Late medieval tradition The first document of German heritage which shows fencing techniques is the
Royal Armouries Ms. I.33, which was written around 1300. The next documents date from approximately a century later, when records of the tradition attributed to the 14th-century master
Johannes Liechtenauer begin to appear. The history of the German school of fencing in the tradition of Liechtenauer spans roughly 250 years, or 8–10 generations of masters (depending on the dating of Liechtenauer) from 1350 to 1600. The earliest source, Ms.
3227a of 1389, mentions a number of masters who are considered peers of Liechtenauer: Hanko Döbringer, Andres Jud, Jost von der Nyssen, and Niklaus Preuss. Martin Hundsfeld and
Ott Jud were probably active in the early 15th century, but there is a scarcity of historical sources until the mid-15th century. The mid-15th century saw the peak and decline of the "Society of Liechtenauer" under
Peter von Danzig,
Sigmund Ringeck, and
Paulus Kal. Kal's contemporary,
Hans Talhoffer, may have been involved with the founding of the
Brotherhood of St. Mark, which enjoyed a quasi-monopoly on teaching martial arts from 1487 until 1570. In 1514, Emperor Maximilian L. gave special privileges to both the Marksbrüder and much later to the Federfechter, and propagated the fencing style of Liechtenauer in the entire Holy Roman Empire (it became de facto the dominant martial arts within the Holy Roman Empire, despite the fact that there were other martial art schools active in the Empire at the time). The Emperor also granted students the right to bear arms and allowed them to have duels.
German Renaissance Late 15th-century masters include
Johannes Lecküchner,
Hans von Speyer,
Peter Falkner, and
Hans Folz. In the 16th century, the tradition became more a sporting exercise than a system of combat for duelling or the battlefield. Early 16th-century masters include Hans Wurm,
Jörg Wilhalm, and Andre Pauernfeindt (also
Paurnfeindt; Paurnfeyndt; Paurenfeyndt). In 1516, Pauernfeindt published a treatise entitled
Ergründung der ritterlichen kunst des fechtens durch freyfechter czu Vienn ("Foundation of the knightly art of combat by the
Freifechter of Vienna"), which is one of the earliest printed fencing manuals. Comparisons with descriptions in other manuscripts from the period (such as the
Cologne Fechtbuch) confirm that this period was a transitional stage between the late medieval school of
Johannes Liechtenauer and the
German Renaissance "sportive"
Federfechten as practiced in the late 16th century (as recorded in the later printed manuals by
Joachim Meyer and others). A later manuscript, dated 1564 and attributed to Lienhart Sollinger, cites Pauernfeindt and is largely identical in content. In the mid 16th century, the first attempts, notably by
Paulus Hector Mair, at preserving and reconstructing the teachings of the past century appeared. The foundation of the
Federfechter in 1570 at
Vienna falls into this late period. The final phase of the tradition stretches from the late 16th to the early 17th century, with masters such as
Joachim Meyer and Jakob Sutor.
Decline of the German tradition In the 17th century,
rapier fencing of the
Italian school became fashionable due to treatises by such as
Salvator Fabris, and the German tradition becoming regarded as old-fashioned and unrefined among the nobility during the Baroque.
Longsword fencing was gradually discontinued at noble fencing schools, including most universities, at the time. The rapier had an advantage in that it could be worn well with the clothing of that time period when longswords were typically seen as too large to be worn fashionably.
Thirty Years' War also led to a massive decline of both fencing schools and practitioners in the Holy Roman Empire. Both
Peter Hagendorf (a mercenary who fought in the Thirty Years' War) and
Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen make references in their works to the excessive number of deaths among the member of the traditional fencing guilds and the massive destruction of the regions in which they were active (this also explains why most of the surviving schools and lines were active in the eastern part of the Holy Roman Empire or in regions that were far less affected by the war). Author Jean Daniel L'Ange writes in his book
Deutliche und gründliche Erklärung der adelichen und ritterlichen freyen Fecht-Kunst, from 1664 (another edition was published in 1708), that "a big sword is very dangerous in our times because it is more difficult to [carry] around with clothing than a smaller thrusting sword, which can easily be worn." He also writes that "it is possible to kill a man who is armed with a gun in a short range, when he stands close to you[,] with the help of the rapier, because of the highly effective thrusting techniques [that] will save your life, rather than with the slower cutting of a bigger sword or a sabre. You may even be able to kill him, before he can take his gun out of its halter, before he can make the first shot". L'Ange also writes, "you can hide your rapier well under your mantle and thus avoid any provocation in public. A long sword may cause problems and excite enemies". But L'Ange also pays tribute to the Marksbrüder and states, "their art is truly a knightly science, it must be preserved for the coming, yet unborn generations!". However, some civilian fencers still practiced the German school instead of the rapier-fencing of the noble elite. The last known practitioner by name was Theodori Verolini in 1679, when he published his book
Der Kůnstliche Fechter ("The Artful Fencer"), which was based upon Joachim Meyers fechtbuch.
Late survivals in the modern period There are paintings from the middle of the 18th century that show practitioners still using long swords in the fencing schools of the Marxbrüder and Federfechter. It cannot be verified if these depictions are anachronistic or they show techniques and practices of the original Liechtenauer tradition still in use, although it is highly likely that most 18th century fencers were not at all familiar with longsword fencing and would likely not have known how to handle these weapons, which indicates that these pictures show lines of the Liechtenauer tradition that are referred in literature (and did continue to exist at least until the end of the 18th century / the early 19th century). In 1726, Gottfried Rudolf Pommer auf Bugenhagen mentions, in his publication
Sammlung von Merktwurdigkeiten ("Collection of Oddities"), the use of long swords in those fencing schools. Most fencers of the 18th century viewed longsword fencing as a curious thing, and it was probably only taught in the few remaining fencing schools of the Marxbrüder and Federfechter and in some stage fencing schools. There is an illustration of a fencing school from 1726, where *Fechtfedern* (two-handed training swords) are being used and Huten of Liechtenauer's school of fencing are recognizable. This portrayal is compatible with the contemporary sources which refer to longsword fencing in the existing fencing schools of the 18th century in the Holy Roman Empire. Author and historian Joseph Ott notices that the longsword survived the rapier in the fencing schools of the Marksbrüder in the 18th century. The rapier was replaced by the smaller
smallsword during the late 17th century and the foil became a fashionable training weapon in the 18th century, however both fencing with the longsword and the Dusack was till being taught in the fencing schools of the Marksbrüder. German historian
Johann Büsching mentioned the existence of both the Brotherhood of St. Mark and the Federfechter as well as the existence of "Klopffechter" (artistic and stage fencers who used blunt weapons) as late as 1735. He further stated that there were alive in 1817 at least a handful of skilled people who knew how to use "battle swords" ("Schlachtschwerter", another name for either longswords or Zweihänder). Büsching goes on to say that the art was dying out very slowly, mostly due to the fact that there were fewer living fencers who were trained by the few remaining Marxbrüder und Federfechter. The last of public displays of longsword fencing was on 5 November 1741, the author clearly mentions the use of "Schlachtenschwerter" ("battle swords"). The most prominent guest of one of the last of these displays was the young
Francis I., holy Roman Emperor who enjoyed the presentation very much. Strangely enough, the public demonstrations of these fencing styles seem to end very abruptly, despite the big popularity they had among both noblemen and common citizens. Some historians assume that it was the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire which directly led to the end and eventual extinction of its unique fencing culture, because the downfall of the Empire did also destroy much of its oldest institutions and practices. The collapse of the Holy Roman Empire, in 1806, and the wars and battles of the period destroyed several of the remaining old fencing schools and led to the death of many active fencers. It is possible that the Napoleonic wars brought an end to most of the remaining lines of the Liechtenauer tradition. Another source mentions living longsword fencers who were alive in 1819, but who were "without any fencing schools" (a reference to the decline of both the Federfechter and the Marksbrüder). The German historian Alfred Schaer presented evidence that longsword fencing was referenced in descriptions and even portrayed on images of the Marksbrüder and the Federfechter as long as these institutions existed. He makes the argument that longsword fencing was such an integral part of the tradition of these imperial institutions that they stubbornly clung to it, even centuries after longsword fencing had lost its relevancy for battles or judicial duels. The last practitioners of longsword fencing may have ceased activity with the dissolution of the Marxbrüder and Federfechter by the early 19th century. On 16 April 1862, the Swiss newspaper
Neue Zürcher Zeitung mentioned the death of an unnamed, 76-year-old (born in 1786) former member of the Marksbrüder, who, having fenced longsword in his teenage years in the early 1800s, was possibly the last living practitioner. The last known source who mentions living members of the Marksbrüder is the "Jagd-Zeitung" ("Hunting Newspapers") part 9 from 1866. The author Jos Baader, mentions living veterans of the old fencing schools who were still alive but very old (he mentions a gentleman who is in his late 80s, but was once a practitioner of their specific longsword fencing style). There were some living German longsword fencers alive during the lifetime of
Alfred Hutton, a British fencer of the 19th century who was interested into the reconstruction of old fencing systems. Hutton could have met some living longsword fencers and interviewed them. He could have preserved at least a part of their knowledge, if he had been to Germany and met the last living Marksbrüder members. Some aspects and basics—such as the Huten, the basic four guards of the Liechtenauer traditions, and some terminology (terms such as "Schrankhut" and "Langort" can still be found in rare German stage fencing literature of the 19th and early 20th centuries), as well as the four basic cuts and the thrusts from all guards of medieval German longsword fencing—survived in some classic German stage fencing schools ("Bühnenfechtkunst") at least until the middle of the 20th century. The close relationship between longsword fencers of the Liechtenauer tradition and stage fencers can be traced back at least until the medieval period. During the time of the
Third Reich, there was an interest among certain members of the
NSDAP to conserve classical German stage fencing and to teach specifically longsword fencing techniques to young boys who were in the
Hitlerjugend, under the name "Ritterspiele" ("Knightly Games"). Wilhelm Fabricius (1894–1989), a silviculture scientist and passionate admirer of historical martial arts and fencing even wanted to reconstruct German medieval fencing on the basis of traditional stage fencing and the Fechtbuch of
Joachim Meyer. Fabricius was later captured by American troops, it is unclear whether or not he continued his reconstruction efforts after the war, although there is evidence that his interest in the subject never faded. The last references and active lines of these techniques in classical German stage fencing vanished almost entirely with the
second world war. After the war, Germans started to vastly prefer modern American stage fencing (which was a mix between 19th century saber fencing and some East Asian martial arts techniques), probably due to the popularity of Hollywood movies in Germany after the second world war. Classical German stage fencing became more and more rare and its practitioners started to die out. As of 2018, almost all of the practitioners of this classical style of stage fencing either have died or would be very old. Today, the only surviving part of the medieval German school of fencing can be found in modern German
Academic fencing, where some of the old terminologies (for example: swords are divided into parts called "Stärke" and "Schwäche", the term "Anhauen" and the saying "in die Schranken weisen" are directly descended from the medieval German fencing terminology of the Liechtenauer canon) and traditions (such as the unbroken line of German Fencing masters which reaches back to the medieval period) are still active.
Influence on modern bayonet fencing Bayonets (daggers or short swords which were mounted on the barrels of the muskets) were first introduced in either France or Germany in the 16th century and became commonly used in the 17th century (especially during the
Thirty Years' War. Johann Georg Pascha, a passionate fencer, was one of the most popular and prominent bayonet fencing masters of the time (though no bayonet fencing book of his seemingly has survived, his books about shooting however still exist). Pascha himself seemingly based large parts of his own combat system on existing fencing schools (his book about Kampfringen makes direct references to Liechtenauer's fencing style). The earliest surviving fencing manual about bayonet fencing is most likely Pierre Francois Giffart 's "L' Art Militaire Françoise Pour L'Infanterie" (1697), while written in French, was from a German author. Giffart directly references "thrusting with a longsword" and compares his own bayonet fencing system with "the handling of a large sword" (" épée-grande"). The 17th century military expert
Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen describes that longsword fencing was in large parts used as a basis for both fencing with the pike as well as bayonet fencing and the soldier and experienced shootist D.M.B.G.L compares close combat with the bayonet directly with halfsword techniques from Liechtenauer's tradition. German schools of bayonet fencing later became more prominent throughout Europe and even influenced both French as well as Anglo-Saxon bayonet fencing systems. Julius Friedrich, Duke of Württemberg argues that German bayonet fencing has its roots both in "wrestling as well as the traditional fencing school" (he most likely references Liechtenauer's school of fencing, which was considered to be the indigenous school of fencing of Germany at the time). Despite the German fencing school's decline since the 16th century, its basics, techniques, movements and tactics remained powerful and influential in bayonet fencing as well as pike and polearm combat and was spread slowly across many different European countries. The Hews "Pflug", "Langort" and "Schlüssel" seem to have been considered the best guards and there were still references to their roots in older, medieval fencing styles as late as the 19th century. While there were other bayonet fencing systems (some which were based on saber fencing - like in the case of Sir
Alfred Hutton's bayonet system - or smallsword fencing), there remained an influence of older, pike and longsword-based methods well into the 20th century.
William Ewart Fairbairn's "All-in Fighting" still makes references to the older bayonet fencing systems and ignores the 19th century systems which used saber-based guards, attacks and parries. Especially noteworthy is the bayonet fencing system of American soldier John Styers, which uses the same basics as Liechtenauer's system and - like Fairbairn's system - completely ignores the 19th century schools in favor of a more traditional method of bayonet fencing. Like Liechtenauer's system, Styers' method doesn't have parries, but uses bladework to focus the enemy weapon away from its original target and provide openings for the fencer to attack. The similarities were so obvious that historian Hortst Ueberhorst referenced them in his publication about physical exercises. ==Spread==