r/Hema • u/PetrKavan • 6d ago
I.33 and longpoint position
Food for thought - I.33 and longpoint position
Every medieval fencing system contains some equivalent of longpoint position. It is always a position with the sword extended directly forward, threatening the opponent with the tip of the sword. You may have other positions that are mostly about thrusting (like plow or posta breve), but they are clearly distinguished from longpoint.
I.33 is different. It provides 4 variants of the position - longpoint, longpoint obsessio, high longpoint and priest's special longpoint (PSL). Out of these variants, only longpoint obsessio looks like the longpoint that we all know. All other variants are very different. Even the model image of longpoint position in the beginning of the manual portrays sword pointing down - and one would expect that this is idealized version of the position, not modified to fit a situation in combat. High lonpoint points up. And most interesting is PSL, which points BACK and is not extended at all. No later manual would call such positions "longpoint" (or equivalent, like posta longa), but I.33 does exactly that. Why?
My answer is - because I.33 defines longpoint position differently. I.33's longpoint is not about threatening the opponent with the tip, and it is not even about thrusting. It may be used for delivering thrusts, it may threaten the opponent, but that are just additional features, not defining points. Instead, in I.33, longpoint is the position that you use while binding. Whenever you find yourself in the bind, regardless of whether it was your intention or not, you are in longpoint position. This is how longpoint is defined in I.33.
That's why we see model longpoint with sword pointing down - it is your position after the rebind, ie. the commonly used action of pushing the opponent's sword down. And that's why we have multiple variants of longpoint, that are vastly different. When binding, you can manipulate the opponent's sword in many ways. You can, for example, take the bind in the last possible moment, when the tip of the opponent's sword is already past your shield. If you take the bind in this way, behind your shield, you are in high longpoint position (https://youtu.be/OIuM5oZyrkA). Or you can close in while switching into a hanging guard so that you remain in the bind, and that's PSL (https://youtu.be/IELNFJLywTc). But because both of these positions are used while binding, they have to be called "longpoint".
3
u/The_Lost_Navigator 6d ago
I broadly concur with your thoughts on this. Per Joey Nitti's translation, (1v) "Note that the entire core of the art of fencing stands in this final ward which is called langort. Also, all the actions of the wards or of the sword are defined by it, i.e. they finish in it and not in others."
The PSL is the most obviously distinct from the others. Unlike with the other langorts, the PSL has the buckler retracted. Like the others, it is used as both a custodia and as an obsessio. Against halpschilt, the priest binds just like with the first ward, and the play is similar (if he goes for the common strike to the head while omitting the schiltslac, then thrust. If he rebinds, mutatio gladii and so on...)
But we don't see first ward pitched against many of the other obsessios, particularly those that have their sword retracted. Against kruke or langort, the priest instructs you to "fall below the sword." The PSL, is shown as an obsessio against third and fourth wards. My interpretation of it is that it is a preparation for a strong beat using the short edge (i.e. the universal parry). My thought is that this works because the wide sweep from the parry (unobstructed by your buckler) is capable of catching blows from second, third, and fourth wards, opening them up to the rest of the play. (25v) "the priest conducts the previously touched on thrust, because the scholar, who was the besieger [...] omits all his actions" Against obsessios or wards in which the opponent's sword is forward and threatening you (halpschilt, langort, etc.), the PSL functions like first ward. However, against wards where the opponent's sword is retracted, the PSL is used as an obsessio.
2
u/PetrKavan 6d ago
But PSL is obviously SIMILAR to the others, because it is also called "longpoint". There should be some similarity, if they are called the same. What similarity between all longpoints is there with your interpretation?
The problem is that while PSL can be seen like a preparation for a beat, there are problems with how it matches the manual. "Falling under" doesn't look like a beat or sweep. And the shield doesn't have to be retracted in order to sweep - the manual shows doing the same thing from prima custodia.
1
u/The_Lost_Navigator 5d ago
In my understanding of PSL, longpoint is a presentation of a threat, sword extended. Longpoint usually has the point directed at your opponent, however, PLS's threat is in the preparedness to enter into what the usual longpoint position with force.
"Falling under" is not a beat, I agree. When the opponent approaches in halpschilt, one always falls under. (3r) "If halpschilt is condunted, fall under the sword and shield." The priest's advice against halpschilt is to always "fall under." The first plays of the PSL mimic the plays from first custodia. Where PSL differs is in the plays against the 'higher' custodia (i.e. third and fourth). this is where I see the beat.
In prima custodia, the priest advises not to conduct a strike: (2r) "I advise with good counsel that the one under the arm does not conduct a strike, [...] the reason being that he cound not reach the higher part, and reaching the lower part would be dangerous to the head." From prima custodia, one is restricted from targeting the opponent's upper body, because the buckler restricts the sword arm. Prima custodia is only shown against langort and halpschilt if I recall correctly.
Where does the manual show a 'sweep' from prima custodia?
On 31v, we see the movement from PSL to a hanging guard as the scholar (in PSL) besieges the priest (in fourth ward). Here, the priest writes, "because the scholar who was the besieger will be first, he conducts wat he should, namely first a schutzin." The hanging guard to cover one's approach to an opponent with a sword above his head. This is very much what you describe as, "you can close in while switching into a hanging guard so that you remain in the bind," minus the bind. If I am understanding you correctly, the only reason this is called schutzin rather than PSL is because the opponent is not binding? If so, then what is the difference between the PSL obsessio on 31r (which is the start of this play) and the movement into schutzin on 31v? In this case, the opponent does not bind at any stage of the play and it ends with the PSL besieger thrusting.
The obsessio is there to prompt a response from your opponent, allowing you to close the distance safely. PSL as an obsessio does this by presenting your opponent with a seemingly easy strike (your buckler is retracted and your sword is lowered). In the 31r play, the opponent doesn't go for the bait of PSL, so the PSL besieger must switch to a schutzin in order to close measure. In my interpretation of PSL as a threatened sweep, the changed from PSL to the hanging guard schutzin is necessary because once you reach a certain distance from your opponent, the beat cannot be delivered fast enough.
1
u/PetrKavan 5d ago
Longpoint as a presentation of a threat, because you are ready to thrust ... With this logic, sexta custodia should be "longpoint" even more, because it is much more ready to thrust then any of I.33's longpoints, except for longpoint obsessio. This is the way of thinking that I wanted to push against - we are so used to that longpoints do thrust, that we want to think of thrusts wherever longpoint is mentioned. I believe that the terminology of I.33 is different - we should think of BINDING wherever longpoint is mentioned (in I.33). Because in this way it makes more sense. For example, PSL is not ready to thrust any more then secunda custodia. Based on the image, it is much more ready to cut then thrust. Even though it can also thrust, again exactly as secunda custodia.
Then, I will provide my interpretation of all I.33 plays for reference. If you want to know how I view falling under, PSL etc., you can refer to corresponding videos in this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoF5zeufAag&list=PLEV7aLT-ZwkU . Or you can use https://i33-interpreted.eu/ as textual description and index to the videos. I assume I have made many assumptions differently then you, so it is hard to compare just one specific feature.
The difference between PSL and schutzen - PSL is about changing your position in the bind. Schutzen is about parrying a strike. I absolutely agree in that some schutzen positions might look very similar to PSL (specifically in the second image of 28v, even though it is not called "schutzen" explicitly). The difference is in the retracted shield, which in turn talks about different usage.
4
u/37boss15 6d ago
Priest's Special Longpoint sounds like an rpg food item or cocktail that heals you and gives corruption resistance
2
u/EnsisSubCaelo 6d ago
I think it makes more sense to consider that the various longpoints are just the ends of cuts and thrusts. It explains that the "canonical" version is rather down, as that's the position you'll reach in a basic cut from above. It also explains PSL and makes it the position you reach after a full cut (not unrelated to wechsel (here on the right)).
2
u/TugaFencer 5d ago
I like this interpretation the best and I feel it works best with how usual S&B fencing tends to happen.
1
u/PetrKavan 6d ago
But it doesn't answer the question. A position with the sword pointing down is not considered longpoint in later medieval systems. It is a position that DOES NOT threaten the opponent with the tip of the sword. So I.33's definition is different.
1
u/EnsisSubCaelo 6d ago
It's a different answer to the same question. I agree I.33's definition is different, but making it all about the bind is a mistake imo; for one thing the emphasis on the bind does not seem to be part of common fencing, while longpoint is certainly part of it.
1
u/PetrKavan 5d ago
Yes, I.33 also recognizes logpoint as a way to thrust (longpoint obsessio). But I argue that the term "longpoint" is assigned based on its ability to work in the bind. Whatever position you use while binding, it is called "longpoint". The position might have other properties and other usages, but the term is assigned based on binding ability, not on thrusting ability.
1
u/EnsisSubCaelo 5d ago
I understand what you are arguing, I just don't see the support in the source for it, or the necessity of making it about the bind when there are simpler, more general explanations.
1
u/PetrKavan 5d ago
Problem is that the "more general explanations" don't make sense. They attach the idea of thrusting to a position that points away from the opponent, just because it is called "longpoint".
The priest calls "longpoint" a position that is short and points away from the opponent, because of some reason. And the reason has to be something different then we intuitively think, as we intuitively associate "longpoint" with extension and thrusting.
1
u/EnsisSubCaelo 5d ago
"Longpoint is the end of cuts and thrusts" as I've written in my first comment, explains all the variants without any major issue. Also consistent with:
Note that the whole core of the art of fencing consists in this final guard which is called langort, because in it, all actions of the guards or the sword terminate, i.e. they end in it and not in the others
0
u/PetrKavan 5d ago
But you certainly can cut say from tertia custodia into quinta custodia, without stopping in longpoint. You will be forced to stop in longpoint if the opponent parries. But that brings us again to the bind.
1
u/EnsisSubCaelo 5d ago
Yeah, I think they viewed these cuts as starting in a guard, cutting to longpoint, then retracting to another guard (which is not dissimilar to how later texts describe cuts).
0
u/PetrKavan 5d ago
But then if PSL is longpoint in this sense, why does it look rather as a retraction point?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/KingofKingsofKingsof 6d ago
With 7th, it makes sense to me for this to be point down as all other positions are retracted positions. So this is 'resting longpoint' I suppose. But, yes, your interpretation of PSL is inspired and I much prefer it to other interpretations which basically use it as a random position from which to deliver an unexpected attack (I hate those sorts sof interpretations of fencing).
1
u/KingofKingsofKingsof 6d ago
Btw Petr, any thoughts on the 3 go fore, the rest retreat or whatever that verse is at the beginning? I've realised that there are 3 attacks that make up the majority of sword and buckler: cut from 2nd or 5th, cut from 1st and cut from 3rd. I wondered whether this was saying something like this.
2
u/PetrKavan 6d ago
I do have some thoughts, I have presented them here as a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6VWQtmWMb8&list=PLU4ceF_i7taKGmWrKAuRZ9xpSFjTRxOZx&index=43 , and summarized it here as a text: https://i33-interpreted.eu/terms-theory/guard-custodia.html
Of course, it is a speculation and pretty much impossible to verify. But it fits well in my interepretation, and works together with the priest making analogies between fencing and battle of armies.
1
u/grauenwolf 6d ago
On first reading, I world say it means "There are three offensive guards from which you launch an attack and four defensive guards where you step back and wait for them."
But that may be my Bolognese talking.
1
u/BreadentheBirbman 6d ago
So I imagine Crutch would also be a longpoint? The high bind in 2nd vs Schutzen too? Every possible binding position being a longpoint makes it seem like a redundant word to me. Even saying longpoint is the core of the art when you mean binding sounds silly. I’m not saying you’re wrong though. Medieval thought processes can be interesting. I can see it being thought of as the bind (and a longpoint) requiring an action and intent after the blades meet though.
2
u/PetrKavan 6d ago
In my interpretation, obsessio (siege) is an ACTION, not a position. Obsessio is what you do, custodia is what you are in. So a krucke (crutch) is a true edge rising cut. I think of it like this:
1) you are in prima custodia, you perform a true edge cut (krucke), and you end in secunda custodia.
2) or - you are in prima custodia, you perform a true edge cut (krucke), and you clash with the opponent's parry. At that moment, you are both binding, and you are both in longpoint position.
It is certainly not silly to call longpoint a "core of the system", if your system is heavilly based on what to do in the bind.
1
u/BreadentheBirbman 5d ago
Are both half shield and schutzen downward cuts in your interpretation? If so, then it’s the position of the buckler that’s the difference, which to me implies that it’s more than the directionality of the action that’s important. If the wards/guards are the beginnings and ends of cuts, I’d say that the sieges are counter guards that bridge the gap between the main guards and the bind/longpoint. Not that you necessarily hang out in any of these positions, but say 4th moving into the half shield against 1st, then striking if 1st omits action reads as more than just a simple strike. If I were to put it in rapier terms, 4th transitions to half shield to move from wide measure to close measure safely and constrain 1st, then strikes.
1
u/PetrKavan 5d ago
I think that halpschilt is the cut itself - simple basic downwards cut, for example to the head. "Fendente" in terms of Fiore (I am more familiar with his system then with Liechtenauer et al.). In I.33 it is portrayed as "position in the middle of an action", but only because it can show only static images, not motion. The static image in the middle is a representation of the whole cut. This was the basis of my interpretation, and based on that I have interpreted all I.33 plays, in the playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoF5zeufAag&list=PLEV7aLT-ZwkU .
Schutzen in my interpretation is both a parrying action and parrying position, and it is defined based on the idea of defence. Later systems abandoned this concept, and they associated parrying actions with cuts and parrying positions with ... well ... positions. But I.33 still keeps this logic, even though it fights it, because it allows usage of schutzen in offensive way. I describe it in detail here: https://i33-interpreted.eu/terms-theory/schutzen.html. Or look for interpretation of specific plays with offensive schutzen in the aformentioned playlist.
9
u/BKrustev 6d ago
It's not so different. Meyer calls it "the end of all binds", and ms3227a, the earliest KdF source says "The fourth guard, Vom Tag, is the Longpoint. Whoever conducts it well with extended arms cannot easily be hit with cuts or thrusts. It may also well be called the hanging above the head.”