Project Hausbuch #1: Schiessen - essentials of the longsword according to GNM 3227a
First and foremost I would like to thank those who contributed significantly to my understanding of schiessen:

Artur Jurczyk, a chemist and chief HEMA instructor at the VECTIR Association, whose medical knowledge combined with fighter's experience gave solid ground to my intuitions and materialised as an important fragment of this article (on the withdrawal reflex);

Piotr Paprzycki, an old friend of mine and fellow swordsman from ARMA-PL Warsaw, who gladly took an insane amount of thrusts to give you a companion video to the article;

Jan Chodkiewicz, a sword-maker and HEMA champion fighter from Fechtschule Gdańsk, whose remarks on thrusting sparked my interest in schiessen a few years ago;

My first coach, Bartłomiej Walczak, and my brother, Szymon Talaga, who helped me develop methodological framework to serve as a guiding light during my ventures into the obscure realm of the Numerberg Codex.

1. Introduction

GNM 3227a, also known as the Nuremberg Codex or, inaccurately, the Döbringer Codex, is a commonplace book (Hausbuch) dated broadly to circa the 15th century, presumably somewhere between 1389 and 1494, which contains various pieces of advice or information deemed useful by its owner, such as culinary, craftsmanship, and medical recipes, magical spells, a calendar, or a fight book (Burkart 2016; Ehlert, Leng 2003). The first owner was also probably its original author, but other persons left some notes in it as well, usually on the margins. In the HEMA community it has long been considered an important source shedding light on the so-called tradition of Grandmaster Johannes Liechtenauer. Its significance is believed to stem from its possibly early dating, which would make it the oldest surviving record of Liechtenauer’s teachings (perhaps written down while the master was still alive), as well as from the fact that it contained more verses of the rhymed recital (zettel or zedel) compiled by Liechtenauer and general tactical or philosophical instruction than any other fight book. However, some researchers doubt this extra content should actually be ascribed to Liechtenauer himself and perhaps was an addition made by the author of GNM 3227a. Moreover, despite containing the longest zettel, GNM 3227a provides extensive commentary (glossa) only to part of it. In result, the fight book contains relatively little explicit technical instruction (i.e. how to perform different motions), whereas the bulk of it is dedicated to discussing general tactical guidelines and philosophical aspects of fighting (e.g. when and why to perform different motions).

The above convinced many practitioners and researchers that GNM 3227a was written by an intermediate student of the zettel rather than a master with a thorough understanding of the system. It is quite common to see HEMAists disregard it as full of interesting, but impractical theoretical deliberations. I strongly disagree with this opinion – while I admit that the technical instruction in this fight book tends to be rather vague, I cannot accept calling the ”theory” contained in it as neither impractical nor intermediate. On the contrary, as a fencer and instructor I see great practical value in it as well as a deliberate (sadly never fully realised) structure suggesting a deep understanding of the subject. As a matter of fact, if you have ever had to do with top-notch martial arts teachers or fencing coaches, then you probably noticed that their extraordinary proficiency lies not in how they teach technique (how to move), but rather how they convey tactical knowledge (when and why to move). Some great coaches even go so far that they hardly ever teach basic actions, since they assume that people they train already possess high-level of technique! In short: it does not take a fencing master to teach, for instance, how to lunge, but providing expert instruction on when to lunge is a domain of a true maestro. Similarly, even an intermediate adept of the zettel would be able to write down a technical description of any of the hauptstücke (main plays), but tactical insights, such as those laid out in GNM 3227a, would require much more first-hand experience.

Having stated my opinion on the value of GNM 3227a as a fight book, I freely admit that translating its contents into motion is not an easy task. Nevertheless, I set myself a goal to reconstruct the fighting system described therein. To make it clear: I am not interested in fishing out original teachings of Liechtenauer from it. Instead, I want to reconstruct what the author decided to write about fighting, even if it was a mixture of some Liechtenauerian concepts and his own insights. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Matthias J. Bauer, "so long as a complete linguistic analysis of the specific technical lexis found in the sources is not compiled the research must firstly remain immanent to one source in order to be able to make valid claims about the meaning of individual technical terms" (Bauer 2016, p. 59). To this end, I had to find some methodological tools to help me navigate through this vague source and minimise the need for external input ­– including “transplanting frog DNA” from other fight books commenting the zettel, such as Cod.44.A.8 (also known as the Codex Danzig). I found an extremely useful tool for such exploratory research of martial teachings in the ADVISE method created by Bartłomiej Walczak (Walczak 2011). Prompted by my brother, Szymon, I supplemented it with some concepts from the set-theoretic approach to qualitative research in the humanities. These tools allowed me to extract quite a lot of technical information from GNM 3227a, which I will try to gradually publish on the blog and eventually compile as a book (the latter will happen much sooner with your support, by the way!). 

The following analysis focuses on a term used in some technical descriptions in GNM 3227a, namely schiessen, and was performed according to the framework of the ADVISE and set theoretic methods. However, it is not a methodological paper, so I am not discussing research tools I used. If you are interested in learning more about them, then you have to wait until the next Acta Periodica Duellatorum is released in May, as there is going to be a paper describing this approach written by me and Szymon Talaga.

2. Linguistic & Logical Text Analysis

As already mentioned, in English dictionaries the German word schiessen is translated as “shooting” or “throwing”. Historically, it was used this way by the presumed contemporaries of the author(s) of GNM 3227a, for instance, to denote shooting gardens (Schiessgarten) where members of urban civic militia (Schützenbruderschaften) used to practice, compete, and socialise. However, in the context of the early German fight books schiessen assumes a different specialised meaning thus becoming a part of the martial technolect (jargon) developed by fencers of the time. Even a brief look at the instances of schiessen being used in GNM 3227a makes it clear that it has nothing to do with actually throwing the sword – which would be a viable hypothesis to start with considering that other contemporary fight books contain advice on using the sword like a javelin (e.g. Flos Duellatorum by Fiore de’i Liberi) – and much less so “shooting” (with) it. Therefore, it should be approached as a technical term just as zornhaw, winden, etc.

The significance of schiessen as a technical term in GNM 3227a stems not from its prevalence – it appears only seven times throughout the whole longsword section – but rather the fact that it is a vital part of practical guidelines to execution of some key fencing techniques as well as tactical solutions. Schiessen is used in the glossae to describe kinaesthetic patterns for four of the five strikes (fünff hewe), also known as ‘the secret strikes’, forming the foundation of Liechtenauer’s Kunst des Fechtens: zornhaw (folio 23v), krumhaw (25r), twerhaw (28r), and schielhaw (28r). Perhaps it would have appeared in all the five, if the author of the manuscript had left a glossa for the fifth one, scheitelhawe. The term is also used to describe how to finish a technique called veller (27v), which seems to be a sort of a feinted attack. Hence, five out of seven instances of schiessen in GNM 3227a are unambiguously related to landing hits on the opponent, which suggests its (counter)offensive function.

Besides that, the two remaining mentions of schiessen appear in fragments discussing tactical aspects of fighting. The first (19r) compares schiessen to winden by indicating that when one extended (vorlengt) the sword using schiessen and yet still had to carry on with the fight, it could be necessary to “shorten” (ynbrengen vnd körczen) the sword by the use of winden. This suggests some difference in the relative positions of the body and the weapon in case of these two techniques. The second mention is contained in the rhymed section introducing general tactical advice (29v) and indicates that an opponent using long and wide attacks (greiffet her weite ader lenge an) can be defeated with schiessen (das schissen gesigt im an).

If we have a look at direct collocations of the term, we arrive at the following set:

· ort (6 times): e.g. (mit) ort schissen; den ort lassen schiessen.

· vaste (2 times): e.g. den ort vaste schissen.

· vorlengen/(vorlauffen?) (1 time): ort mit schißen vorlewst ader vorlengt.

Hence, schiessen appears to be performed with the point (ort) in a firm manner (vaste) so that it extends the sword forward (vorlengen). Previously we established that schiessen is an action that hits the opponent, i.e. an attack, riposte, or counter-attack, somehow related to winden, which also hit, but are not extended as far as schiessen.

The last linguistic problem that pertains to schiessen in GNM 3227a is the fact that in two instances it appears to be a synonym to werfen (“throw, project, toss”): werfen ader schiessen (25r) and krump auf behende wirf deynen ort auf dy hende (25r). In the latter case the synonymic relationship between werfen and schiessen is suggested by the fact that the quoted fragment using wirf comes from the zettel, whereas the accompanying glossa uses werfen ader shiessen instead. Therefore, if we assumed that the two terms are exact synonyms, we would in fact have six more instances of schiessen in the fight book, since werfen appears separately across the glossae.

If we have a look at direct collocations of werfen, we arrive at the following set:

· schwert (4 times): e.g. wirff dein schwert.

· twer (4 times): e.g. das sw°t dy twer vor werfen.

· vor (3 times): e.g. wol vor syn hawpt werfen.

· ort (1 time): wirf deynen ort auf dy hende.

· hindtñ (1 time): So wirff dein schwert die twere hindtñ.

· klos + öber (1 time): wen der klos öberwirft sich vnd swenkt sich noch de~ slage das der slag vil harter dar ku~pt.

Hence, as an attack werfen appears to be performed with any part of the sword (schwert), including the point (ort), either forward (vor) or, less often, backward (hindtñ) so that the sword moves crosswise (twer), possibly into the twerhaw position. Werfen can also describe the swivelling motion of the pommel (klos) during performing a strike with the sword. Therefore, it seems that although similar in some cases, werfen and schiessen probably denote distinct manoeuvres. Perhaps schiessen should be associated with a linear movement of the point, whereas werfen with a more angular path. If so, the seemingly synonymic expression werfen ader schißen (25r) from the krumhaw glossa should be understood as: “you may finish this action either by werfen or schiessen with the point” (i.e. a cut or a thrust, for instance).

3. Axiomatising Schiessen: The Preliminary Stage

The linguistic text analysis allowed us to gather enough data to make a preliminary attempt at axiomatising schiessen as a technical term. For the sake of clarity, I will later use two logical connectives (AND, OR) to distinguish features of schiessen that are necessary from those that are optional. For now, just the connective for necessary features (AND) will be used.

Schiessen is:

· an attack AND with the point AND firm AND extended.

The following set of axioms indicates that not all attacks with the point can be called schiessen. Weak or yielding thrusts as well as those not extended fail to meet the necessary conditions. Therefore, it seems that the term should not be translated into English  simply as “thrusting”. Leaving it untranslated (like zornhaw, for instance) or rendering it into “shooting” would be a better translatory strategy.

4. Functional Analysis & External Input

Starting from the preliminary set of axioms we may begin a functional analysis based on hands-on experience - on different occasions there will be references to shots from the accompanying video. 

First of all, the distinction between schiessen and winden explicitly described in GNM 3227a suggests that a fencer attacking with schiessen does not land the hit in any of the “shortened” positions classified as winden, i.e. ochs and pflug. Moreover, in order for the point of the sword to be more extended forward than in those positions it has to be closer to the opponent – the farthest possible reach of the point is achieved when the sword is held parellel to the ground and extended forward at the shoulder level (shot 1). Interestingly, when placed this way against both ochs and pflug the sword outreaches them and has better leverage (shots 2 and 10).

Assuming the fully extended position facilitates putting the whole strength of the core into the thrust thus giving it a very strong “push” capable of stopping the opponent (shot 3). Perhaps this is well in line with the advice to fence with the whole body (mit gãczem leibe) repeated throughout the fight book. This “push” is much less pronounced with thrusts performed in winden and may be the crucial factor behind successfully using schiessen to counter durchwechseln, i.e. another kind of attack “shortening” the sword of the attacker. It seems even more convincing when we notice that going straight into the fully extended position is the quickest way to reach an opening presented by the opponent performing a compound (multiple-tempi) attack. Admittedly, thrusting into a combination started by the opponent may seem a double-hit (sporty?) strategy in modern HEMA, but it is clearly advocated in several places throughout GNM 3227a, so perhaps its efficiency was affected by some factor absent in modern contexts. I believe it is the case and am currently quite convinced that this tactical approach, i.e. thrusting directly into compound or telegraphed attacks started by the opponent, relied heavily on the withdrawal reflex.

In order to give you a better idea about the possible role of the withdrawal reflex in swordfighting, I asked a medical professional and fellow HEMA instructor for help:

“Simply speaking, reflexes are actions taken by our organism which are beyond our conscious control. 
When discussing armed combat, one of the most important reflexes is the withdrawal reflex, also known as the nociceptive flexion reflex. It involves moving a wounded part of the body away from the source of pain. Significance of many fighting techniques changes, if we take into account that the withdrawal reflex may cause a limb or even torso to withdraw. 
Hence, slicing (schnitt) of the forearms or wrists does not require so much strength to persuade the opponent to draw back his or her arms. The resultant involuntary withdrawal will open the opponent to our attack. 
A quick committed attack to the head, even with a shallow cut or thrust delivered from the bind, may destabilise opponent’s structure, since the reflexive withdrawal of the head will compromise their vision and change the position of the torso thus making a follow-up strike easier for the attacker, and countering more difficult for the defender.
Taking the reflexes of the body into consideration may also increase efficiency of all attacks intended to break guards or stances. In this, one may gain the upper hand not only through controlling the centreline or choosing the right opening, but also by pushing the opponent off balance. To my mind, these techniques rely mostly on destabilisation and creating a threat that triggers the reflexive withdrawal. All this robs the opponents of their offensive potential.
The withdrawal reflex may also change the original direction of movement of the opponent. Creating a convincing threat or landing a hit in the middle of an offensive action may turn the tide completely. The reflexive withdrawal of a given body part forces other parts to stabilise the posture. Thus, the original momentum and commitment is lost and the initiative is taken over.
The said reflex also minimises the chance for an immediate response by a wounded opponent, since right after the hit the body will be preoccupied with the involuntary withdrawal.”
- Artur Jurczyk, Association for Historical European Martial Arts VECTIR, Gliwice, Upper Silesia (Poland)

I would only add that although it is reportedly possible to suppress the withdrawal reflex through training, it is very difficult and thus the reflex can be considered a universal feature shared by most animals.

Therefore, stopping durchwechseln with a firm far-reaching thrust seems perfectly reasonable as it would probably stop the opponent mid-fly or at least disrupt his body alignment enough to render his attack inefficient if the swords were sharp and stiff. Nevertheless, some preventives like off-line footwork and covering with the crossguard are also advocated by GNM 3227a (shot 4). Moreover, in order to minimise the risk involved in such a stop-thrust, one should perform it without stepping forward (not to run into the incoming attack) or leaning too much forward (to avoid falling in case the thrust missed or glanced off the target). Ensuring the proper “push” is even more important – to this end one has to push with both hands in the same direction, without letting either hand push below or above the other (perhaps: mit beiden henden czu~ oge~ ort lere bre~gen, 3227a, folio 29v). The latter produces skewed thrusts which carry less force (visible as bending in feders), have compromised penetrating potential, similarly to cuts with inconsistent trajectories (shot 5), and glance off more often. The shortened thrusts also need forward footwork to compensate for what they lack in range and “push”, so they are more risky in case they miss, as they bring the fencer closer to the opponent (shots 6 and 10).

Having sorted out the basic kinaesthetic pattern for the elementary point extension in schiessen, we have to deal with its connection to other movements comprising fencing techniques. We already saw it employed to counter durchwechseln (shot 4), so let us use this example to investigate how to combine point extension with footwork: the proposed application would not work at all in practice if footwork was to precede point extension. Legs and body move slower than arms thus putting one at risk of being too late with the stop-thrust, if it is started with the body. On top of that, connecting with the point before making a step has two more benefits. Firstly, it allows the withdrawal reflex to occur earlier. Secondly, it gives more time for choosing footwork according to perceived opponent’s reaction or even changing the technique altogether in case of a surprising counter. All this seems in line with the advice contained in GNM 3227a, which is famous for insisting on striking and thrusting as if the sword was pulled by an invisible string attached to the nearest opening (e.g. folio 13v). I personally believe the same idea is behind another fragment (folio 19r):

aus den auch / gar vil guter stöcke des fechtens komen / vnd sint dorvm fvnden vnd irdocht / das eyn fechter / der da gleich czum orte czu hewt ader sticht / nicht wol allemal treffen mak / das der mit den selben stöcken / hawende stechende ader sneydende / mit abe / vnd czutreten / vnd mit vm~eschreiten ader springen eynen treffen mag

It translates roughly as:

“Many good fencing techniques stem from these, and they have been invented so that a fencer who immediately extends the point with strikes or thrusts and yet does not hit instantly, may employ the before mentioned techniques in combination with strikes, thrusts and cuts, with stepping off or in, and with stepping around or jumping, in order to hit his adversary” (translation by T. Stoepler, modified by me).

The way I understand this passage, it advocates starting attacks – be it strikes or thrusts – by extending the point early on (shot 7). As its author goes on to notice, such initiation allows a fencer to adapt to his or her opponent’s reaction by applying appropriate footwork (e.g. step in if the opponent retreats, or step to the side if he tries to counter-attack) or switching to other techniques. In short: once one commits with the footwork they let go most of their freedom of movement, flexibility, and situational awareness. This principle can be implemented to all techniques from GNM 3227a: attacks (e.g. twerhaw in shot 24), parries or counter-attacks (e.g. zornhaw in shot 8 or überlauffen in shot 13), and techniques from the bind (e.g. abziehen in shots 9 and 18).

Especially in counter-attacks, ripostes, and techniques from the bind extending the point before or without performing footwork is very efficient. In these situations the opponent already covers the distance, so one does not need steps to be able to hit with the extension of the sword alone. This enables keeping better structure, balance, and situational awareness thus improving strength, precision, and adaptability. The latter is especially useful in case one’s initial schiessen misses and the opponent keeps on pressing recklessly, because it allows for switching from the extended point to other appropriate techniques (e.g. shot 13; GNM 3227a, folio 19r). Moreover, if the opponent keeps on pressing with the point after his or her initial attack, but does so without extending (e.g. in pflug), then simple extension of the point is usually enough to hit and cover (shot 10) or at least to force the opponent to parry.

Similarly, if the opponent keeps on attacking with combinations involving striking around parries, then extending the point while keeping a stable stance is capable of stopping him or her mid-fly thanks to generating the “push” and triggering the withdrawal reflex (e.g. shots 11 or 20). This effect is perhaps hidden behind the rhymed verses from folio 29v which advocate defeating long and wide attacks with schiessen (Vnd greiffet her weite ader lenge an / das schissen gesigt im an) and occurs even stronger if the opponent was expecting a yielding retreat with a parry, but met sudden resistance and counter-attack instead (shot 21).

The above list of benefits of extending the point without footwork obviously does not mean footwork is to be avoided at all. Quite the contrary, as soon as the point has been extended, or in some cases even when it is still being extended, is precisely when adding footwork is usually desirable. In attacks initiated with the weapon footwork should begin before the extension is complete, immediately after the attacker sees defender’s reaction. In counter-attacks or ripostes, adding footwork after connecting with the extension makes the pushing effect of the thrust even stronger (shot 12).

Having explored how the extension combines with footwork, we have to check whether the same effect can be achieved with “shortened” thrusts. Let us take a stop-thrust against striking around the parry as an example (compare shot 11 with shots 14 and 15). What worked with the extended point is much less efficient if a high thrust (ochs) is used instead, regardless of the footwork used with it (no footwork – shot 15; stepping in – shot 14). The same is true if one tries to use the ochs thrust against the opponent going recklessly for the lower opening. If performed without footwork, the “shortened” thrust leaves him or her with enough room to sink below the point unharmed and land a hit (shot 16). Adding a step in allows to land the thrust and even generate some “push”, but in most cases it will not stop the opponent from striking the leg with full force due to closer range (shot 17).

Now, let us consider a scenario in which the extended thrust is parried. Whereas the extended sword is well-supported by the body along the centreline, it is very weak against pressure from above, below, or the sides. Hence, keeping the sword extended in the bind is a mistake, because this way the opponent may easily take control of the blade or simply step away from the threatening sword while still being able to hit the hands holding it. In this context, let us have a look at another quote from GNM 3227a, folio 19r:

vnd ab eyner syn ort des swertes / mit schißen ader mit voltreten / vorlewst ader vorlengt / zo mag her in mit wi~den ader abetreten / weder / irlengen vnd / ynbrengen vnd körczen / alzo das her weder yn gewisse stöcke vnd gesetze kü~pt des fechtens / aus den her hewe stiche ader snete brengen mag”

Which translates as:

And if someone has extended his point by schiessen or far-reaching footwork, he can recover or shorten it by employing winden or stepping off, so that he again may use the appropriate techniques and principles of fencing” (translation by T. Stoepler, modified by me).

I believe it should be understood that, unless pushing the opponent, one should not remain in the extended position, but rather use winden or hengen (shot 18) and other techniques (shot 13) to carry on the fight. This principle is also applicable to extended footwork (shot 19). On the other hand, extending with the footwork (e.g. by lunging) without extending the point is risky, since it lowers one’s centre of gravity thus exposing the weak of the blade (schwech) and, again, making one more vulnerable to a fully extended thrust (shot 21). This may be another interpretation of the rhymed verse from folio 29v (Vnd greiffet her weite ader lenge an / das schissen gesigt im an).

Functional exploration (interpretation) of instances of schiessen in GNM 3227a seems consistent with the axioms formulated at the linguistic stage. Nothing contradicted the understanding of schiessen as the full extension of the point, conversely – attempts at performing schiessen in the shortened positions proved clearly suboptimal (shots 10, 14, 15, 16, and 17). But there are still technical details to be solved, such as whether the sword has to be always parellel to the ground, or what are the relative positions of the hand and the sword. Fortunately, GNM 3227a provides us with examples of schiessen used by four strikes (zornhaw, krumhaw, twerhaw, schielhaw), each of which was described quite carefully, sometimes explicitly discussing the position of the hands (folios 23v, 25r, 28r). Presentation of the full kinaesthetic reconstruction process for these strikes is beyond the scope of this article, so here only the summary of results will have to do (shots 22, 23, 24, 25). More details on schiessen in zornhaw and schielhaw can be found in excellent videos produced by the Longsword Academy of the Trnavský Šermiarský Cech (however, unlike me they approach these techniques from a comparative perspective of the whole Liechtenauerian tradition). Similarly to them, I believe that schiessen can be executed as a thrust as well as a cut depending on the distance from the target (shots 24 and 25). In addition, descriptions and attempts at practical execution of twerhaw and krumhaw suggest that although schiessen generally seeks the maximal reach, i.e. arms fully extended and sword held parallel to the ground, it does not always have to be performed at the shoulder level, since it sometimes sacrifices some of its reach in order to provide better cover (protecting with the crossguard in twerhaw, and with off-line movement of the hands in krumhaw).

5. Axiomatising Schiessen: The Final Stage

In the previous chapter we put the axiom yielded by the linguistic analysis informed by logics (objective) through a functional kinaesthetic interpretation informed by our embodied knowledge, fighting experience, theoretical framework of modern fencing, and general knowledge of GNM 3227a (subjective). 

This allowed us to formulate an updated version of the set of axioms defining schiessen as presented in GNM 32227a. This time we will need both the connective for necessary (AND) as well as those for optional features (OR). The fragment of the set inherited from the linguistic-logical (objective) stage is bolded to clearly separate it from the (subjective) additions provided from practical interpretation.

Schiessen is:

· an attack AND with the point OR with the edge AND without footwork AND firm AND extended fully until the sword is parallel to the ground AND approximately at the shoulder level OR in front of the head 

The axiom does not define the position of the hands, since the examples provided by GNM 3227a indicate that this position is highly contextual and many different executions can meet the requirements for schiessen set by the fight book. The four positions inferred from the text (shot 23) can be supplemented with alternative versions in different situations, e.g. with the crossguard held horizontally with the thumb up (e.g. shot 4). Perhaps, if schiessen is unopposed, the position of the hand is irrelevant, while in case a bind is expected one should use one of the four strikes (shot 23) or apply the concept of wenden (folio 36v), i.e. turn the long edge against the opposing sword.

6. Conclusions

The results of our analysis of schiessen indicate that in GNM 3227a it enjoys the status of a specific technical term on par with zornhaw, etc. However, it does not describe a “play” or a compound technique, but rather a simple motion that some other techniques (zornhaw, krumhaw, veller, twerhaw, schielhaw) and tactical concepts are based on (e.g. schiessen against durchwechseln). Moreover, we found out that although it is sometimes used in GNM 3227a in a way that suggests it is a synonym to werfen, the latter term is probably more general and includes moves that should not be considered schiessen. Therefore, when a phrase schiessen ader werfen is used in GNM 3227a, it means “use schiessen or werfen depending on the context”, not “use schiessen also known as werfen”. As a side note, applying the proposed interpretation of schiessen in modern free-play and competitive contexts resulted in more reliable performance of key techniques of the researched fighting system – similar observations were made by Anton Kohutovič from the Trnavský Šermiarský Cech in his analyses of zornhaw and schielhaw.

7. References

GNM 3227a, folios 13v-52v, translated by Thomas Stoepler, transcribed by Dierk Hagedorn, accessed at: http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Nuremberg_Hausbuch_(MS_3227a)

Bauer, Matthias Johannes, 'Teaching How to Fight with Encrypted Words: Linguistic Aspects of German Fencing and Wrestling Treatises of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times’, in: Late Medieval and Early Modern Fight Books. Transmission and Tradition of Martial Arts in Europe (14th-17th Centuries), ed. by Daniel Jaquet, Karin Verelst, and Timothy Dawson, History of Warfare, 112 (Leiden/Boston 2016), pp. 47-61.

Burkart, Eric, ‘The Autograph of an Erudite Martial Artist: A Close Reading of Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Hs. 3227a’, in Late Medieval and Early Modern Fight Books: Transmission and Tradition of Martial Arts in Europe (14th-17th Centuries), ed. by Daniel Jaquet, Karin Verelst and Timothy Dawson, History of Warfare, 112 (Leiden/Boston 2016), pp. 451–80

Ehlert, Trude, Rainer Leng, 'Frühe Koch- und Pulverrezepte aus der Nürnberger Handschrift GNM 3227a (um 1389)'; in: Medizin in Geschichte, Philologie und Ethnologie. Festschrift für Gundolf Keil (Würzburg 2003), pp. 289–320.

Walczak, Bartłomiej, ’Bringing lost teachings back to life – a proposed method for interpretation of medieval and Renaissance fencing manuals’, in: Ido Movement for Culture, 11(2) (2011), pp. 47-54.