Roger Norling wrote:EDIT: I missed your response above, so this was a reply to the one before that.
Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough. I agree that there is a problem with Tobler's interpretation, but in my perspective it has more to do with footwork and keeping proper distance. Neither his or your clip really show attacks to the head. That is the problem of "display" I referred to and probably has to do with technical details like trying not to step out of frame and perhaps a bit of fear of injuring each other.
Your student's last attack aims about 40cm in front of the defender's face, making it very safe and easy to simply step back. A full on, fast attack aimed at the head at short distance is not quite as easy to step out of, especially in armour on less than ideal surfaces, and might therefore be more safely done by briefly and lightly "binding" and letting the axe pass by. It is not a bind as such though, but rather letting the opponent's axe slip by over your weapon.
I'm sorry, but you're quite mistaken. First, Christian's error is one of misunderstanding: His defender does not slip back to let the blow pass. He mistakenly believes the attacker changes his strike in the middle of the blow to strike into the defender's axe. This is extremely difficult to do with this kind of strike, and is not supported by the text.
Second, my student aims directly at the defender's head in the second part of the video, it only seems that he aims in front of him because the defender does a good job of slipping back.
Third, it is easy to slip back to avoid a shot. I have more than 20 years of armored experience, and it is a technique I have used many times. It may be harder against someone who does a very subtle blow, but then, that's why the author specifies a peasant's strike. The huge cocking and swinging motion of such a blow makes it relatively easy to see what he's doing and to prepare for it. In effect, he is striking in the time of the foot, body and hand, a false time, while you are slipping back in the time of the foot. Done correctly, you actually have the advantage.
Fourth, you do *not* want to bind with the attacker's axe. The whole point is to let it whiz on by so that he turns away from you because of the force of his blow. That gives you the time to step in and hit him before he can recover to defend himself. That's the whole point of a "peasant's strike;" Le Jeu talks about this when it teaches us how to strike correctly (in paragraph 22) when it tells us to be careful not to sing past the enemy if we miss. If the defender binds, even lightly, then he help the attacker to stop his blow, which means the attacker can recover more quickly. If you bind so lightly that you do not slow him down, then why did you bind in the first place?
I really don't see the attacker changing his mind and attacking the axe in Tobler's version. I interpret it as the execution having a missing link; a passing step backwards instead of forwards, just as you have chosen to do in your interpretation.
Of course we are not supposed to make things up and that remark is actually a bit insulting to whomever it is aimed at. But, the English translation we are looking at isn't exactly clear in order of events, is it?
I'm not sure what you mean about the insult comment (who insulted whom?), but no, we're not supposed to make things up. And I believe the order of things in the text is actually quite clear. The only point that requires insight is the actual step back by the defender (which we get by understanding what the author means by a peasant's strike), everything else is quite clear.
â€œItem: If binds to you such that both hammers stand above and strikes with brute force (lit. â€œpeasantâ€™s strikeâ€), then sense this and pretend as if you intend to parry and let his blow pass before you so that you have the hook at the neck or a free stroke to the head, shoulder or arm.â€
It all comes down to how you interpret the "feint" Even briefly touching and shoving the opponent's weapon with slight guidance to the side can be interpreted as letting his blow pass before oneself. It is done against other peasant strikes with heavy polearms (and swords) in other manuscripts, so the idea isn't that far fetched. Distance is crucial, I think, both the starting distance when initiating the attack, and maintaining distance for the defender.
I don't see how that can be open to interpretation. The way Christian shows it, you strike into the strike, so you are not guiding it past. To guide it past you, you'd have to hit the axe on the inside, and I see nothing at all to support that notion.
And of course distance is crucial--that's a central tenet of the KdF.
Finally, I am not saying you are wrong and Tobler right, but there are reasons to carefully consider both your interpretations. Also both your and Tobler's clips have flaws that may be important when considering these. I would like to see a full speed and force strike aimed at the head and the defender stepping out of it, in armour, on grass or sand, with both interpretations of weapon handling...
I'm sorry, but I have examined our video carefully and there are no flaws in it. The only flaw you have specified is that you believe the attacker is not actually aiming for the defender's head, and that's simply not so. As for slipping back, this is a simple Nachreisen
, it's nothing new or outre.
And one final question, do you have the original text? I am browsing through the manuscript, but it is slow work and I am very busy with other things right now.
"Item pint er dir am daÃŸ paid hamer obenn stennd und slecht pewrlemÃŸ so enpfind und thue als wild du versetzenn und lass sein chlag fur genn so hastu daÃŸ hennkeln pey dem nackenn oder frey sleg zu su dem chopf zu der achsel zu dem arm