Understanding Vor, Nach, and Indes – part 1: definitions

The concepts of Vor, Nach, and Indes are integral to the art of fencing according to Liechtenauer. The words and concepts can be interpreted in many different ways, and I have gone through many iterations over the last several years of practice and study.

In these articles, I will offer my current thinking about the concepts of Vor, Nach, and Indes. It is quite a long article, but it is broken down into relatively bite-size sections by appropriate headings.

(Part 1: definitions | Part 2: tactics | Part 3: working in the bind)

Translations

We could feasibly translate Vor (“Before”), Nach (“After”), and Indes (“instantly”, “at the same time as”, “meanwhile”) into English. However, what would we gain by doing this? Does the word “meanwhile” unlock the concept of Indes, or does it just send us chasing red herrings? I suggest the latter. Therefore, I think the translation of these concepts is broadly irrelevant, and that trying to work with translations of these key technical terms will serve only to make our task more difficult.

In the 16th century, Meyer adds the concept of Gleich to these technical terms. Gleich can translate as “instantly”, “at the same time as”, or “meanwhile” – exactly the same as the possible translations for Indes! Is there a difference between the concepts of Indes and Gleich? Yes, definitely. Therefore, trying to choose one possible translation for the one word, and another of the possible translations for the other word, is just going to confuse matters.

It is really important when trying to work with theoretical concepts like this that we use the original technical terms and do not apply any modern baggage to their meanings. Let’s just leave them alone, discuss them as-is, and move forward with our conceptual framework.

“Reaction” or “response”

Part of being able to construct a solid and helpful conceptualisation of technical terms is to be able to describe the ideas very precisely with our language. If our descriptions are a bit fuzzy, then do we really understand the concepts? I would suggest not. Therefore, we must be very precise in the terminology we use in the descriptions of these concepts.

Imagine you receive an email that makes you very angry, that demands an answer. If you “react” to the situation, then this probably means writing a hurried answer that expresses your anger. It may not be particularly well thought through, and that may inflame the situation further. However, if you “respond” to the situation, this suggests that you may take a little time to consider your response, perhaps taking some effort to craft a better answer that improves the situation rather than making it worse.

The concept of “reaction” tends to suggest something almost unconscious, or not really thought through, that is probably quite instinctive.

The concept of “response” tends to suggest making the correct handling of the situation, with a little more thought and a little less haste.

We can see examples of these definitions applied to the psychology of business, to child rearing, and to self defence. Differentiating between these two words is not just splitting hairs; it lets us create a better paradigm for describing our fencing terminology.

Therefore, in this article, I will use the words “react” and “respond” deliberately, with the senses described here.

Vor and Nach

I suggest the following definitions of the concepts:

Vor is an Action that demands an Answer.

Nach is the Answer to the Action.

The Answer can be a Response or a Reaction. Most beginners will simply React to the Action, and even a skilled fencer who has lost control of the situation will simply React to the Action.

So, if the attacker comes with an Oberhaw, and the defender simply sticks his sword out in a parry, then this does nothing to prevent the attacker from striking round and making another cut; if the defender parries that too, in a similar fashion, then nothing will prevent the attacker from striking around again, pressing his advantage further. This can be described as:

• Fencer A: performs an Oberhaw (an Action that demands an Answer)
• Fencer B: makes a parry (a Reaction to A’s Action)
• Fencer A: strikes around (another Action that demands an Answer)
• Fencer B: makes another parry (a Reaction to A’s Action)
• Fencer A: makes a third attack (another Action that demands an Answer)

Of course, this is perfectly sensible fencing from the attacker, and not very good fencing from the defender.

If the attacker runs out of steam and stops attacking, then it doesn’t mean that the defender has done anything clever, it just means that the attacker has stopped Acting in a way that demands an Answer. The defender is now free to do anything (or to do nothing), because there is no demand for an Answer. This may include making a strike of his own, and this could be described as follows:

• A: performs an Oberhaw (an Action that demands an Answer)
• B: makes a parry (a Reaction to A’s Action)
• A: strikes around (another Action that demands an Answer)
• B: makes another parry (a Reaction to A’s Action)
• A: stops attacking (no further Action)
• B: launches an Oberhaw (an Action that demands an Answer)
• A: makes a parry (a Reaction to B’s Action)

In this example, because A stopped Acting, B could begin Acting. We could feasibly say that initially, A was in the Vor and B was in the Nach, but when A stopped demanding an Answer from B, B was able to begin Acting and thus demanded an Answer from A. Not good from A’s point of view, but quite a good recovery for B.

Indes and Gleich

I suggest the following definitions for these concepts:

Indes is that really cool moment where a Response to the Action will itself demand an Answer.

Gleich is either when both fencers perform an Action that demands an Answer, without reference to what the other fencer is doing, or when both fencers are simply Reacting to each other without anyone actually Acting.

Both of these definitions fit the possible translations of the words, but you can see that they have really quite different connotations and meanings. Indes is a sensible Response, yet Gleich is either just Reacting or Acting without due care.

An example of Indes could be:

• A: performs an Oberhaw (an Action that demands an Answer)
• B: makes a parry (a Reaction to A’s Action)
• A: does a Zwerhaw around to the other side (an Action that demands an Answer)
• B: slings a Zwerhaw beneath it Indes (a Response to A’s Action, itself demanding an Answer)
• A: has to give an Answer or else will be hit

This is an example of an Indes action that is not an example of Winden (turning the sword in the bind), but that relies on the perception of pressure leaving the bind and therefore requires a developed sense of Fuhlen (sense of pressure in the bind).

Another example of an Indes situation could be:

• A: launches a thrust (an Action that demands an Answer)
• B: makes a parry (a Reaction to A’s Action)
• A: strikes around with another Oberhaw (an Action that demands an Answer)
• B: drops an Oberhaw onto the incoming cut, setting up an Indes thrust in an appropriate fashion (a Response to A’s Action, itself demanding an Answer)
• A: makes a parry (a Reaction to B’s Action)
• B: does an Oben Abnehmen (an Action that demands an Answer)

This example shows the Indes use of something approximating the Zornhaw Ort (a Winden in the bind with proper application of Fuhlen) with Oben Abnehmen (to take control of the fight after the tables have turned). If at any time, one of the fencers ignores the incoming Action and fails to provide an Answer, then the fencer will be hit, and that will be the end of the matter. Competent Actions demand an Answer, and an Answer must be provided.

Here is an example of Gleich in the Vor:

• A: launches a thrust (an Action that demands an Answer)
• B: makes a parry (a Reaction to A’s Action)
• A: strikes around with another Oberhaw (an Action that demands an Answer)
• B: cuts an Underhaw or Mittelhaw at the ribs (an Action that demands an Answer)
• A & B: both fencers get hit

In this case, B acted in Gleich rather than Indes, by Acting rather than Answering, and a double hit was the result. We often see this sort of thing happen at the very start of an exchange when both fencers are a bit twitchy and want to land the first hit, as shown in this very simple example of Gleich in the Vor:

• A: launches a thrust (an Action that demands an Answer)
• B: launches a thrust (an Action that demands an Answer)
• A & B: both fencers get hit

This situation is painfully common when both fencers begin the fight too close to each other and desire only to land their hit faster than the opponent. They both Act without appropriate care and without reference to what the other fencer is doing, and so they both get hit.

Here is another quite interesting example of Gleich in the Nach:

• A: performs an Oberhaw (an Action that demands an Answer)
• B: makes a parry then raises the hilt, which may be threatening (a Reaction to the Action)
• A: covers by raising the hilt, maybe also threatening (a Reaction to the Reaction)
• B: covers, moving the sword and maybe threatening (a Reaction to the Reaction)
• A: covers, moving the sword and maybe threatening (a Reaction to the Reaction)
• B & A: continue dancing like this, each Reacting to the other, until someone performs an Action that demands an Answer

We see this sort of behaviour from time to time, often when both fencers are skilled with the Zwerhaw, and threaten to deploy it, but also realise that the other person is threatening to deploy it if an opening is left uncovered. Then both fencers might hide under their sword, covering openings, threatening to give the Zwerhaw, but never quite Acting, until someone breaks the stalemate by backing away or by performing some kind of Action that demands an Answer. This is also Gleich, because both fencers are simply Reacting to each other.

Conclusions

By looking at the concepts in this fashion, it is easy to see that there is more to them than just who strikes first, or just describing who attacks and who defends.

It is quite possible for people to work in both the Vor and the Nach quite intelligently and to do clever things that bring victory, whether Acting or Answering. A good fencer should be able to work capably in both situations and part 2 of this article will discuss some of the options and tactics available in our source material.