I.33 Sword & Buckler: Durchtreten / Durchtritt / Tread-Through

Today I want to discuss with you one of the more difficult to interpret techniques of MS I.33 – The Durchtritt or Durchtreten which can be translated as Tread-Through or Stepping-Through. First I’ll show you the relevant passages of the Manuscript, then I’ll summarize a couple of interpretations and conclude with my take on the play.

Cited videos:

Kyle Griswold & Blood and Iron Martial Arts:

Ludus Dimicationis:

Federico Malagutti:

David Rawlings:

Saggy Tunic Theory:

MS I.33 Translations (by Joey Nitty):
2v:
It should be noted that the scholar is here rebinding and stepping, so that he may seize a schiltslac, as below. But beware of those things done by the priest, as after the rebind the priest will be the first to act.
It should be noted that the scholar has nothing to do but to do a schiltslac, or enclose the arms of the priest with his left hand, namely sword and shield.
Here the scholar rebinds and steps,
he is to [do the] schiltslac.
Or enclose the arms of the priest
with the left hand.
The priest has three options, namely, mutating the sword so that it is above, or to do the durchtreten, or with the right hand grasp the scholar’s arms, i.e. sword and shield.
These three are of the clergy: durchtritt, mutating the sword, or with the right hand he may grasp the sword and shield.
Note what was said above is found here in these examples.

9r:
It should be noted here that it should be taught now the siege of second ward. And I say the second ward because the third ward (which has the left shoulder) does not differ much from the second. But here we speak of the second ward, which is given to the right shoulder. And out of the same ward, the besieger conducts the siege called schutzen, for that reason each ward holds one protection (ie. schutzen).
Here the priest places himself in a similar manner to the scholar, and teaches what happens from these things. And know that the saving doctrine of the priest is he who had been besieged prior can do three things: first, he can press out the sword downwards and then durchtreten; second, he can seize a strike on the right side; third, he can seize a strike on the left side. Note that the adversary can do the same thing, although the besieger is first to be prepared.

9v:
Here the scholar instructed by means of the priest’s counsel, conducts an action that is called durchtritt. However, he could seize a strike on the left, as conducted by the common fencer, or on the right, as usually conducted by the priest and his youths. The opposition to these two paths, the priest goes with the sword under the arm, he then reaches the bare hands of the one conducting the above-mentioned strikes, although this opposition is not depicted in the example image.

[SchildwachePotsdam]

Please leave a like and share this video - thank you :)

0:27 Reviewing the Manuscript
2:10 Interpretations
6:03 My thoughts

[NWAcademy]

Well done. I like your very complete analysis and discussion of the different interpretations, as well as recognizing their merits. Too often people completely dismiss someone else’s interpretation without acknowledging the merits of it. I find merit in many interpretations that differ from mine and I’m glad you do too.

[FedericoMalagutti]

Very good video, I find your interpretation quite interesting. I'll take it in consideration for my future works over this specific part of the manual. I still have to show my actual interpretation of the 9v specific durchtreten which in my opinion may end up with a thrust (Why you have always to put thrusts everywhere Federico????) but I think that your one have some really interesting aspects which can relate very well with the depictions, which is good. ;-)

[Fechten]

Hallo Martin,
auch für dieses Video meinen herzlichen Dank!

Für mich ist Durchtreten vornehmlich ein Begriff der die Beinarbeit beschreibt, ähnlich der Variante von Dave Rawlings. Durchtreten ist ein Wechsel-, oder Kreuz- / Schirmtritt durch das Sprechfenster, der erfolgt, nachdem man gegen das generische Schwert erfolgreich ausgewunden, und es so hinausgedrückt hat. Zusammen mit dem Schritt erfolgt dann ein Hau zur Linken, oder zur Rechten, während der Buckler das Band sichert. Das Schwert öffnet mir sozusagen das Fenster zum Durchtritt, der Buckler hält es auf. Durchtreten tritt also in allen möglichen Situationen auf und wird im I.33 für 1. und 2. Hut - exemplarisch also für Unterband- und Überband-Situationen vermittelt.

Dazu gehe ich mit einem geraden Hau in das Schützen gegen die zweite Hut mit dem rechten Fuß über die Kampflinie nach links, also der rechten Seite des Gegners entgegen. Meine Obsessio provoziert so sein Anbinden. Ich achte dabei darauf im steilen Winkel und mit langer Schneide den gegnerischen Druck aufzunehmen um meine Schneide zu schonen. Das unmittelbare Auswinden ins Hinterband unterstützt diese Maßnahme zusätzlich. Gut möglich, dass dieser Moment auf 9r im Manuskript dargestellt ist. Ein zu frühes Auswinden ist nach meiner Erfahrung gefährlich für Daumen und Finger, weil der Gegner diese ohne Wiederstand über seinen Druck auf die Fläche schnell erreicht. Da würde ich für die Interpretation nochmals drauf achten.

Mit dem linken Fuß gehe ich beim Durchtritt dann ggf. noch weiter nach links und mein Buckler drückt seine Waffen weiter nach Iinks unten weg, wenn er schwächer war, bzw. drücke ich nach rechts weg, wenn er stärker war. Unterdessen haue ich aus dem Band zu seiner rechten oberen Blöße. Letzteres, also die Variante wenn er stärker war, wäre dann das klassische Duplieren wie bei Peter von Danzig im Langschwert beschrieben.

Bezüglich Tempo und Mensur muss man aufpassen, weil der Durchtritt und die beiden möglichen anschließenden Haue einen in Griffweite des Gegners bringen und dieser die Annäherung und den abseitigen Druck beim Überbinden indes nutzen kann zum Schwertnehmen und Ringen. Das ist zwar nicht abgebildet aber davor wird im Text auf 9v ja extra gewarnt.

Soweit das Wichtigste. Ich hoffe es ist etwas Brauchbares für Dich dabei. Und nochmal danke für den Anstoß das Durchtreten nochmals so gut aufbereitet zu rekapitulieren!

Viele Grüße und einen guten Jahresabschluss!
Christian

[jasonjames]

Martin, I really enjoy your thoughtful approach in these videos on I.33. I’m just starting my study of it...

[HikerDood]

Great stuff. I'm teaching this next Monday an I'll be sure to include all 3 options. They're all martially sound and do work in the right circumstances

[seanwauters]

Finally got the time to check the intire video. Thank you for sharing your insights and work. It really helps to develop the community. From my hand i am pleased to see you largly confirm my own interpretations. I like the way you compare different theories from other respected teachers. It gives a nice perspective of different insight and interpretations.

thank you.

Sean

[Michael_Lammer]

Very interesting interpretation and great video! Our interpretation of the three options are: the two blows to left and right in a similar fashion you suggest to do them and the Durchtreten in the way of Duplieren, when there is resistance against gaining the line on the inside. This allows a much safer entry into the action, as the pseudo-symmetrical bind is no longer present at this point.
We like to interpret these three options as a progression. First gain the line and strike on the right. If the opponent aims to regain the line by stiffening up, you initiate the Durchtreten which can be followed by the strike to the left if displaced.

[rogerz]

Very cool, thank you and keep 'em coming!

[EntropicEcho]

This was a great help in figuring out what is mean with durchtreten. I'll definitely try the different techniques.

[swordandshield]

Dear Martin, thanks again for your video.


Your work is most appreciated, and I am very happy to see your rapid iprogress in only a few years time. Please keep this appreciation in mind when reading my criticism below. Let me also say that I very much like your calm presentation of ideas. This is a great discussion format.
At any rate, here are some observations of mine:


1. I would very much appreciate more discipline of posture. I know it is tiresome to stand in ’schutzen’ for demonstration purposes for a prolonged period of time, and of course I also know that explaining while performing doesn’t help, either. I fail all the time, too. However, sloppy posture with the hands held too low and with too upright a stance never adds to credibility. In fact, some of your arguments and problems are based on, or result from, inaccurate posture, with the bind sometimes in the wrong place – notably on too low a level. Or: When later in the video you say that it is hardly possible to keep the arms extended and invert your hand, then this is only true if you shift all weight to the front leg, like you do. In contrast, with your hip back, weight on the rear leg, it is no problem at all any more (… like what we see in 14th century buckler combat depictions).


2. As you mention quite correctly, none of the ’duplieren’ actions seen in the video have hands/weapons at shoulder level as shown in the book. But I feel you draw the wrong conclusion. In my opinion, before dismissing this approach, one should first try to optimize performance in this respect – only then evaluate this approach. We currently favour the ‘duplieren’ approach, and have no problem executing it accordingly.


3. Your translation of ‘exprimere gladium ad deorsum’ as ’pressing down the sword’ is not quite complete. Exprimere means pressing *out*, not just pressing. Admittedly, this does not conflict with your interpretation, but in my opinion, it makes other options more likely.


4. Regarding the inverted hand when binding against a ’schutzen’:
By the way, this works considerably better with sharps than with blunts. With sharps, the bind is being lifted which leaves both blades in a very steep and elevated position as seen in the book.


5. I agree that the illustration is indeed far from being clear. However, the artists definitely had all the means to depict the shield-strike on the inside that you (and Dave) suggest. Yet they did not show this. So in my opinion, the plate does not support this interpretation.
The 16th century depiction from Cgm 3712 already is a historical interpretation of older sources, possibly even from I.33. One should not ignore it, yet it is an interpretation none-the-less.


6. Your suggestions do not offer a compelling idea for how to read the manuscript’s instructions: ‘potest exprimere gladium deorsum & tunc durchtreten‘. ”He can press the sword out (and) downwards, and then step through.“ Why is the word ’pressing out’ being used? Why not 'striking' or ’going for’ as is done elsewhere? We all know that pressing against a target is with a sharp sword is suboptimal when you could just as well strike. So what does ’pressing out’ refer to then?
And more importantly: The instruction has a very clear order of events: ‘potest exprimere gladium deorsum ET TUNC durchtreten‘. So first do this, and then do that. There must be a reason for stating the order of events in such a explicit manner. It also implies that, whatever ‘durchtreten’ is, it is apparently not tied to a specific sword action: First you do this with the sword, AND THEN ‘durchtreten‘. Apparently, the term suggests that it refers to foot work.


7. If the technique under discussion was related to vidilpoge, then why is there no comment linking the two? If the ‘durchtreten‘ could easily result in a wrestling, why is grappling not listed along with the other available options?


8. From a martial point of view, I cannot subscribe to foot work that leaves you in the opponent’s line of attack. In contrast to the ‘duplieren‘ approach, with your suggested technique, all that keeps you from being hit is blocking with the buckler.


9. In regards to striking mechanics, the conclusive sword action with a wide arching backward slice does not look very convincing to me. It seems neither fast nor powerful. Furthermore, it neither is in line with the manuscript stating that all actions of the sword should conclude in ‘langort‘/longpoint. Any backward slice certainly does not adhere to this. Personally, I would strike a left twerhau from your suggested position. This would keep the line closed and have more impact. Yes, this would not match the image, but would be martially superior, in my opinion. And I think that if a better solution does not match the plate, then the original interpretation must be flawed. Note also that with your final cut, your sword hand ends up being just as low as in the ‚duplieren‘ demos, none of which is in line with the depiction in the plate.


9. Finally – and this may be irrelevant to others – we believe that 14th century sword & buckler was embedded in a long tradition of sword & shield combat, and that it was so popular because during its heyday it was still a great preparation for fighting with the triangular shields. The technique you show is quite useless against any larger form of shield, as your sword strikes to where the shield would be. Not necessarily my strongest argument, yet food for thought, I hope.


Thank you very much for the input. Sorry for being so slow to respond.


All the best,
Roland

[WinnipegKnightlyArts]

This is very interesting, and good effort on the interpretation. Trying to understand the manuals is very challenging.

My largest criticism of what you showed stems from your pressure testing. This looks far more like a non resistive drill from your partner, which is a key to practice but you explicitly label it as resistive. Your partner does not try any real counter actions, and even in a flow type resistance drill your partner should be able to find at least one action to counter a move you are doing repeatedly. I think studying what breaks your interpretation of the action reveals just as much or more, since you can see if your interpretation is broken by actions described in the manual if any are described. Even if no counters are described you get a much clearer idea of what openings you present to a resisting opponent and can learn to feel for them and adapt indes when they begin to react, which leads you to further development as a fencer.

Good works, keep at it.

[hildobiersma]

I really like this interpretation. It's somewhat similar to what Rawlins shows in the Obsesseo DVD, except with more pressure and safety, and I think the options to go to the left and right make a lot of sense in your interpretation. I would be interested in seeing your interpretation of the counter for the strike to the left or right, which I.33 says is under the arms but doesn't illustrate or follow up on.

[thomasheydenreich]

Hi Martin, vielen Dank für dein Video. Du erklärst deine Ideen sehr gut strukturiert und bietest dadurch einen perfekten Einstiegspunkt für einen Austausch!



Ich verstehe das Durchtreten eher in der "Duplieren"-Variante. Ich stimme deiner Kritik zu, dass die Bucklerstellung sehr unklar ist und nur sehr bedingt auf das Bild passt. Aber gerade, da wir keine klare Trennung der Buckler sehen, halte ich diesen Punkt für wenig aussagekräftig in jede Richtung.


Ich habe eine Frage zu eurer gezeigten Ausgangsstellung. Das Schützen, an das du anbindest, scheint mir die linke Seite des Schützenden recht weit zu öffnen, sodass mir ein Angriff auf seine Hände und seine linke Seite leicht möglich scheint. Dadurch mag deine Interpretation noch attraktiver wirken, da der Weg schon fast frei ist. Ich halte das Schützen etwas zentraler, sodass Buckler und Schwert eine Barriere gegen den direkten Angriff bilden. Dadurch ist es leichter, zu anderen Druckverhältnissen in der Bindung zu kommen, die das Duplieren begünstigen.



Ich werde in nächster Zeit ein wenig mit deiner Version experimentieren. Ich hoffe, man trifft sich mal auf einem Event zum Austauschen!

[philliproemer]

Where did the image shown at 10:30 come from?