Tags
The first thing, Master Lecküchner recommends in both his treatises is to open Schrödinger’s Box and release the cat. In Dr. Schrödinger’s thought experiment an atom is probably decaying in a radioactive source thus killing a cat, using a special device. Because nobody knows when and where an atom is decaying in radioactive substance during a given time (e.g. 1 hour), nobody knows if the cat dies during that time frame. While we can calculate mathematically that the cat has to be dead, it may still be alive and purring. We only will know if we wait till the time has passed and open the box. This is indeed not very satisfying.
An opponent in a fight is much alike a closed box. A fighter does not know, when his opponent will act or if he acts at all. Fighting tactics is not like chess or any other game based on rounds. It is much simpler because there is just one rule: if any fighter thinks, that he may have a chance to launch a successful attack, he starts the game – he is in the “Vor” from his point of view.
“Vor” and “Nach” are two of the Liechtenauer five words. The words are composed of two opposite pairs “Vor, Nach” (before, after), and “Starck, Schwach” (strong, weak), and the word “Indes” (inbetween). Using opposites is based on the Aristotle’s system, which was very common for the educated. Opposites are unable to exist at the same time for the same object. Thus they reduce the decision tree very effectively.
Mit deme worte Vor / meynt her das eyn itzlicher guter fechter / sal alle mal den vorslag haben vnd gewinnen
The aim of the “Vor” is to win the „Vorschlag“, the preliminary strike. That does not mean that a fighter has to be the first who acts. But it defines that he has to be the first who has the option to wound the opponent effectively. Because nothing else matters (if you keep “Irschrikstu gerne / keyn fechten nymmer lerne” in mind).
This all seems very simple: “be the first who attacks and you will win the “Vorschlag”. But this simplicity gives a false interpretation of that term.
The (false) simplicity of the “Vor”
wenn her czu / eyme gehet ader lewft / als balde als her nur siet / das her in mit eynem schrete / ader mit eynem sprunge dirreichen mag / wo her denn indert in blos siet / do sal her hin varn / mit frewden /
Vnd dy selbe kunst ist ernst gancz vnd rechtvertik / Vnd get of das aller neheste vnd körtzste / slecht vnd gerade czu
In a simple interpretation that means: The fighter does a straight one-step-attack and no further preparation. He just approaches and tries to hit with the first strike to an opening he thinks he can reach. This simple thought which is to find in the very beginning of the GMN 3227a is based on the fact that the first fighter who strikes in a proper distance (in reach) will score (but it is not that simple as you may know if you already read the The definition of “One step away”).
Exercise: the simplicity of the “Vor”
Done in Relaxed Motion Speed. Starting distance is one or two steps away.
| Fencer A | Fencer B |
| Stands in any high guard (standing high) | Stands in any low guard (standing low) |
| Takes an opening of the opponent’s guard as an aim to attack. | Takes an opening of the opponent’s guard as an aim to attack. |
| Attacks according to his plan (no change based on reaction to the doing of the opponent). | Attacks according to his plan (no change based on reaction to the doing of the opponent). |
Count the double hits in that exercise!
The simplicity of the “Vor” results in a huge amount of double hits.
To overcome the problems of double hits, the so called Meisterhäue (master-strikes) came into the game, they promised to displace the opponents attack while scoring at the same time with the own embedded attack. But even this kind of strikes only changes the statistical significance of the double hits, but they do not solve the problem. They added complexity to the simplicity of the “Vor” thus making it difficult again. There is another aspect of the “Vor” which is modernly included in the action you find listed under the “preparation” fencing term: the “Passive Vor”.
FURTHER READINGS:
Continued in the next article “Active or Passive, and Double “Vor”“
.
Note: The terms “Vor” and “Nach” have several meanings in the manuscripts. It is surely more to it than a physical state of time and place. As the mindset of the fencer and the Aristotle comprehensive system is part of Liechtenauer’s teaching the terms extend their physical meaning.
To illustrate the complete meaning I stressed and specialized the terms. There is no Active, Passive, or Double “Vor” in the manuals named. Those terms are my inventions to illustrate the meaning.
Thanks for this Talhoffer.
The consideration of the two extreme opposites is linked with the logical phrase within the 3227a – I’m waiting for the citation in the next article.
My research in Game Theory comes into play on this one, so if you haven’t already – take a look at Nash Equilibrium equation of Game Theory (Fudenberg & Tirole, 1993, 1-42), and for the “Schrödinger cat” problem, take a look a the Bayesian equations, which take into account Fudenberg and Tirole’s (1993) equations for incomplete information, and imperfect information.
I modelled these Cybernetic components within Knightly Martial Arts (2009) and noted how the simplicity of Aristotle’s Physics explains the nodes for Decision making in a combat system very succinctly.
Ending the combat in the first movement reduces Risk of combat, which is of course the function of the ‘so-called’ Meisterhäue.
Look forward to the next installment.
James, your comment is very much appreciated. In never dived deep into the Game Theory but from my amateurish knowledge it applies as well (particularly if you look at the Subgame perfect equilibrium). It is furthermore of interest that the case of the repeated games while sparring with the same person over and over again seems to follow the ideas of that theory. And if we call the Double-hits a result of the Prisoner’s dilemma we are into it. But I must admit that the Liechtenauer solution applying the Aristotle moral and physics writings is so beautiful, that I will try to explain it completely one day here. It will become very abstract in the Indes. I hope I will find the time for this.
I can assure you that if you take a look at Game Theory in some greater depth, it will facilitate identification of nodes which you may not previously have considered (well, it did for me anyway…). Looking at it systematically therefore cannot help but improve understanding on many levels, as I’m sure you would agree.
Of course, your mention here of the extremities of strength (weak and strong), as well as Time (before and after) links well with your previous discussion of Lange und Masse. As I’m sure you’re aware, the exact same concept of Scale was fundamental to the Physics of many cultures, specifically the Chinese who articulated the same concept in terms of the Taiji. To paraphrase Lao Tzu, it means that the strongest may only ever be weakened, the weakest may only ever get stronger; the emptiest cup can only be filled, the completely filled cup can only be emptied; the smallest tree can only grow bigger, the strongest tree is most ready for being felled…And so we return back to the concept of extremity and that two extremes when juxtaposed with one another will make the contrast most apparent (“Oppo~ita iuxta se po~ita m~g~ elucescu~t / vel / oppo~ita opposit~ cui aut° “)
My work in academic fields for Martial Arts has lead me to consider these topics in some depth: and it was surprising to me that such a solution offered by the Liechtenauer schedulae should comply so perfectly with my propositions (established quite separately and prior to my own study of Liechtenauer). As you say, the system is very beautiful and profound, which is what lead to my own attempt to describe it in 2009. I very much look forward to reading your take on this one day
James, thanks for your comment. I hope that I will have the chance to fill up this blog on the next three of the five words and summon a conclusion of the need of opposites and the “golden middle”. I see (next to my little time) but one problem: this cannot be explained with words. So I have to develop a workshop for it. Where the exercises enlighten the meaning of my point of view in the adaption of Liechenauer’s Aristotle. And as the lazy bastard that I am (and the queue of transcriptions waiting for me) this will need another kick like preparing a workshop for Dijon where I was asked to do some basic stuff. And is there anything more “basic” than the five words?
I will have a look into game theory again (had been so long ago) and crosscheck your hints. I know a bit about the Asian philosophy but I prefer not to divert my studies too much (in fact I study the writing of General Yu, Mao Yuan-Yi, and Cheng Zong You – but this is only fun).
Thanks again for your comments. Kind regards.
Pingback: Active or Passive, and Double “Vor” « Hans Talhoffer
Pingback: The simplicity of the “Vor” « Hans Talhoffer | Grauenwolf's Study of Western Martial Arts
Pingback: Liechtenauer 51-69 – The Zornhau, The Strike of Wrath | Grauenwolf's Study of Western Martial Arts