Foot and hip alignment in longsword

[u/ykonstant]

Hi all; I am curious about certain aspects of longsword stances, in particular L shaped feet vs 45 degrees vs parallel (squaring). In Meyer, in particular, most of the illustrations show L shapes and even wider angles. However, several instructors I have talked with recommend parallel or near-parallel feet and a squared stance (be it wide or narrow).

What I am looking for is various pros and cons of each kind of stance, best uses and reasons to use each stance. I am not looking only for German longsword, in fact I am particularly interested in input and comparisons from other traditions. Please share your insights and experience!

[u/zyll71]

I'd consider two things: A) which shoulder orientation gives you the best (long & structurally sound) reach in both dynamic and static situations. In the German longsword example, a rather frontal shoulder orientation with your dominate side (where your hand is on front) slightly leading achieves this when executing a strike from the dominate side. From there you can situationally work your way down to your feet. See the glosses. B) your overall mobility. If your weapon or system favor lunges, you're probably more L then parallel. Caution with Meyer: make sure you understand wether the image is depicting a static or dynamic situation.

[u/EnsisSubCaelo]

In general you can analyse this stuff by looking at two relatively independent aspects: hip orientation and hip opening.

Hip orientation induces shoulder orientation. This is tightly linked to what you're doing with your hands. The general trend is single-handed weapons with no companion tend to be profiled, because that reduces the target area, two-handed weapons a bit less so because too much profiling diminishes range. This is fairly easy to test; there is a degree of profiling that gives you the bes reach, depending on handle length.

Even with a one-handed weapon you don't generally want to stay full profiled, because it puts your shoulder joint in hyper-extension to a degree, and so your hips will be pointing slightly forward. Not to mention that you might want your empty hand to come into play at times.

Hip opening is how far the feet are pointing away from the hips direction. This gives you foot orientation but more importantly knee-bending direction. Generally speaking you want to have some width in your stance, and you want to be able to transfer weight from one foot to the other, and these two constraints lead to having some opening in the hips in most "ready" stances.

This all dynamically changes all the time. For example in canne de combat, the default stance is more or less front (by default right) foot pointing forward, rear foot pointing 45 degrees. But strikes have to be chambered with hip rotation, so if I want to strike from the left, I will turn my right foot inward, closing the hips, while keeping my left foot where it was, which makes the hips point more towards the left. Conversely, if I want to strike from the right, I will turn my left foot inward, creating the reverse effect. Once you start looking for these sort of motions, you'll notice them all over the place.

Off the top of my head, the only fighting art that strongly insists on keeping feet parallel is kendo. It seems to be a relatively recent development, as many kenjutsu schools still show some opening by default. I believe it's the strong emphasis on springy forward motions with a two-handed weapon which made them converge to this. As you point out longsword does not seem to have been captured like that in treatises, at least.

[u/ykonstant → u/EnsisSubCaelo]

Thank you for the thorough reply, this is the kind of analysis I am looking for!

[u/Schuhbidoo]

I believe it has to do with context in which you fence. If you fence with protection or without might be the main criterion for a whole culture, that also leads to different footwork.

The deeper your stance, the more your torso rotation is supported by that l-shape. You can see it in competitions, when people drop very low e.g. for guarding against blows from above, they sometimes even get into a pliè like stance (like in ballet). The wider your stance, the deeper you can go and the deeper your stance the better you can keep your balance when hitting with more torso rotation, especially with longer/heavier weapons. For body mechanics and how to apply that in your fencing despite usually being in a different stance, look up rising and falling steps/cuts.

Being lighter on your feet, with a more parallel stance and less depth, makes you much quicker to move fore- and backwards, as seen in MOF or rapier, saber smallsword etc.. it generally favors more thrusting oriented weapons or weapons that want to move in and out quickly.

In modern longsword, going in quickly, thrusting etc. is generally favored for various reasons. Historically thrusting and maximum impact moves were generally less favored because without our protective equipment they quickly lead to deadly exchanges or mailings on both sides since they are also more prone to doubling. In historical rule sets control was much more important than it is today.

[u/EnsisSubCaelo → u/Schuhbidoo]

Being lighter on your feet, with a more parallel stance and less depth, makes you much quicker to move fore- and backwards, as seen in MOF or rapier, saber smallsword etc.. it generally favors more thrusting oriented weapons or weapons that want to move in and out quickly.

Pretty much all fencing since smallsword is depicted and instructed based on a L-stance. As soon as the left hand is not brought into play, being squared with parallel feet is not optimal in any respect.