The anonymous author[s] of MS I.33, the Walpurgis Fechtbuch, tell us this about the seventh ward, langort (longpoint):

Note that the nucleus of the entire art of fencing consists in this last ward, called langort; all actions of the sword are determined by it, that is they end in it and not in others. Therefore, study this ward more than the abovementioned first ward.

Us: “Wow, the nucleus, the core of the art! Tell me more, Magister!”

I.33 Author: “Um, no.”

The book says no more explicitly on the subject in the text. Instead, we are left to infer from the context of the plays in the text just what, exactly, that statement means. Things get even more fun once we realize that there are three different longpoints used in the text: one with the point low, one with the point more or less horizontal, aimed at the opponent’s middle, and one aimed high at or above the opponent’s head (allowing for artistic inaccuracy).

Now, thankfully, there is plenty of context in the manuscript that a clever, trained fencer and researcher can use to answer many questions about the what’s, why’s, and when’s of longpoint use. But there are also later works in the German school that lay some details about longpoint out more explicitly, which give us a great deal of insight into what the uses of longpoint are and why, exactly, it is the crux of the art in the medieval and renaissance German traditions. The Liechtenauer tradition of MS 3227a rhymes with MS I.33 in telling us, for example: “First understand that the [lang]ort of the sword is the center and the means and the nucleus of the sword. All techniques start and end with [lang]ort.” But this article will focus on what I find to be the most clear, and the most explicit source: the writing of Joachim Meyer.

Now, Meyer’s book is one of my favorites because, like that of Guillaume Danet much later (another favorite), it is voluminous and loaded with details that make it much easier to see how fencing masters thought about and practiced their art. And even though he does not have any material on sword and buckler, his longsword, dusack, and rapier material all have surviving components from the German tradition that can be traced to the earlier sword and buckler tradition and which are most definitely relevant to interpretations of sword and buckler. His discussion of cutting and thrusting, for one, and for us here, his discussions of langort.

First off, Meyer explicitly tells us that there are three different versions of longpoint/langort: one where the point is aimed at the enemy’s face, another at the belt, and a third pointing toward the groin. This matches what we get more implicitly from I.33, where the middle and lower longpoint positions are only ever described as “langort,” and only the upper langort receives specific mention per se. Meyer’s description does leave some question as to whether the lower longpoint depicted in I.33 was depicted as actually practiced: in the majority of the illustrations the point is aimed much lower than the groin, more toward the knees or the feet. Whether this is an artistic choice (conscious or not) that departs from a practice more like Meyer’s description, whether things had changed by Meyer’s time so that the point was higher, or whether it is simply more variable than either source makes explicitly evident is not clear. Following my own practice and training across diverse weapons I would argue that the exact point position would vary some depending on context, but this is my own interpretation.

Nice. What else?

Well, I.33 says that all actions of the sword should finish in longpoint. Meyer makes it more explicit as to what this means, telling us outright that all binds finish in this position. Training across weapons, from smallswords to dueling sabres to arming swords makes it abundantly clear that this is universal, it must be so for the bind to be effective. But of course binds are not “all actions,” so what more can we encounter?

More insight comes from Meyer’s cutting diagrams and explanations, which provide more insight into cutting in medieval and early renaissance styles than practically any other source and so are unquestionably vital to interpreting these early styles. In his system, Meyer tells us that any cut traces a line across the adversary’s target, with different cuts traveling along different lines that all meet at one center point like a starburst. These lines can be traced on a wall to create a practice target for learning to deliver cuts properly and efficiently. Moreover, he tells us that each cut can either finish along its line (somewhat akin to “following through” with the cut) or can be made to finish at the center of the target. When cut stops in the center, the fencer has finished his cut in longpoint position. Meyer gives you the choice between these two finishing points, but the I.33 author seems to be telling us that we should not ever take the option of finishing the cut at the end of the line, rather only in the middle. So thus, all binds and all blows end in long point. And based on the nature of thrusts, we can also add that they should end in longpoint as well.

Now, I am not the first person to point out that I.33 is telling us to finish our blows in longpoint, but it is nice to have Meyer describe more about this explicitly and help us see what this means in a larger overall context.

There is also a third mention of longpoint, that helps us understand why langort frequently appears as an obsesseo, or counterward, against the various wards shown in I.33. Meyer tells us that in his day, the old masters taught that longpoint was called the “break-window” because all attacks could be stopped from there. Longpoint can be useful for this because, having the weapon extended and threatening the opponent allows one to easily close the line on incoming attacks (i.e., parry them) from any direction (one reason Italian Northern dueling sabre teaches one to fence with the point forward, elbow mostly extended, and the point either threatening the face or the flank in seconda or terza guardia), and facilitates initiation of one’s own offensive after the adversary’s attack has been neutralized.

However, the I.33 author does state that, at least in certain cases, langort is not the most useful obsesseo (some folks translate the latin as being not useful, I think it more likely carries the meaning of, “well, you can do it but there are better choices”). The reason for this we can see in classical fencing: when one has the blade extended far forward in foil or dueling sword (and others), one is presenting one’s point to the opponent and giving them the opportunity to bind one’s blade. So again we can see that I.33 acknowledges the importance of longpoint in stating that most fencers used it to counter particular wards. And by comparing it to Meyer we can see more about how crucial it was to the medieval German systems overall, and why it was crucial, even though the I.33 master[s] gives us a, “well, but hang on a minute.”

Pretty neat stuff. In sum, even though Meyer is not treating sword and buckler and even though he acknowledges that things had changed some by his time, a glance at Meyer’s discussions of longpoint gives us a much better idea of the uses of this position in German fencing in general. And for those of us interested in interpreting the earliest known manifestations of Western fencing, Meyer provides profound insight into why, exactly, the I.33 author tells us that longpoint is the nucleus of the art.

The contents of this post reflect my own views and opinions, and do not necessarily represent those of my masters at Martinez Academy of Arms. Any errors are fully my own, as I am still in training and have been encouraged to research to further my studies.