Hands and Feet.

Okay, so I've told you about me and how I got into HEMA and as a reward for reading my self indulgent ramblings I thought you deserved something about Ledall's system.

Now, any of you who have actually tried reading Ledall's work will know that he doesn't give us much detail on individual techniques. All of the words he uses are still in use today and then, like now, those words have some quite generic meanings. We only have to look at the masses of sterling work Terry Brown has done to realise how much scope there is for interpreting any given technique and how other period references to combat use these terms with the expectation that the reader knows exactly what the author is talking about. There's probably a paper in it for someone who wants to look at how wide spread "fencing" knowledge was in England for the period, but that's not what we're here for.

We're here to try and understanding what Ledall was telling us about fight with the hand-and-a-half sword, and I'm going to tell you what I think he was doing. I'd like to be able to tell that I've done just as much research as Terry Brown, but the simple fact is, I haven't. What I have done is grown up reading transcriptions of medieval documents, they've long littered the homes of my parents and Grand parents, and I picked them up and scanned through them as and when I wanted. I never knew I was going to have to explain myself to others later, and so made no notes. I didn't copy out sections relating to combat, thinking they'd be relevant to my later life, I just read them because that's what the grown-ups around me did.

That's not to say I  haven't done research into the meanings of these words. I've looked through all sorts of papers and online dictionaries, but all I found is that no-one describes the individual technqiues and my general understanding of the words was just the same. Terry Brown, or someone else, may discover some previously unknow text a kin to Ringeck or Fiore, but I doubt it. It's simply not the English way. The English dance manuals from the C15th tell the names of steps and squences, but don't describe the movements, recipies tell the ingrediants, but rarely mentions real quantities.

While Ledall may have been trying to teach those who already knew the techniques how to fight, we don't know the technqiues and have to start at the very beginning and from my experiences of teaching that means foot work. And that's where I'll start.

So, Ledall gives us a few clues and terms, but it's not as simple as one may hope. Ledall mentions "setting", "voiding", "springs", "forwards" and "backwards" and the question is; do they all relate to footwork? The simple answer is 'no'. I could tell exactly how and why, but it would take an age, and this is my blog, so I'm going to give you a really short explanation, and hopefully it will make enough sense for you to keep reading, where you'll see everything fall into place.

The most simple explanation is that "sets", "voids" and "springs" related to the feet and "forwards" and "backwards" related to the hands.

If we look through the manuscript we find that all direct references to the feet/legs are made using the terms "sett[ing]" or "void[ing]", sometimes these are accompanied by "forth"/ "forward" or "back", but never are the terms forward or backward used without "sets" or "voids" in reference to the feet or legs. We get "set the right leg forward" and "setting in with the right leg", we get "voiding back the left foot" and "voiding the left foot", but we don't get "bring forth the right foot" or "bring back the left foot". And it makes sense; "setting in" brings one into the fight, "voiding" creates space between the fighters, a 'void' being an empty space.

In addition to this we never see the terms "set" or "void" used in conjunction with terms used to describe a technique. We may be told to "set in the right leg with a quarter" or "voiding back the left leg with a downright stroke", but Ledall doesn't tell us to "strike a right quarter forwards" or a "downright stroke backwards". The one exception to this rule is the "quarter void", and here it comes as part of a sequence that we have already been taught. In his first counter Ledall tells us to make;

"A profur at hys face standyng styll then sett in ye ryght legge with a rake and a quarter, voydyng bake ye same legge with an other quarter, then voyd bake yore lyffte legge and stande at youre stoppe."

His very next play condenses this into "A profer, a rake with a quarter an other voyde", until later we get the short hand of "quarter void".

If we get a "set" followed by a "set", we have a pass followed by a gather step forwards, a "void" followed by a "void" is a pass back and a gather step back.

I'll leave "springs" for another day, but basically they are a form of traversing step.
t's worth noting that Ledall talks of "double rounds", "double rounds forward" and "double rounds backward"


So, onto "forwards" and "backwards".

These terms are mainly used in conjunction with "double rounds" and the 'double round' provides the easiest technique to explain the theory that "forwards" and "backwards" relates to the hands.

The "double round" appears pretty early on in Ledall's teachings and introduces the concept of the 'bind'. The "double" section simply refers to striking to the other side, the "round" being more of a descriptive than a technical term. So, we end up with a technique that involves striking to one side, then 'doubling' 'around' to the other side.

The "double round forwards" means that we make our strike and meet the opponents blade at the bind, as we 'double' to the other side we move our hands 'forwards', working behind the opponents blade, to facilitate the strike. This works well if the opponent is weak at the bind. If he is strong at the bind we pull off, moving the hands and blade 'backwards', to strike to the other side.

Both techniques generally involve "setting in" with each strike, though Ledall does not tell us such directly. The clue to this is in his "tumbling chase" where he advises us to make "two double rounds forward, and as many backward, all upon the left foot lithely delivered".

Ignoring the fact that he strikes from the right side with a left leg lead, which is a device he uses for his own ends, we must consider how one can possibly move forwards and backwards without passing footwork, if that was his intent. We could use half passes, but in other plays he tells us to "set the right leg as far forward as the left", so why not mention it here? And if he had then the "double round backwards" would be more accurately describe as being 'on the right foot', as it would be the right's movement that would facilitate the attacks correctly.

It seems relatively obvious to me that his intention was that forwards and backwards are used primarily as terms relating to the direction of the hands/sword after ecountering the bind, with 'set' and 'void' refering to the motion of ones body through the movement of the feet.