Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
I've done this many times and it just isn't particularly important whether the edge or flat are brought to bear. While we're on this subject...just what do you mean by 'intent'? Intent to harm my opponent? Intent to damage his sword? Because if we're talking about the realities of intent to actually harm an opponent with a sword, I hope that no one on this forum knows what that's really about. |
I mean exactly what my fellow ARMA members mean about training with intent:
In ARMA's approach to historical fencing we have a philosophy of teaching and training with "intent." By this we mean practicing actions realistically in proper range and speed with the intention to safely make controlled contact.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/Intent.htm
As for your other comment, I cannot say whether or not you train with intent. I know that there are quite a few people out there who lack it in their training, and it shows when they spar. Similarly, techniques and responses will work differently when performed with realistic speed and intent, and many interpretations that appeared viable will not be.
Quote: |
I would be concerned about impacting edge on edge in a lethal duel. Yes, if push came to shove, I'd rather ding my sword than myself. But, at the same time, using your edge as a method of defense against an incoming strike opens up the possibility of a major edge failure. It's pretty hard to fight effectively and preserve one's own life if your edges are falling apart on you; as Kevin Cashen states in his article on The Physical Reality of Forceful Edge-to-Edge Cuts:
"Notches in a sword blade are points of concentrated opportunity for catastrophic failure; this is not opinion or belief, it is material science fact based upon the way our universe works." |
I'm not sure what you mean about major edge failure, or how that effects the outcome of a fight. Given most fights would've involved few contacts, it's really hard to see how this is germaine. [/quote]
Perhaps not in a duel, but it could become very relevant in a battle. Swords are not disposable tools, as you know, and it makes sense that our ancestors would make efforts to take care of them, including avoiding edge-to-edge damage.
Quote: |
By that way, that's a very poor and ungentlemanly-written article; everyone should be deeply suspicious of a supposedly scientific analysis that involves invective like: "...in order to maintain the stability of their delusions about forceful edge-to-edge impacts." And frankly, given the author admits he's no swordsman, I'm content to react to his opinion with considerable skepticism. |
One doesn't have to be a swordsman to understand the physics behind forceful edge-to-edge impacts, nor to understand the effects that it has on steel.
And while we're on the matter, I do not support the author when he makes comments about delusions and the like. For me it's a matter of disagreeing on the subject, but I do not mean to imply that either you or Mr. Grandy are delusional. I was quoting from the part of the article that I felt was relevant to my argument.
Quote: |
Unsurprisingly, given Peter's careful scholarship, this is a far better article; but all it does is support what I said earlier - that the vast majority of impacts involve oblique contact. Again, arguing against 90 degree contact is simply attacking a straw man, as no one is advocating any such thing here. |
I'm not sure where you stated that the majority of impacts involve oblique contact. The closest thing I could find was "I strike with my long edge into his cut: depending on the angle of his attack, I may meet edge to edge, edge to flat, or somewhere in between." At any rate, Peter's article indicates that whatever edge contact occurred, it was mostly incidental, and when practicing with steel blades we've found that there is some edge contact with certain techniques.
Quote: |
Again, as I mentioned to Bill, von Danzig's text indicates that you impact with the long edge. It does not specify that you hit your long edge against his incoming edge.
Given the angle of a Zwerchhau, particularly one directed to the upper openings, there's no way to defend it with the long edge that involves *no* edge to edge contact. You're most likely to hit the edge at about 30 degrees or so, and as contact is made, his blade will flatten out against your long edge. |
But a defense that does not involve "no" edge to edge contact isn't the same as one where the edge is primarily used for mitigating the attack. We've found in the ARMA that when we perform an oberhau against a zwerchhau that the primary contact between the two blades is edge to flat. There is some edge to edge contact as you state, but this is incidental to the angle of the attack. It certainly does not constitute a specifically edge-to-edge form of parry because the main part of the opponent's sword impacted is the flat.
Quote: |
Again, this is still a straw man. By attaching pejoratives like "rigid" you're obfuscating the question of whether the edge is used to parry. I repeat: no one is advocating rigid anything. In fact, Bill Grandy and I have pointed out repeatedly that the notion of a rigid parry, or block, is anathema in this system, or any medieval combat system, and is not a meaningful point of discussion. The answer remains, yes, sometimes the edge parries. When a Zornhau is employed to break an incoming Oberhau, the long edge strikes his sword. It momentarily makes contact before turning into a thrust - the Thrust of Wrath - that hits him in the face. This technique is relatively insensitive to the angle the edges meet each other. The most likely impact is an oblique one. In this case, one would have to move in most unnatural ways to achieve either a stroke fully to his flat or fully to his edge. |
I'm not in disagreement that there's edge contact which occurs in winden, and that there's incidental edge contact in certain parries. What I do disagree with is characterizing such incidental contact specifically as an "edge-to-edge" parry. It's misleading, and if someone did not know what they were doing, they might think that more serious forms of edge contact were appropriate based on the argument that edge parries do occur.