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.