Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Thu 06 Oct, 2011 5:13 pm
| Steven Reich wrote: |
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: | | Hanging clearly is said to be performed with a flat, and for a good reason. If executed with an edge the edge will be left completely dull because incoming blade slides along it. |
If this whole thread has gotten back to a matter of "were there ever instructions for edge-on-edge blocks?" Then the answer is a clear "yes". Numerous examples exist in the Bolognese texts but perhaps the clearest is that described by Viggiani where he discusses using a rising riverso against the opponent's downward cut. He says something to the effect of "this is the way it is most commonly taught" and also talks about the possible effect of breaking the opponent's sword since you will be catching the edge of his debole on the edge of your forte. |
Steve
Viggiani does indeed say that the swords meet true edge to true edge. However, Viggiani is not giving instructions on how to perform an edge-on-edge block. This is clear beyound all doubts when we look at the full context of what he is saying. The following is from the online translation of Viggiani by William Jherek Swanger's in PDF format(http://celyn.drizzlehosting.com/jherek/Schermo.pdf). The quote can be found on the bottom of page 53 of the PDF.
| Viggiani wrote: |
ROD: It behooves you (to deliver your enemy some desired blow) that (being in that guardia stretta, difensiva with your right foot forward) you turn the point of your sword toward your left side, diagonally, so that the point faces that same side, and the pommel [82V] is on your right, as if you wanted to lay hand to the sword, and from here uniting all the strength of your body together, do the same rovescio tondo with those same turns of the hand and the feet of which I have told you, and in the same manner; but pay heed that in this delivering of the rovescio, the swords meet each other true edge to true edge, 119but that the forte of your sword will have met the debole of mine, whereby mine could be easily broken by virtue of the disadvantage of such a meeting, and also because of the fall of the cut; and you will also be more secure, being shielded by the forte of your sword.
CON: How should I avenge myself of the insult?
ROD: While my mandritto is beat aside by your rovescio tondo, it will go by your right side; lift up your sword hand somewhat, and turn the true edge toward the sky, and make the point of the sword drop somewhat, and move yourself toward me with your right foot forward with a big step, and then immediately drop your left arm, and make your right shoulder throw your right arm forward, declining toward me from high to low, with that punta sopramano offensiva, accompanying it in all of the said manners;... |
The really important line in the above quote is where Viggiani says, "While my mandritto is beat aside by your rovescio tondo, it will go by your right side...". If you perform a 90 edge-to-edge block the other sword is not going to go by your right side, it is going to stop on your sword and possibly hack your edge. While the two sword are meeting true edge to true edge the above statement also make clear that the swords are not impacting each other at 90 degrees. The true edge of the blade performing the mandritto is actually travelling down the true edge of the defending sword to the forte, leaving the defending blade impacting the flat of the other blade and beating it aside. If you perform this technique as with an actual 90 degree edge-to-edge impact then your counter cut has to be performed as a separte action, ie. parry riposte. But if you preform the technique as actually described the parry and the follow up cut can be performed as a single action, ie. in single time, which is much more effective and does not damage you blade. I don't know why this technique keeps being used as evidence of the edge-to-edge fighting seen in stage combat, the SCA, etc., but it absolutely is not.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 793 Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Thu 06 Oct, 2011 5:30 pm
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: |
| I fight with steel blunts twice a week so believe me, I do know how deep a sword would be nicked if struck edge-to-edge with enough force. Most swords we have are around 50 HRC. |
I find that a great many blunts don't really possess HRC 50 in the edge, though some might. Most seem to me to be closer to not reaching the start of the Rockwell scale even, while others may be at the beginning of it and that's already pretty hard for steel. Most manufacturers don't state any official data on the edge hardness of their blunts, only for their sharps meant for hard target cutting.
Did you send yours off for analysis at a metallugy lab to get them tested for hardness?
Let me suggest a simple alternative way to make a comparison.
I've struck my Hanwei Tinker Line viking blade with full force into the edge of cold rolled non annealed steel square bars put sticking upright in a bench-fast vise, and again with it lying freely on a heavy duty workbench with no apparent damage to the sword but with a clear nick in the bar. I've seen the same done at SBG with vaious other sharps with the same result. If I do the same with the blunts I have access to they get a pretty big dent. This indicates a far softer steel edge in those blunts. Doesn't mean all blunts are like that of course. Have you tested this with one of your practice blades? If the result you get isn't the same "no apparent damage" as we get with well tempered sharps, perhaps then blunts do not constitute a fully comparable medium for sword on sword edge contact?
In that case, this non-interchangeability between sharps and blunts may well be the root of the whole modern day argument in the first place.
All swords get damage from use of course, but far softer ones will naturally get deeper marks.
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: |
It is possible that this sword was nicked in a real battle, but it is also possible that it was not, so no solid proof for either standpoint here. |
Most certainly, I agree. However, it's plausible that the damage is from some form of martial activity and the nicks are from edge to edge contact, not from far softer armour grade steel plate. And doubly so judging from the video you posted.
The Arma video shows the same straight gouge in the forte in two instances, same as the one gouge in the forte in the previously discussed sword and seemingly to about the same depth, which may as you state well be 3 mm. This result is from putting a modern sword blade of a suitably similar diamond cross section, but with unknown edge hardness, unknown steel quality and with unknown edge geometry, into a vise and striking it in a static manner that may reasonably equate to a hard edge block.
The damage seen is still very interesting of course, especially the blade break and the half moon type cut. However I see nothing in the video to support the idea that edge blocks were not done back in the day. Nor any damage that doesn't correlate with extant sword finds, sword legends or norse saga.
Posts: 313
Fri 07 Oct, 2011 12:25 am
| Mackenzie Cosens wrote: |
| So when you talk about suppressing and you say its done with the flat I am not saying you wrong, I am saying that Meyer in his section on rapier says do it this way "..cut form(sp) above at his right following the vertical line with the long edge and lowered hilt along the a broad step forward on you right foot. Thus you hit on the forte of his blade ... ". |
I never said that suppressing is made with the flat. I said that it is maid AGAINST the flat of the opponent's blade. A common principle: put flat of your blade in path of incoming edge and use your edge to beat aside incoming blade by striking at its flat.
| Quote: |
| While my mandritto is beat aside by your rovescio tondo, it will go by your right side... |
Randall, you just confirmed what I suspected! It is not a solid block (which would normally be executed by moving ones hand almost vertically upwards with the point facing to the left thus not being a riverso as I understand it) but a cut travelling from left to right beating incoming blade aside. Oh, I wish I could demonstrate it to those who don't understand the difference! It is basically the same as description of use of short edge posted by Mackenzie Cosens but executed with the true edge. Actually his quote even says: "As you now have learn to take out upwards with the short edge, so you can also strike out upwards with the long edge and with the flat; and this can be done from both low postures".
| Quote: |
| I find that a great many blunts don't really possess HRC 50 in the edge |
I make armor and weapons myself so I have a very good idea of how hard or soft things are. I have a messer with edge hardness of 45 HRC (measured!) and it is way softer than any of the Hanwei or other blunts I have. By the way, Hanwei does (or at least did) state blade hardness, and it was 48-50 HRC if I remember correctly. They may be softer than 50 HRC, but they are no less than 48 HRC. An easy test is trying to drill or file a blade. 40 HRC can be filed or drilled, while 50 HRC is almost impossible to drill and is a real pain in the ass to sharpen with a file. In the video I posted, a "stationary" piece of blade was struck. Now imagine what would happen if both blades are moving towards each other and stop after impact so that all the energy is spent on destroying the blades rather than sending one of them flying! And you HAVE to move your sword to stop a strong blow. If you just hold your sword statically it will be moved enough for you to get cut. I don't say that blocking with ones edge was not done. What I am saying that it was done either by unskilled fighters or as the last resort or if one knew for sure that his blade was stronger. Medieval swords were of very questionable quality. Some were great and some were shit. And there was no way to tell if the blade is resilient or will break on hard impact. And swords did break, even supposedly high-quality swords of the nobility. Can't find it right now, but there are memories written by some guy (16 century I suppose, but I may be wrong) of him and two his comrades being ambushed. Swords of his comrades were broken when they struck opponents wearing helmets on the head. Would you risk breaking your blade when fighting for your life? I would not. Remember, THERE WAS NO TELLING IF THE SWORD SURVIVES SUCH BLOCK OR NOT! Hence my standpoint: the fact that edge-to-edge blocks were SOMETIMES used is a very poor excuse for not learning to block properly. Now if such blocks occasionally happen in bouts... Such is life, it did happen in reality too.
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Fri 07 Oct, 2011 8:29 am
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: |
| I never said that suppressing is made with the flat. I said that it is maid AGAINST the flat of the opponent's blade. A common principle: put flat of your blade in path of incoming edge and use your edge to beat aside incoming blade by striking at its flat. |
Absolutely!
| Quote: |
| Randall, you just confirmed what I suspected! It is not a solid block (which would normally be executed by moving ones hand almost vertically upwards with the point facing to the left thus not being a riverso as I understand it) but a cut travelling from left to right beating incoming blade aside. Oh, I wish I could demonstrate it to those who don't understand the difference! |
Yes, we are in agreement. For a good described of this action one only has to look at Fiore's images of the sword in one hand where he starts with the sword on his left side and then displaces his adversary's blade by cutting into its flat and finishing the cut in right Och. The only real difference in Viggiani techinque is that he makes more of a thrusting cut leaving his point higher than is seen in Ochs, which allows him to cut down at his adversary's head. And again, the displacement and the attacking cut are made in one motion as parry riposte is not a part of what Viggiani is doing in this techinque.
| Quote: |
| Hence my standpoint: the fact that edge-to-edge blocks were SOMETIMES used is a very poor excuse for not learning to block properly. Now if such blocks occasionally happen in bouts... Such is life, it did happen in reality too. |
Very true. Today US Maines are taught to clean their weapons and spend a lot of time doing it. Yet, in training and in battle Maines often have to crawl throught mud with their weapons...such is the reality of their lives. Hacking the edge of you sword in battle is not the same as being taught to hack your edge.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 871 Location: Paris, France
Fri 07 Oct, 2011 10:36 am
There is a relevant bit in Thibault:
| Quote: |
| La vieille mode de parer un coup de taille, c'est de mettre le fort de l'épée devant la tête avec la pointe montante, pour recevoir le coup venant à pleine force dessus ou à l'environ de la garde. Chose qui est fort dangereuse et sujette à beaucoup d'incommodités ; par exemple que le Contraire ne vous blesse en vous enfonçant l'épée, ou qu'il la mette en pièce [...] |
(Tab.XIV, p.3)
| Quote: |
| The old way of parrying a cut, is to bring the strong of the sword in front of the head with the tip rising, in order to receive the full force of the blow on it or close to the guard. Something that is very dangerous and full of inconvenience ; for example the Contrary [the opponent] could hurt you by driving through your sword, or smash it to pieces [...] |
(Translation by me)
This seems to indicate that parrying with a relatively static block was practised and acknowledged as something that could break your sword. Thibault does not say edge or flat but this is still a high impact move that can damage swords.
Conversely, the quote from Viggiani, regardless of how you envision the action, indicates that some parries were made with the intent to damage the other guy's sword as an added bonus. If a high-impact move is going to happen perhaps it's best to take the most out of it and actually try to damage the sword of your enemy?
Thibault and many others agree on the fact that a static block is not going to do much good if you can avoid it, but if I'm going to use a block at all I'm sure going to make it happen so that edge damage to the other sword will max out as long as my sword can withstand it...
Regards,
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Fri 07 Oct, 2011 12:01 pm
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
| Conversely, the quote from Viggiani, regardless of how you envision the action, indicates that some parries were made with the intent to damage the other guy's sword as an added bonus. |
I disagree about the intent. Viggiani only says that the tip of the other blade can be easily broken. He is not expressing that one should be intent upon that action. The goal of the technique is to displace the adversary's blade and counter-attack all in a single motion. If it happens then it happens.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 264
Fri 07 Oct, 2011 12:52 pm
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
I don't know why this technique keeps being used as evidence of the edge-to-edge fighting seen in stage combat, the SCA, etc., but it absolutely is not. |
Straw man. No one has made this claim (at least not in this thread).
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
If you perform this technique as with an actual 90 degree edge-to-edge impact...
|
Another straw man. Though I haven't read this whole thread all the way through in months, I don't recall anyone explicitly making any claims that Viggiani is describing a "90 degree edge-to-edge impact "
| Viggiani wrote: |
| ...the swords meet each other true edge to true edge. |
+
???
=
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
leaving the defending blade impacting the flat of the other blade and beating it aside
|
After reading your post, Randall, I am left scratching my head.
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Fri 07 Oct, 2011 2:15 pm
| Dustin R. Reagan wrote: |
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | leaving the defending blade impacting the flat of the other blade and beating it aside |
After reading your post, Randall, I am left scratching my head. |
Dustin
I'm not sure why you are left scratching your head over this. Performing a displacement by cutting into the side of an oncoming blade is basic to all Medieval and Renaissance swordsmenship. This is how a Zornhau breaks a Zornhua and how a Zwerchhau breaks an Oberhau. In the case of the Viggiani technique it is nothing more than a left-to-right raising cut (the displacement) that turns into a downward cut or thrust. A simple and effective technique. And that is the true beauty of the art.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 238 Location: Vancouver Canada
Fri 07 Oct, 2011 3:42 pm
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: |
| Mackenzie Cosens wrote: | | So when you talk about suppressing and you say its done with the flat I am not saying you wrong, I am saying that Meyer in his section on rapier says do it this way "..cut form(sp) above at his right following the vertical line with the long edge and lowered hilt along the a broad step forward on you right foot. Thus you hit on the forte of his blade ... ". |
I never said that suppressing is made with the flat. I said that it is maid AGAINST the flat of the opponent's blade. A common principle: put flat of your blade in path of incoming edge and use your edge to beat aside incoming blade by striking at its flat.
...
|
Sorry for misunderstanding your reply. to betterment of the discussion here is the whole quote from Meyer:
case that uses the long edge
| Quote: |
Suppressing [Dempffen]
Suppressing is derived from the High Cut, for that is essentially what it is All other cuts can be suppressed and countered with this High cut in the following way:
Position yourself in the low guard on the right; when he cuts at your left from his right from below or above, then note when he extends his arm for the stroke, and raise your weapon at the same time as him yet such that as you raise your blade extend up away from you and your hilt down towards you. With all this step double out from his cut towards his left and cut form above at his right following the vertical line with the long edge and lowered hilt along the a broad step forward on you right foot. Thus you hit on the forte of his blade so that in suppressing you upper body leans down after the cut well forward over your bent knee, and so that your hilt in going down somewhat precedes your blade towards the ground, with extend arm. However if he withdraws his bad out from under yours and sends back another cut at your right, then rapidly spring double with both feet well towards his right, in the same way as before, yet such the cut follows his right line; thus you hit on his forte.
Thus you can suppress with Hight Cuts from all postures, until you so weaken and tire his arm that you can easily attack at his body.
|
p190 Meyer translation Forgeng
My reading of the action on the blade is to cut your long edge into his forte on his short edge to forcefully suppressing his blade. You are cutting the same line as he is, you are using your true edge against the short edge of his forte. You can do this because you use foot work to move to a safe line. The tactical reason for doing this is to tire and weaken his arm for a later attack on the body. In this description you are not attacking his flat at all. Is it a hard edge to edge bock Nope but it is an action that Meyer seems to consider a Parry and it is edge to edge.
Now just for annoyance, Capo Ferro's description of a parry
| Quote: |
OF THE PARRY
One parries as well with the right edge as, although seldomly with the false edge , thus in a straight line as in an oblique line, sometimes with the point high, sometimes low sometimes over, sometimes under, according to whether one strikes by point, or by cut and with one or the other weapon or with both together. Take heed that all the parries require an extended arm and will be accompanied with the right leg, followed by the left. When it occurs to parry with doi tempi: in the tempo that you parry, you will bring the left foot near the right, and then in striking you will passare with the right forward. |
Capo Ferro Gran Simulacro1610 translation Jared Kirby
Note there is no mention of parrying with the flat.
as before: my apology for any errors or omissions.
Happy Thanksgiving to those that get it this week.
Mackenzie
| Quote: |
| Katana's are the bestest swords EVER! |
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Sat 08 Oct, 2011 7:18 am
| Dustin R. Reagan wrote: |
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | I don't know why this technique keeps being used as evidence of the edge-to-edge fighting seen in stage combat, the SCA, etc., but it absolutely is not. |
Straw man. No one has made this claim (at least not in this thread). |
No staw man!
| Steven Reich wrote: |
| If this whole thread has gotten back to a matter of "were there ever instructions for edge-on-edge blocks?" Then the answer is a clear "yes". Numerous examples exist in the Bolognese texts but perhaps the clearest is that described by Viggiani where he discusses using a rising riverso against the opponent's downward cut. |
Steve said there were edge-on-edge blocks in the Bolognese texts and the best example of such a block is a technique in Viggiani. I noted this technique has been used over and over through the years to make the claim of edge-on-edge blocks. And I showed beyound any doubts that the technique from Viggiani is absolutely not an edge-on-edge block.
Steve also said this technique from Viggiani is " the best example of such a block ". Since I have proven that this "best example" is not such a block I must strongly question if there are any edge-on-edge blocks in the Bolognese texts. My guess is that there are none.
Again, no staw man!
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 793 Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Sun 09 Oct, 2011 8:48 am
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: |
| Actually if I had a thrusting rapier I would prefer one without sharp edges on the forte. This way I could use hard blocks against cuts in hope of breaking opponent's blade. And at the same time I would avoid making strong cuts myself because my opponent could use solid blocks to break my weapon. |
No doubt this is also the reasoning behind making rapier or rather rapier hybrid blades that way historically, especially those with an extra reinforced forte and slim agile foible. Let me just add though that most, though possibly not all older broad blades also seem to have had a blunt forte, a feature first seen in the bronze age, and some had the heavily reinforced square cross section ricasso.
I'd be very interested in seeing a heavy square ricasso blade in a similar test as the Arma videos posted earlier. I'd imagine they'd stand up to it better than the weak of the attacking blade and risk the attacker breaking his blade on it.
Some scholars don't even equate the blunt forte with an edge at all, forte not having a sharp edge or even any edge at all as may be the case, hence edge to blunt forte isn't "edge-to-edge", as has been stated in at least one of Clements fencing books. I find he contradicts himself at times, or perhaps it's all just one big misunderstanding.
If blunt Forte isn't edge regardless of angle, then I'm all in agreement you should avoid any stragiht on edge to edge contact. Moreover, when woud that even occur unless both combatants actively seek to hack up each others swords and not even aim for each others body (as seen on poorly made film and tv, but in all honesty not in SCA combat as it would be rather counter productive for the game) . Getting this perfect straight on angle foible-to-foible during true contest and not just horsing around is actually quite hard.
Posts: 313
Sun 09 Oct, 2011 11:14 am
An "edgeless" ricasso would be able to withstand almost infinite beating by sharp edges without failing unless it is overhardened and is too brittle. From my experience 5mm rounded edge on a sword that was 43-45 HRC didn't take any damage at all from frequent beating by 3mm rounded edge of a sword that was 48-50 HRC. It would not take much damage from a sharp blade either, but the attacking blade would be blunted. Even totally soft ricasso would not get very deep nicks, and increased cross section and higher resilience of a softer material would allow the sword to survive these nicks without failing. So I would not consider "edgeless" ricasso to adge blocks as adge to edge. Rather it would be a good way to break or at least blunt the attacker's blade without putting ones own blade into much danger.
Posts: 238 Location: Vancouver Canada
Sun 09 Oct, 2011 12:48 pm
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: |
...
...
And what concerns Capo Ferro. As far as I know it deals with rapier fencing, and in particular a slender mainly thrusting rapier. Cuts were used pretty seldom with these weapons and were definitely not the "killer" technique. Also rapiers were narrower and thicker than most swords and sometimes even had cross sections that were totally useless for cutting, especially in the forte. So these weapons could be used for edge-to-edge blocks relatively safely. Actually if I had a thrusting rapier I would prefer one without sharp edges on the forte. This way I could use hard blocks against cuts in hope of breaking opponent's blade. And at the same time I would avoid making strong cuts myself because my opponent could use solid blocks to break my weapon.
Thank you for the quotes that you posted. They caused a lot of discussions and arguments, but as it is said truth is born in an argument. |
I post quotes because I have the impression that a lot of people have not had a chance to read the source material and with new copy of Meyer going for $300 on Amazon so I guess I can't expect people to own them.
Use the source as you wish , but if you get a chance read all of Meyer.
I am not a rapier expert & I do not practice early 17th C sword, I just own and have read few of the translations of period manuals.
I believe Capo Ferro calls his weapon a spada or sword as does Fabris who writes in 1606.
Fabris speaks of 4 cuts and four ways to deliver those cuts.(Art of Dueling Salvator Fabris 1606 Translation Tommaso Leoni 2005). Cuts are secondary techniques mostly because they are considered inferior in lethality, speed and range to the thrust while dragging the body into disorder.
Of course there is no standardization of swords in the period Capo Ferro & Fabris but they appear not to be terribly frail. Tom Leoni has a table on page xiv showing "Rapiers' from the Philadelphia museum of Art that has spada that range from 1.75 lb to 3.84 lb with an average weight of about 2.8 lb (Art of Dueling Salvator Fabris 1606 Translation Tommaso Leoni 2005), which about what I would expect for single handed sword.
I do remember being at an event where, I believe it was Tom Leoni, defending with rapier against a committed over head strike from a longsword by coming to either 1st or 4th and parring on the forte and simultaneously thrusting to the face longsword man. Of course is memory is a subtle thing and it was a long time ago perhaps someone remembers the event better then I but it did demonstrate what could be done with good technique.
mackenzie
Posts: 871 Location: Paris, France
Sun 09 Oct, 2011 1:30 pm
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Conversely, the quote from Viggiani, regardless of how you envision the action, indicates that some parries were made with the intent to damage the other guy's sword as an added bonus. |
I disagree about the intent. Viggiani only says that the tip of the other blade can be easily broken. He is not expressing that one should be intent upon that action. The goal of the technique is to displace the adversary's blade and counter-attack all in a single motion. If it happens then it happens. |
OK it's not the main goal of course, but you don't do and describe that kind of action in those terms if your concern in all actions is the safety of the edges. It's a high impact edge on edge that can result in a sword breaking. Of course it's tactically more refined than the infamous stage fighting hacks to the other sword but from the point of view of the integrity of the edge I'd say it's about the same...
Regards,
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Sun 09 Oct, 2011 4:08 pm
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
| It's a high impact edge on edge that can result in a sword breaking. |
Vincent
Please re-read the complete quote from Viggiani that I provided. If you made an edge-on-edge block your blade would completely stop the blade making the mandritto cut. But Viggiani does not say to block the cut rather he says, "... my mandritto is beat aside by your rovescio tondo, it [the attacking blade] will go by your right side...". You can only beat aside the attacking blade by cutting into the flat of the blade. The true edges do meet but at a very steep angle, which will not lead to them biting into each other.
In his Rosette Stone article (http://www.thearma.org/essays/revealing-new-perspectives.html) John Clements noted that:
| Quote: |
| ...defending by Baroque-notions of exclusively parry and riposte is antithetical to the sources; that in nearly all actions we should actively seek to cross; that the "crown" is key to striking properly... |
The mis-interpretations we have seen of this one techique from Viggiani demonstrats the truth of Clements statement. To recreate the sword arts of the Renaissance and Medieval periods one cannot push the Baroque concept of parry & riposte back into earlier peiods, that is bad scholarship! This techinque from Viggiani is an excellent examle of cutting into kron (crown) and then cutting out of kron all in a single motion. If you want to get Viggiani right you better go read Clements' article again.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Last edited by Randall Pleasant on Sun 09 Oct, 2011 7:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posts: 238 Location: Vancouver Canada
Sun 09 Oct, 2011 4:15 pm
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Conversely, the quote from Viggiani, regardless of how you envision the action, indicates that some parries were made with the intent to damage the other guy's sword as an added bonus. |
I disagree about the intent. Viggiani only says that the tip of the other blade can be easily broken. He is not expressing that one should be intent upon that action. The goal of the technique is to displace the adversary's blade and counter-attack all in a single motion. If it happens then it happens. |
OK it's not the main goal of course, but you don't do and describe that kind of action in those terms if your concern in all actions is the safety of the edges. It's a high impact edge on edge that can result in a sword breaking. Of course it's tactically more refined than the infamous stage fighting hacks to the other sword but from the point of view of the integrity of the edge I'd say it's about the same...
Regards, |
The two times that I have been involved in tips of swords breaking have been cuts neither to the flat nor edge but at an angle to both say about 45 degree to the true edge in a pulsitiva defense to a fendenti. One sword was old and the other probably had a temper problem.
it is very exciting when the tips go flying off to the empty corner, and you realize how glad you are that no one was standing there.
mackenzie
Posts: 409 Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Sun 09 Oct, 2011 11:18 pm
[quote="Mackenzie Cosens"]
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: |
...
I do remember being at an event where, I believe it was Tom Leoni, defending with rapier against a committed over head strike from a longsword by coming to either 1st or 4th and parring on the forte and simultaneously thrusting to the face longsword man. Of course is memory is a subtle thing and it was a long time ago perhaps someone remembers the event better then I but it did demonstrate what could be done with good technique.
mackenzie |
It was in Seattle, WA at a 4W event 4-6 years ago, I saw it too.
DT
Posts: 871 Location: Paris, France
Tue 11 Oct, 2011 12:53 am
Thinking about it some more, the clearest depictions that I've read of parrying with the edge in a relatively static stance, then riposting is in Lovino (1580). For example in sequence IIII:
| Quote: |
| [...]vedendo Annibale quel roverso voltarsegli alla testa ; trovandosi fermato nella guardia di dentro, contra la guardia, nella quale lo aversario si era fermato ; andò in quel medesimo tempo, che il roverso si voltava un mezo passo col piede dritto verso la man stanca nemica, riportando subito il piede stanco, dietro del dritto ; voltando il filo buono contra il roverso ; e con tal modo, havendo parato quel roverso ; rispose à Scipione di un dritto alle gambe [...] |
(transcription by Lionel Lauvernay)
| Quote: |
| [...]Hannibal seeing that backhand blow directed to his head, being in the inside guard (this is in bolognese terms porta di ferro stretta) against the guard adopted by his adversary, goes at the same time towards the ennemy's left hand with the right foot, following quickly with the left; turns the true edge against the blow, and in this fashion having parried it; riposts to Scipion by a forehand to the leg[...] |
(poor English translation mine :) )
Do note that this is not a counterthrust (which could have been done in such a situation) but a parry followed by another blow. Being paired with some sort of void, the impact will be lessened, but the same move done in a shorter time frame against a less obvious attack will easily wander into the edge-block territory...
In the other plates you see people resisting to blade beats by turning the edge against them, and much parrying and riposting, as well as single time defences.
Regards,
Regards,
Posts: 264
Tue 11 Oct, 2011 12:23 pm
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| Dustin R. Reagan wrote: | | Randall Pleasant wrote: | | I don't know why this technique keeps being used as evidence of the edge-to-edge fighting seen in stage combat, the SCA, etc., but it absolutely is not. |
Straw man. No one has made this claim (at least not in this thread). |
No staw man!
|
Yes, absolutely a straw man. You are tilting at windmills.
Steve Reich has never, to my knowledge, made the claim that what he is talking with respect to the above quoted passage from Viggiani has anything to do with "the edge-to-edge fighting seen in stage combat, the SCA". Steve may please correct me himself if I am miss-stating his position on this.
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| Since I have proven that this "best example" is not such a block I must strongly question if there are any edge-on-edge blocks in the Bolognese texts. My guess is that there are none. |
You have proven nothing. Instead what you have done is taken a simple instruction:
Viggiani wrote:
...the swords meet each other true edge to true edge.
And through a convoluted line of "logic" ended with this result:
Randall Pleasant wrote:
leaving the defending blade impacting the flat of the other blade and beating it aside
Occam's razor would dictate that you take the (very clear) text literally and do exactly what it says:
"meet each other true edge to true edge."
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
cannot reply to topics in this forum
You
cannot edit your posts in this forum
You
cannot delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot vote in polls in this forum
You
cannot attach files in this forum
You
can download files in this forum