look at every system and acknowledge only the similarities, that they all include strikes from above, and that most of them include strikes from below and across the body in some fashion. Yes, of course they do. Obviously.

The more valuable question is to look at each system and ask yourself why the differences? If you can answer that, and back up your answer with evidence from relevant sources, then you will be in a good position to understand the rationale behind your system and why the system is constructed and described the way it is.

Footnotes

^[1] Jamie Acutt. Swords, Science, and Society. Fallen Rook Publishing, 2019.

^[2] Keith Farrell. “The Kölner Fechtbuch: Context and Comparison.” Acta Periodica Duellatorum, volume 3, 2015, pages 203-235.