Quite an amazing discussion! I see plenty of good points here and I will try to be brief with my take on this discussion.
What I can tell is that it is true that Vor and Nach or two different ways of attacking and defending. Distance and measure is vital when attempting to thrust or cut while stepping backwards. I know this for a fact that I myself have attempted it while training at SIGMA and it has worked well for me. I recall two instances where I took into consideration my opponent's ability to power through the bind I would create (my opponent/partner was taller than me) so what I did was I did a Scheilhau thrust into his right shoulder while using Fuhlen and Indes in the bind. The second instance is where upon using Fuhlen and Indes in the bind, I performed a Mutieren (Mutating). In both scenarios I took one step backwards to maintain the appropriate distance and to use measure against him.
My fighting style is a bit more reactive. If my opponent is aggressive then I'll react by being just as or more aggressive. I don't mind going on the offensive with a few combinations but I usually struggle with the more laid back opponents as I typically would rather conserve energy and not constantly pursue them, after all I'm more accustom to dueling MASHS students who generally seem to rely upon a flurry of attacks instead of fewer technically precise ones.
That is not a bad thing, however be careful that you do not exert yourself and put you in harm's way. It is better to be aggressive only when you have to.
Well I'm still in the process of formulating an effective fighting style, I would say that my preferred style of fighting is primarily defensive, and uses lots of feints, thrusts, and probes into forcing the opponent to perform a move I can exploit.
I can say the same except I base my fighting strategies and tactics directly from the Historical Sources (Liechtenauer, Ringeck, Goliath Fechtbuch, Meyer, Mair, Von Danzig and yes Fiore). There is nothing wrong about being defensive but be aware that "you cannot attack without defending and likewise you cannot defend without attacking" Offensive and Defensive are interconnected that they cannot be separated but rather used together. It is a good thing to use Feints, Thrusts "probes" or what I call "Provocations" (where you provoke your opponent) but use them in their proper perspectives.
If you're at the position where your thrust fell short, you're technically still too far away to hit well. If your thrust missed, you're either at the right distance or too close. If you're too close, then you either need to grapple, or move back some. Of course we downplay the grappling, since it's hard to do safely, and we're here to play with swords.
If your thrust just missed by a little, simply pressing the sword's edge into the person isn't really a cut. You might only have a swing that covers a couple of inches. I think the better move, strategically, is to pull back into Ochs or Pflug (or parry or whatever), since you can bet the other guy's sword is coming at you. From there you can thrust again or do a cut.
Yep, I agree.
Remember, at the end of a thrust, you're essentially in some variant of Longenort. You have great parrying options from there, but not much in the way of good attacks.
Parrying yes, Sprechfenster or Winden will work if you end up in Langenort as well.
My thinking here was to counter someone in the process of stepping past your tip. Say I made a thrust, and it was short. The person attempts to sidestep past my tip, to where I'm vulnerable. That's when I would take a backstep with cut.
It's a preventative measure, not one to deal with the guy already in your face.
At that point, sidestep to face your opponent and pull your sword either into Pflug or keep Langenort at your opponents face (defense by threat with footwork).
The main disadvantage of theoretical duels on paper and in hindsight is everything is absolutely clear however while in the moment the tempo can be missed. Yet the action you describe Sir Nathan is very plausible
Quite true, one can discuss theory yet can only be proven if practiced and proven in fighting/bouting.
It is a bit ironic that at last night’s training this sentiment was reinforced when we had two new longsword students start their first lesson and Matt Lawrence related at one point in our discussion with them about ‘States of Timing’ in which he observed during most duels with me and Josh or pretty much anyone from MASHS that whenever he was in the Nach (After) it was only a matter of time before he got hit. Essentially when he was slow on gaining the Vor (Before) he usually lost in the engagement. This is typically what we at MASHS are fighting for and try to be aggressive to obtain and maintain.
Vor Training is quite difficult yet it is worth it for it's strategical value.
Is there a way to achieve and maintain the vor with reactive fencing?
Not really, since by definition the Vor is proactive, and the Nach is reactive. If you're fast enough, you can regain the Vor, but then you're not being reactive anymore, but rather proactive (and keeping the other guy in the Nach, where he's having to deal with you).
Having said that, more often than not, both people are moving at similar speeds and it's questionable as to who has the Vor, or the Vor switches back and forth whenever someone executes a maneuver that's a little slow. But starting from a place that's reactive can put you at a disadvantage if you're not careful.
Something else to consider: You can create a false opening to draw your opponent's attack, by intentionally attacking slightly out of distance, or slightly off-target. This can still put you in the Vor, even though it wasn't a "real" attack, since the other guy's attack to your opening was by your own "invitation".
I know a lot of this boils down to how to enter measure without getting hit.
I agree in this case, fighting is like a chess match where you have to gain and keep the initiative of the fight and if you loose it, regain it back.
The real conundrum is the genuine ability to practice regaining the vor after you’ve lost it. You can do two man drills until the cows come home but that at best will only condition your muscle memory and reflexes IF you recognize the particular attack that the drill is intended to counter. What it can never provide is the situation awareness which you can truly only develop with actual duels.
Yep, exactly.
One of which I’m sure Sir Edward is alluding to is the Nebenhut play, where you execute a zornhau deliberately out of measure ending up in Nebenhut and essentially ‘inviting’ your opponent to strike (typically with a zornhau) at your wide open upper body or head. When your opponent moves in to make the cut you come back with a powerful back cut to parry and displace their blade and follow up with a devastating Oberhau or whatever else you fancy as you effectively have them at your complete mercy.
Are your referring to the Nebunhut Play from Ringeck? If so that is an excellent example of technique used to regain the Vor.
Indeed, I had this play in mind. When I executed this play against Sir Nathan this past weekend, I completely 100% fell back onto our drills from VAF. We've drilled it enough times that you can start to get a feel for the right speed of things to happen, and slow down or speed up the back cut according to how quickly (or not) the opponent is stepping in to take the bait. We ended up showing the audience a completely textbook play from right out of the manuals, even though it was a live bout. Which is awesome.
This is one of the reasons I'd like for us to have some practice days where we can just work on techniques. I'd love to have more guys in our group up to speed on how a few of these things work.
All I can say is count me in, I am dying for some good practice, let me know of a good weekend where we can get together and practice.
