The inside and the outside

[Roger N]

I thought I would start off the discussion here with a topic that at times can be confusing, namely defining "the inside" and "the outside", as it is used by different masters in various manuscripts.

What are your thoughts on this? How do you define it? How do the different masters define it?

I have my personal definition of this, but I would like to hear your thoughts. Please join in, everyone!

[Shay Roberts]

My personal definitions:

1) My inside: the chest-ward area between my forward and rear foot.
2) My outside: the back-ward area between my forward and rear foot.
3) I am outside his weapon: his weapon is between me and my weapon.
4) I am inside his weapon: my weapon is between me and his weapon.

[Roger N]

I tend to use the same definitions myself, and especially 3 and 4.

However, some masters appear to use 1 & 2 more, which can contradict 3 and 4, in the sense that your point is on your opponent's outside or inside, no matter what side of his point your point is. It is simply a matter och chest and back, and not a relationship between the weapons and bodies.

Has anyone ever made a table of how the masters define the inside and the outside or if they recommend opposite or mirrored stances? I've been thinking of doing this, but I have other things that I need to prioritize first.

[Roger N]

I'll try to make a proper table later, but I perhaps we could define this together? It is a bit tricky, since it can depend on the specific weapon and some masters have no fixed opinion, but we can try to list what they appear to prefer.

Opposite stances - lead with the same foot.
Josep Svetnam

Mirrored stances - lead with opposite foot.
Joachim Meyer

[Shay Roberts]

However, some masters appear to use 1 & 2 more, which can contradict 3 and 4, in the sense that your point is on your opponent's outside or inside, no matter what side of his point your point is. It is simply a matter och chest and back, and not a relationship between the weapons and bodies.

Yeah, murky area. I mostly study Ringeck, and in his outer takings (part of his nachreisen section) he is specifically using the blade as a reference point and seems to be using 3 & 4. However, I'm not yet entirely comfortable with my interpretations of those plays.

Has anyone ever made a table of how the masters define the inside and the outside or if they recommend opposite or mirrored stances? I've been thinking of doing this, but I have other things that I need to prioritize first.

With regard to stances, I assume you mean the starting positions of the opponents? A more troubling question for me is the positions of the opponents at the point of contact, because it is not always clear, especially in Talhoffer, if the defender has stepped into his defense or remained in the same position. If the inside/outside reference is his sword, it doesn't matter, but if it's his body, that changes everything.

[Roger N]

Yep, a murky area indeed. We have been trying to follow David James Knight's translation of Mair Polearms, but the text is often very confusing and unclear simply telling you to "parry", without explaining how or in what direction. Reading Mair I haven't really understood yet how he defines the inside and outside. Possibly he refers to the sides of both the body AND the weapon.

It probably becomes clearer when you have read the sections on pollax and halberd more properly, but I have so many other things to study that I haven't found the time to do so yet. We're still struggling with the shortstaff... I think I will start reading it from the back soon.

David James Knight has said he will join us here, so maybe he can bring some light to this.

[Mikael Ogren]

I have a feeling that it might be more difficult to deduce the stance/footwork with spear and polearms than with longsword since it is difficult to change side with the weapon after each step so to speak. So from a given start position it might be more difficult to guess the footwork at contact or later steps in a series like the ones described in Mair.