The Problem with Modern HEMA: Reclaiming Liechtenauer’s Art of Ernst Fechten

By Craig Peters

The genesis of this essay began as far back as 2007, when I first developed a nagging sense, after reading and re-reading MS 3227.a, that there was something wrong with how modern HEMA practitioners practiced Liechtenauer’s art of the long sword. But it took many years and a substantial amount of practice for me to be be able to clearly identify and articulate what these factors were, and how they impacted the way we fence.

While Liechtenauer’s unarmoured long sword is nearly ubiquitous among modern long sword practitioners, his teachings have also been badly distorted. There is a great misalignment between how the early texts in the Liechtenauer tradition teach us to fight, versus what is actually seen in the great majority of HEMA videos, especially sparring videos, these days. The goal of this essay is to help those who practice Liechtenauer’s long sword to clearly be able to identify and understand the key factors that have lead to this distortion, and secondly, to have the requisite knowledge and tools to correct these problems.

There are several core problems to the way HEMA is conducted today, especially in terms of sparring. These problems are often interrelated, which means that dividing them as I have is artificial and can distort our understanding of these factor’s interrelationship. Just the same, it is necessary to identify each component for the sake of clarity, so that each one can be understood.

The key problems are as follows:

1) First, many long sword practitioners attempt to win the vor at the expense of fighting from proper measure

2) Related to the first factor, many long sword practitioners use long and reaching strikes, which lead to excessively wide binds and an over-reliance upon physical strength

3) As a result of distorted measure, most of Liechtenauer’s core techniques from the bind cannot be applied well

4) There is an over-reliance upon striking around from the bind, which is partly a consequence of the wider binds and improper measure

5) There also tends to be an over-reliance on nachraisen as a result of fights being out of measure, which leads some fighters being overly hesitant, lest their commitment to attack be exploited

Let’s look at these factors to understand each of them in greater depth.

Winning the Vor Without Regard for Measure

It is true that Liechtenauer places firm emphasis upon winning the vor, and with good reason. When we strike first, we are very often put in a position to respond well from the bind. For example, if we strike a zornhau and our opponent binds us with a zorn, their sword will be closer to the center-line between us and therefore they will be strong in the bind. Paradoxically, the one who has struck-in first from zufechten and is weak in the bind is in the better position if they can respond well from the bind. As the opponent prepares to drive the zornhau ort, we can counter it with a winden. Likewise, when we strike-in assertively with a zwerchhau, we bind close to the opponent in a position analogous to a high winden, which gives us excellent leverage from which to make our next attack.

However, modern practitioners distort Liechtenauer’s teaching when they spar and attempt to win the vor at all costs—even when they are badly out of measure. The result of this is that either the practitioner is in a wide bind that distorts their actions in krieg, or that fighters over-rely upon nachraisen because the fight is out of measure, stymieing them from developing the more technical aspects of Liechtenauer’s art from the bind.

Long, Reaching Strikes and Excess Strength

A second factor which leads to distortion in long sword fencing is fencers relying upon long, reaching strikes from zufechten. The reliance upon these sorts of strikes is attributable to two factors: the over-reliance upon Joachim Meÿer as a source for long sword, and second, the attempt to win the vor without regard for measure.

In an oft-neglected passage commenting upon winden, the anonymous author of MS 3227.a has sharp words of rebuke that modern long sword practitioners would do well to heed. He states:

“And one rarely is a good fencer without the windings. Just as the Leychmeister disdain them and say that fencing from the winding is weak and they call it from the shortened sword because that they are done simple and stupid. And they mean that these are fenced from the long sword which is done with outstretched arms and extended sword and also aggressively with all strength of the body only by pressing themselves forward.

“And this is painful to watch! If one stretches just as running after a rabbit this is not the way, neither the windings nor Liechtenauer’s art, because there is no strength against (the opposing strength)! Whoever does it differently should prefer strength” (Stoeppler’s Translation).

A few things are worth noting in this passage. First, the author identifies those who use outstretched arms and extended sword as being “Leychmeister”, a term of disdain and contempt in the Liechtenauer tradition. Such individuals do not demonstrate real skill or knowledge at all—regardless of how good they may be with their particular style of fencing!

Notice also what is explicitly criticized, namely “outstretched arms”, fencing aggressively with all the strength of the body, and “long extended swords”. This is precisely what one sees in the great majority of HEMA tournaments and YouTube videos; in fact, fencing in this way is nearly synonymous with what most HEMA practitioners think of HEMA! Fencing in this way is also what we see in the plates of Meÿer’s Gründtliche Beschreibung der Kunst des Fechtens, where the practitioners have elegant and graceful yet over-stretched bodies. However, the author of MS 3227.a is clear that this is precisely how we are not to fence.

As the author of the MS so rightly identifies, when you fence in this way, you must inevitably over-rely on strength. The longer your strikes, the greater your reliance upon your strength to deliver the strike. But this sort of fencing is the fencing of the buffel, the brutish fighter who relies upon strength and, to a certain degree, luck rather than skill and control. You cannot develop much skill in Liechtenauer’s art fencing when you rely a great degree upon force and power, and yet this is precisely what we see in nearly all HEMA tournaments today.

A last detail worth noticing is the author’s assessment of fencers who fight like this: their way of fighting is not Liechtenauer’s art. In other words, the fencing they do has nothing to do with the real art of Liechtenauer. With strength clashing against strength, there is little skill, control and precision at work. Liechtenauer’s fencing does not rely upon great strength.

The thing is, striking with great force is a waste of effort. Swords do not require great force to cut. But beyond this, leading with a powerful strike from zufechten is unnecessary because most opponents will do something to bind our sword, whether they strike-in or use absetzen as Liechtenauer advocates, or whether they use a displacement of some sort. Either way, all of the energy and force of the initial strike is wasted because the attack has been bound. Worse, because too much strength was put into the initial strike, our ability to use fühlen and respond quickly and effectively from the bind is compromised. Big, slow strikes are just that: slow and clumsy. Since the real art of Liechtenauer and indeed all long sword fencing begins from the bind, striking in with a great deal of force in zufechten is silly because it prevents us from being able to quickly and accurately feel then launch our next attack from a crossing. By contrast, a strike that is made without a great deal of arm strength, one that is quick, precise and controlled, will allow the practitioner to respond much more quickly from the bind. To use an analogy from ice hockey, a slap shot might look cool, but anyone who’s a professional hockey player knows that snap shots are far better and score far more goals. Yet many people who fence competitively in HEMA look like they are trying to smash their opponent with the sword, instead of quickly and precisely bind to seek the next opening. Whether we want to admit it or not, such fencers are the epitome of the buffel.

Liechtenauer’s Techniques Cannot Be Applied From the Bind

The crux of the problem in modern day HEMA is distorted measure. Winning the vor without regard from measure; taking long steps; and making long, reaching strikes will distort and corrupt our long sword fencing. Making matters worse is the fact that the Liechtenauer tradition does not explicitly teach about measure, meaning that it is easy for practitioners to miss how crucial correct measure is in fencing. Without correct measure, you cannot apply Liechtenauer’s art at all.

What exactly is measure? For the purposes of this article, I will define measure as: the range at which you can make a single, comfortable passing step or angled step and be able to successfully strike your opponent’s head with your sword should he or she fail to respond. Again, correct measure is when we need one short step in order to be in the correct range to hit our opponent with a strike to the head. I have defined correct measure in terms of reaching our opponent’s head because this is precisely where we are told to strike with the great majority of Liechtenauer’s techniques.

How far away is correct measure? Actually, it’s surprisingly short. Correct measure depends upon a person’s height to some extent; the shorter you are, the closer you will need to come to your opponent to be in correct measure. Likewise, the length of our long sword can modify what is correct measure; so too can the sort of strike we deliver. However, as a general rule of thumb, proper one-step measure is when there is no more than five and a half feet or 1.63 meters between the two fencers- perhaps six feet or 1.83 meters with a particularly long sword. This means that when you are around this range, you are in the proper measure to take a single step forward to be able to strike and hit your opponent to the head. When you have stepped, it is likely that your front foot will only be around 3 feet or 90 cm or so from your opponent, again depending upon factors like your sword length and the strike you have used.

Obviously, Liechtenauer never gives this figure, so one can dispute it. However, we do have clues about correct measure from MS 3227.a. In the front section, we are advised that if “[we] know the measure and think the adversary can and will reach [us] now, so [we] should hurry to him without fear, quickly and nimbly, going for the head or body,” and also “[we] should instantly attack as soon as [we are] sure [we] could reach him” (Stoeppler). Notice in both of these texts, it indicates that correct measure is being able to hit your opponent. Assuming we are not using an excessively long federschwerter to fence (though many tournament fighters will do this) we will discover that the distance at which we can make a single, comfortable step and meaningfully hit or menace our opponent will be somewhere within the range of six feet. Now, some may dispute that MS 3227.a does talk about using “jumps and leaps” so measure should be significantly wider than this. However, MS 3227.a also gives a second indicator of how close we should be. We are told that our points should not be more than half an ell (30-40 cm) away from our opponent when we bind. If our points are further than this, we’re binding wide and stepping too far.

The key thing with good measure is to step and strike when we think we can hit. As MS 3227.a says, whether we hit or miss is immaterial, but we need to genuinely believe we are in measure or very close to it. If we’re trying to make longer reaches or jumps, this is a good sign we are fencing too wide in zufechten. Likewise, as the angle of our swords in the bind becomes flatter, it’s often a good indication that we are fighting from too wide of a measure.

As previously indicated, when we fence out of measure our binds become too wide. The result of this is that we cannot correctly apply much of Liechtenauer’s art, because his art only works from close measure. Good long sword fencing depends upon gaining or maintaining superior leverage in a bind as we attack to the nearest opening. However, the wider the bind is, the more distorted the leverage becomes, and the more difficult it is to decisively gain an advantage. Consequently, these wider binds lead us to engage in what Roland Warzecha has termed “gambling”, namely hoping that we can make the right strike or attack quickly enough from the bind without happening to be hit. By contrast, if we correctly use Liechtenauer’s art, we very often covered and protected as we make our attack from the bind.

A good example of the importance of measure is Liechtenauer’s first winden and thrust from the zornhau. When we perform the winden, we regain strength in the bind in three different ways. First, the turning of the short edge and lifting our arms high displaces our opponent’s sword so that our sword is closer to the center-line between us and our opponent, giving us strength in the bind. Secondly, the strong of our sword near the hilt is in contact with the weak of our opponent’s blade, which further helps to give us strength. Thirdly, our edge is turned in against our opponent’s flat, yet another factor that helps our strength in the bind. These three factors, which I first encountered together when listening to Roland Warzecha, are the key determinants of how strong or weak one is in a bind. How much physical strength you put into a bind is more an indication of the degree to which you are acting as a buffel, rather than whether your are mechanically strong or weak at the bind, which is what Liechtenauer is really talking about when he uses words like “harte” and “weich”.

Yet, despite having all of these advantages in the bind, there is one final factor that is crucial to success with the winden, and that is correct measure. We must strike and bind our opponent from good measure in zufechten, and we must also take another short step as we perform our winden to ensure we retain good measure in krieg. If we have done this correctly, our opponent will find it highly difficult to displace our sword offline. However, if we are even a half step too far away in krieg, it will be easy for the opponent to drive our winden aside to his left and break our thrust.

When we discover the importance of correct measure in zufechten and krieg, our long sword fighting is magically unlocked and liberated. All of those techniques from Liechtenauer that we had a hard time getting to work suddenly function. We also begin to discover that being strong or weak in the bind has almost nothing to do with how strongly we hold our sword in a bind, but rather with factors to do with leverage: whether our sword is closer to the center-line, for instance.

What do we do if we find ourselves at relatively close quarters in the bind? We very often will use duplieren and mutieren. As Mike Edelson and Corey Winslow have pointed out in their video on the zornhau, duplieren and mutieren are precisely the techniques we are to use when both fencers have struck in assertively with good measure. Of course, there are other techniques that we might apply in a specific context aside from duplieren and mutieren, but if we look carefully at the 15th century glosses of Liechtenauer, these two techniques reappear, and duplieren in particular is often mentioned as a follow-up action from the bind. Excellent long sword fencers would do well to master these techniques at proper measure.

By contrast, the great majority of long sword fencers in HEMA tournaments these days show scant regard for measure. They step and strike not when they think they can hit the opponent, but rather when they’re somewhat close to the opponent. The result is binds end up being wide and distorted, or worse, that there is an over-reliance upon nachraisen or “parry-riposte” fencing that has little to do with Liechtenauer’s true teachings.

Improper Measure Facilitates Wrong Actions from the Bind

As indicated, having a wide bind really corrupts how well we can apply Liechtenauer’s art. For one thing, actions like high winden and thrust cannot be employed because it becomes too easy for the opponent to displace us, so we have no reason to use them. Since most of Liechtenauer’s techniques from the bind require us to have good measure in zufechten, and then to take at least one other step in during krieg, it’s no wonder that these techniques are seldom applied in tournaments.

One of the consequences of this is that HEMA tournament fighters often use techniques that are less than optimal from the bind. More specifically, there is a great over-reliance upon striking freely around from a bind.

If we read the glosses of Liechtenauer closely, we discover that Ringeck, Peter von Danzig and the author of MS 3227.a all identify that winden and similar actions that proceed “on the sword” are really the heart of Liechtenauer’s swordsmanship when we bind. Yet, to watch a HEMA tournament, you would think that snapping a zwerchhau from the bind or some other type of schnappen technique is the hallmark of good fighting. However, these techniques are far from optimal because they are too wide and too slow.

It is true that Liechtenauer teaches striking around with a zwerchhau from a bind as being a valid technique. However, if we pay close attention, Liechtenauer also indicates that such a technique can easily be countered if we have the right skill. What we must keep in mind is that in Liechtenauer’s time, not all that many fencers would have known the zwerchhau—at least not initially. Imagine someone living at this time who had learned Liechtenauer’s teaching. This fencer faces an opponent whose body language suggested that he will be defensive and waiting to counter the attack. In such a situation, the Liechtenauer-trained fencer could probably get away with snapping a zwerch from the bind. If his opponent did not know what to do or how to respond, he would be struck.

These days, however, nearly everyone who does long sword knows the zwerchhau. Even if you train specifically in Fiore or Vadi, it is difficult not to encounter a zwerch at some point, whether from facing someone who trains from Liechtenauer’s teachings or simply from seeing YouTube videos. Given this context, it really does not make sense to use these wide actions from the bind, because they can be countered. Anyone who knows and has practiced abschneiden can dominate the fencer who suddenly leaves the bind, because rushing-in to slice the opponent’s arms is a far shorter movement from the bind than striking around.

As before, one of the major culprits leading to this sort of fencing is Joachim Meÿer. Since Meÿer’s fencers are clearly fencing in excessively wide measure, it makes sense for his style of swordsmanship to use wide strikes from the bind. Likewise, the fact that Meÿer rarely if ever teaches to use a thrust from the bind means that so many of the techniques crucial to Liechtenauer: like the zorn-ort, winden with thrusts, and mutieren, are not even part of Meÿer’s repertoire. However, as the author of MS 3227.a reminds us, this is not Liechtenauer’s art, even if Meÿer claims lineage from Liechtenauer.

Too Much Nachraisen or Parry-Riposte Fencing

Besides using strikes that are too wide from the bind, the other possible result of poor measure is an over-reliance upon nachraisen or, worse, parry-riposte fencing. In many tournaments, a fencer will wait for the opponent to close to strike, and then simply step out of range and counterattack. This is indeed a valid technique and Liechtenauer obviously does teach it against opponents who fight too wide. However, the problem with modern HEMA fencers who rely upon nachraisen is that it encourages a fencer to be defensive and to sit back and wait, rather than actively closing to strike-in as Liechtenauer advocates. One often sees bouts in tournaments where both fencers are moving around, hesitating to get close, not really wanting to commit to an action. This is not what Liechtenauer teaches.

There is nothing wrong with using nachraisen against an opponent who fights too wide, provided that you also know how to close and bind and use all of the techniques from krieg as Liechtenauer teaches. Yet, much of the time, those who rely on nachraisen have not practiced fencing at proper measure in zufechten and krieg, and consequently cannot consistently apply Liechtenauer’s teachings from the bind. Nachraisen becomes a crutch to prop-up their fencing, rather than one tool among many they can apply. The Ringeck and von Danzig glosses of Liechtenauer’s long sword almost never tell us to step backward; rather, much of the time, we need to step closer, to tread near to our opponent in the bind. Over-reliance on nachraisen leads to bad habits in fencing, especially if a fencer has trained themselves to constantly step back out of range.

The other result of wide measure binds is that fencers engage in parry-riposte fencing. However, this is antithetical to Liechtenauer’s teachings. More to the point, when we fence using parry-riposte actions, we seldom can maintain enough control over our opponent’s sword to safely strike in. As mentioned before, this is mere “gambling”. By contrast, Liechtenauer’s teachings from the bind very often leave us protected and covered, especially with the hilt and cross of the sword, as we step to hit. No one who considers themselves a serious practitioner of Liechtenauer’s long sword should engage in parry-riposte fencing, yet this is precisely what many fencers do, and they can get away with it, because the binds are very often much too wide.

A collateral point is the issue of hand strikes. In modern HEMA “hand-snipes” are particularly common in tournaments, and are seen as being a main-stay of HEMA long sword techniques. Yet, if you look at Liechtenauer, strikes (hauen) to the hand are nearly non-existent. One rare exception is striking with the krumphau to the hands, which makes sense: the angle of the krump makes it uniquely suited to targeting the hands. However, if we fight from correct measure, hand strikes rarely occur, because our swords will bind long before we can reach the hands. Fencers who “hand-snipe” are encouraging bad habits in themselves by fighting out of measure; they are also being lazy in over-relying on a technique instead of developing real skill in fighting from the bind.

Conclusion

As we have seen, there is considerable distortion to long sword practice in HEMA as a result of a variety of factors. Excess emphasis upon vor leading to wrong measure in zufechten and krieg have resulted in a form of long sword fencing that would be quiet alien to Liechtenauer. This long sword fencing is over-reliant upon strength, instead of being able to flow quickly and precisely to the shortest and nearest opening at the bind. Lacking correct measure at the bind, wider-actions that involve striking around, parry-riposte techniques, and an over-reliance upon hand strikes and nachraisen, result in fighters who are mostly gambling, hoping they react with the right technique while not being hit by their opponent. As a result, the precision, efficacy and beauty of so much of Liechtenauer’s art is lost, and both HEMA practitioners and the general public acquire a very distorted view of long sword fencing.

How can we remedy this problem? There are a few factors:

First, we must become insistent upon practicing from proper measure. Long sword students must internalize the very subtle difference between being at correct measure, slightly out of measure—which is still appropriate for fencing—and clearly incorrect measure from zufechten. This will require intensive time and training, both with partners and in solo training.

Secondly, we need to train to close-in at the bind, and to use techniques that remain on the sword whenever possible. Of course, there are times when it becomes necessary to pull free from the bind to strike, but these are comparatively few, especially if we have learned to fence well, without overly relying upon physical strength. Additionally, those fencers who habitually rely upon stepping back must also learn to step closer, especially when correct measure is achieved.

Thirdly, fencers need good strategies to employ against those who are striking-in from the wrong measure in zufechten. As mentioned before, nachraisen can be used in this regard. However, the schielhau has been somewhat neglected for the purpose of countering out-of-range fencers who strike in. The von Danzig gloss of Liechtenauer indicates that the schiel should be used primarily when a fencer is over-reliant on strength, which as we have seen usually means striking too long from excessively wide measure. In fact, when one does use the schielhau in this way, the schiel really shines as it allows the fencer to displace with tremendous power (if necessary) and to instantly, without any fühlen, drive a long thrust to the opponent’s face or chest. Good long sword fencers must learn to instinctively snap a schiel the moment their opponent steps in at excessively wide measure. Likewise, techniques such thrust from lang ort with readiness to use quick durchwechelsen or absetzen can also be employed to good effect against those who fence wide and long.

What about those fencers who like Joachim Meÿer and want to learn Meÿer’s long sword? In truth, there is nothing wrong with wanting to learn Meÿer for the love of learning Meÿer’s fencing. However, it is critical to realize that Meÿer represents a radical departure from Liechtenauer’s original teaching, such that what Meÿer teaches can no longer be rightly termed Liechtenauer’s art of the long sword—as the author of MS 3227.a tells us. With that in mind, those who love Meÿer should rightly be able to pursue Meÿer and fence with like-minded individuals. However, it is also crucial that modern HEMA fencers learn to fight correctly following Liechtenauer’s teachings if they truly want to pursue Liechtenauer’s art of the long sword. It is a real shame and a dishonor to Liechtenauer’s art that modern HEMA fencing and tournaments has so little resemblance to what Liechtenauer—or at least his early commentators—taught.

If we are to truly reclaim Liechtenauer’s art, the art of ernst fechten, it is imperative that modern day fencers learn to better manage their measure, their use of strength, and their actions from the bind. Only then can we truly say we are practitioners of Liechtenauer’s art of the long sword—as Liechtenauer himself might have taught it.