Unterhut Pt. 2. Nebenhut and Eisenport

While on another sweep for nebenhut sources, I found another two illustrations that I'm going to cautiously add to the list of labeled nebenhut illustrations. These come from Jörg Wihalm Hutter's manuscript on armored mounted fencing. While the German isn't translated, and my Middle High German isn't reliable, he does appear to be describing a series of devices from nebenhut while opposing two different guards. Additionally, there might be a third, but I need to double check the German since it seems to be pulled back. 

At this point, I feel that the origins of nebenhut don't lie in longsword, but instead in rossfecten- armored mounted fencing. The earliest label and illustration of nebenhut I can find is from Pseudo-Peter van Danzig's gloss dating from 1452. This gloss went on to become the most widespread gloss in the Liechtenauer record, and is reproduced in over a dozen manuscripts.  In his description of the guard, he calls it Liechtenauer's third ward of equestrian fencing, which would imply it was in wide use. During the rise of the longsword through the late middle ages, it seems logical that widespread existent terms would be modified within the existing combat system. This concept carries through to one of the latest illustrated descriptions- nebenhut for the rapier.

Additionally, the most consistent illustrations of nebenhut are found in mounted combat, no doubt helped by how many times Pseudo-Peter van Danzig's gloss was copied. Counting the two above, three out of five labeled illustrations are of nebenhut in rossfecten. The other two are from Meyer, and his are both problematic. With those in question, the only clearly accurate labeled illustrations are all of mounted combat. 

It is also appears that eisenport is the same guard as nebenhut- or at least they were interchangable. The reason for this is two fold. First, nebenhut and eisenport seem to only rarely be found in the same manual. Most writers picked one or the other and use that as their low-right guard. Meyer has both in his longsword section, but dismissed eisenport, stating that contemporary German usage equates the guard to shrankhut. Andre Paurñfeindt also has both, and while I'm not as familiar with his work, he seems to treat nebenhut as a right, or possibly an open iron door. 

Second, Nebenhut and eisenport have actually been used interchangeably in manuals. Notably, Sigmund Schining ein Ringeck's Glasgow Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.341) uses eysen pforte to describe the start techniques that are starting from nebenhut in Codex Ringeck (MS Dresd.C.487).

For example in English this verse reads:

When you stand in the the Nebenhut out to the left side and one cuts against you down from above, sweep firmly from below up into his sword with the short edge. 

In the Dresden Ms:

It~ wann du ligst In der nebenhut vff dine~ lincken sÿtten Vnnd ainer hawet vff dich võ oben nider So streÿch Von vnden vff vast in sin schwert mitt der kurczen schnid 

And in the Glasgow Ms:

Wen du ligst in der eyserñ pforten von der lincken seÿttñ / hawt dan ainer auff dich von oben nÿder / so streich von vndten auff vast an sein schwert mit der kurtzn schneid 

 Translations thanks to Wiktenauer, emphasis is mine. 

The Glasgow Fechtbuch, unlike the Dresden Ms, also contains a gloss of Pseudo-Peter von Danzig's rossfecten gloss. If nebenhut was an equestrian guard first, the addition of an equestrian section could explain the compiler/editor's change from nebenhut to eysern pforten. Eisenport might also be a borrowed term from the Italian tradition. While porta di ferro does vary, it is extensively used throughout the tradition, and doesn't suffer from the same obscurity that plagues nebenhut.

Unterhut Pt. 1 Nebenhut

I've recently became aware of the lack of sources for nebenhut. Until now, I've always associated nebenhut with the Itialian posta di coda lunga for the longsword. Essentially as this plate from Talhofer 1467. 

Unnamed Guard- Hans Talhoffer Fectbuch 1467

Of course, Talhofer doesn't explicitly name the guard shown in this plate, stating only 'Both stand in their wards.' As it happens, there isn't a single place where nebenhut for longsword is both described and illustrated. The three places I know where nebenhut is described and illustrated are, unfortunately, an equestrian source and Meyer's rapier and staff. 

It currently seems clear to me that nebenhut, shrankut, and weschelhut should typically be treated as separate guards. They're listed separately too many times to not make a distinction. Eisenporten, however, is at one point or another associated with multiple guards. 

Unfortunately, while attempting to define nebenhut things become increasingly muddled. Some masters say nebenhut is on the right only, others on the left, others still say it can be done from both sides. So admittedly trying to make a distinction between guards is difficult, and there's always the possibility (likelihood) that the various masters don't actually agree with each other. 

Nebn Hut (right)- Andre Paurenfeindt

For a working definition I would propose:

• Left foot forward.
• Sword held to the right.
• Long edge forward.
• Point dropped, and roughly following the right leg.
• Additional consideration/research into fingering the cross I think is needed. 

Another point is the single handed sources consistently show a similar angle of sword, with the arms extended to the knee, knuckles out, and point forward.  

Nebenhut for Rappier- Meyer 1560

Nebenhut - Goliath Fetchbuch

If this angle were rotated to accommodate a 2-handed grip it would lead to a position much like the one pictured above in Paurenfeindt's manual. If this is how the longsword nebenhut developed, then the real question would be if the point should be back at all, since that would require additional rotation from the single sword guards.

I would also like to propose a term 'unterhut' and call it a day. 

Excerpt from Manciolino's Second Assault

Note: Guard positions are shown in orange, cuts and thrusts in red. Steps with the right foot are in blue and left steps are in green in both the diagram and the text. The diagram is only through the 'easy leap' in step 11. Thereafter, the movement is with the right foot only.

A typical guard to begin Step 1 in would be Guardia Alta. The dangling conjunctions are meant to symbolize that the motions only broken into steps for learning purposes. The assault is, in fact, a fluid motion.

1. Crossing forward with your right next, you will cut a tramazzone fallen into porta di ferro larga. And you will cause your apposed buckler to guard your head well.
2. Then drawing your left foot near your right you will do a falso from low to high going into guardia di faccia.
3. And casting your right foot immediately forward, you will throw a mandritto traversale to the face so that your sword falls into porta di ferro [not specified].
4. You will then go into guardia di testa with your sword, and will throw a mandritto to his leg, going under your arm, and
5. Immediately recoiling your right foot to the rear, you will throw a riverso to his sword hand in such fashion that it falls into coda lunga, and
6. Stepping forward from here with your right, you will extend a thrust to his face, and as he raises his sword to block that, you will immediately place your buckler under that, and
7. In that tempo you will pass toward his right side with your left foot, giving him a mandritto to the leg, and making your right foot then immediately follow behind your left, and
8. Thereafter retiring your left behind your right into large pace, you will make a half turn of your hand, so that your sword is finally reposed into coda lunga stretta.

9. Then you will extend a thrust to the face without moving your feet, and
10. Immediately after having done this, you will step toward his right side with your left foot, throwing a riverso to his right temple so that thereafter your right foot follows behind your left, and that your buckler is a good guardian of your head.
11. Then you will extend a stoccata into your enemy's face, lifting yourself to the rear with an easy leap, causing your sword to be reduced into coda lunga alta.
    
    

12. Passing forward then with your right foot, you will extend another thrust to the face.
13. Pretending to strike him in the head with a mandritto, nonetheless you will strike him across the right temple with a riverso, dropping your sword into coda lunga.
14. Then you will throw a falso traversale to the sword hand, that goes over-arm, and raising the sword hand into the air, you will throw a mandritto to the face going under-arm.
15. Then immediately drawing your right foot back you will strike his sword hand with a riverso.
16. Then stepping forward with the right foot you will extend a thrust to the face, and
17. Pretending to throw a riverso to the face, you will give him a mandritto across the left temple, reducing your sword into porta di ferro stretta, where you will shield your head well with your buckler.

18. Then withdrawing your right foot back you will make a half turn of your fist, recovering your sword into coda lunga stretta, and
19. Here cutting the enemy's hand with a mezzo mandritto falling into cingiara porta di ferro without moving your feet,
20. Thereafter you will step forward with your right foot and will extend a thrust to the face, redoubling two tramazzoni to the head, and making your buckler good, and
21. Then you will do a montante into guardia alta, retiring your right foot even with your left.

MS I:33 and German Literature

ROYAL ARMOURIES MS I.33: THE JUDICIAL COMBAT AND THE ART OF FENCING IN THIRTEENTH- AND FOURTEENTH CENTURY GERMAN LITERATURE by RACHEL E. KELLETT from Oxford German Studies: 41. 1, 32–56, April 2012

An interesting paper that attempts to place the earliest existing fight manual MS I:33 in the context of the literary and cultural tradition of the 1300-1400s. Link here.

German translation is as follows. Please note this is crowd sourced- but it seems to be reliable.

English:

 

He then caught¹ a fencing blow

Wolfhart went under the sword:

He cast his sword from his hand

he embraced the fighter²

 

^----

The King's servants carried shields to the court

Cudgels and bucklers, there was plenty of fencing^3,

fighting with swords, a lot of throwing javelins

at good shields. The young heroes were undeterred/untiring.

 

^----

?

?

?

?

They beat on the⁴ bucklers

they stood bent behind them⁵

and had drawn their swords

which were glowing and glistening

 

^---

Annotations:

1) = got hit by

2) in order to wrestle

3) as a show fight / contest, according to the .pdf

4) I guess what is meant here is that they used their swords to beat on their own bucklers, e.g. to challenge or intimidate someone or to applaud.

5) behind their bucklers

 

 

Modern German:

 

einen Fechtschlag(1) er dann einfing,

Wolfhart (er) unters Schwert ging:

sein Schwert warf er aus der Hand,

er umfing den Krieger.(2)

 

----

 

Des Königs Gesinde zum Hofe Schilder trug

Keulen und Buckler, gefochten³ war da genug

gekämpft mit den Schwertern, mit Wurfspeeren⁴ geworfen

viel auf gute Schilder. Die jungen Helden waren unverdrossen.

 

----

 

Sie ?⁵ und wagen

sich da so viel ?⁶

dass ?⁷ ? ?

von in ? hin und her.

Sie klopften auf⁸ die Buckler,

dahinter standen sie gebogen

und hatten heraus die Schwerter gezogen

die leuchten und gleißen.

---

 

Annotations:

1) schirmen = fechten; schirmslac = eine Fechttechnik, Bewegung

2) in den Ringkampf übergehen

3) schirmen = hier: Fechten als Turnierform

4) gabilôte = eine Art Wurfspieß

5) fleißig sein?

6) sehr, gewaltig, schmerzlich, Schmerz?

7) manger = Essen? mancher?

8) "schlugen für/vor"

A note on the blog title.

The martial arts tradition in Europe is a long one, and is actually fairly well documented. Beginning in approx. 1290 and continuing on through the Middle Ages, into the Early Modern period leading into the modern day. My principal area of interest is the High/Late Middle Ages into the Early Modern era.

Language is one of the most fundamental and important things to a written record, and it's one of the things most quickly lost to the shifting nature of culture. As languages evolve, the written word gets left behind. Soon transcription is needed, then translation. It remains a testament, it's nuanced meaning too often lost.

One example is the word 'vehten.' It is the most common medieval term used to describe combat- physical, spiritual, and moral. It is also used extensively throughout the fighting manuals, which makes it an odd choice since it's actually the word schirmen that describes sword fighting.

What led to this style choice? Was this a choice made by the monks that were so often writers of these documents, meant to reflect a spiritual or moral struggle? Does it denote a certain level of skill or sophistication? Membership to a school perhaps?

Schrimen itself has several interesting layers to it, the most prominent being that in addition to referring to sword fighting, it can also refer to shielding. In fact- what begins as a secondary meaning in the Middle Ages is how the word survives into the modern day, such as in the word 'Abschirmung.'

This brings me, in a round about way, to the name of this blog. A schirmære is simply a pratictioner of schirmen, in modern terms, a fencer.