Posts: 256 Location: London, UK
Mon 02 May, 2016 3:04 pm
Randall Pleasant wrote: |
When your adversary performs an over-cut to the other side of your blade he is cutting downward, thus in the rebind an edge-on-edge impact is not involved. |
My adversary's cut is not specified. She may cut down with a krumphaw that would bind strongly onto my blade (and thus my edge) or with a zwerhaw, or a simple oberhaw, or many other options. Some of these lead to strong edge to edge impacts, some do not, and the text makes no distinction between them for my response. Against all cuts round, the instruction is to turn the long edge into the cut and bind while thrusting or slicing to the head/face.
The key theme I want to reinforce from Ringeck here is that the goal is to obtain a superior position. Here, that requires binding strongly with the edge against her cut. We are absolutely not instructed to bind more weakly with the flat, if her cut is such that it will deliver the edge against our edge.
Randall Pleasant wrote: |
Quote: | Viggiani has a lovely discussion around 81v. For example: "pay heed that in this delivering of the rovescio, the swords meet each other true edge to true edge, but 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." (Viggiani trans. Swanger, 82v), |
Some interpretations of this play do involve edge-into-edge impact. Other interpretations of the play do not involve an edge-into-edge hack.
Ran Pleasant
Instructor of I.33 Sword & Buckler
Accademia del Leone |
There are always a bunch of ways to interpret any technique.
However, not all interpretations are equal. When considering various interpretations, the first and most important question to ask is "Does this interpretation fit with the statements made explicitly in the text?". Then we can ask further questions, such as "Does this demonstrate coherency with the rest of the system?" or "Does this work against a resisting opponent?" or "Does this create an appropriate situation for the further options that are listed?" or whatever.
If an interpretation does not fit with the explicit statements of the text, then it is wrong. It may be a great technique, it may even be a better technique than the written one. But it is demonstrably not a correct interpretation of the technique which has been given.
Looking at this play from Viggiani, we can establish certain key features of the technique (I'm assuming interested readers can find the translation themselves):
- The attacker strikes a mandritto blow, descending from a high guard.
- The defender strikes a rovescio, rising from a low guard on their left with the point retracted.
- This rovescio is made with the true edge leading.
- The two blades meet true edge to true edge.
- The attacker's debole meets the defender's forte.
- The attacker's blade is displaced to pass the defender on the right.
We can use these listed features to consider whether an interpretation is correct. Noting that the text explicitly lists the two blades meeting true edge to true edge, we can be certain that any interpretation which does not have this feature is not a correct interpretation of this technique.
Particularly interesting here, although obviously harder to test directly, is the following fragment: "whereby mine [the attacker's sword] could be easily broken". This implies that edge damage was an expected consequence of this parry, even to the potential level of breaking one of the two swords involved, which reinforces that the blades must meet edge to edge, with considerable force.
In short: to interpret this play in line with the text of the manual, we must have the two swords meet edge to edge, with force. It may be possible to make an effective play without this bind/parry/block, but it cannot be the technique we are given.
Posts: 66 Location: Australia
Tue 03 May, 2016 1:33 am
I think modern collection and test cutting has a lot to do with it. A market around ever harder swords and reasons not to damage them. I assume the medieval blade was of generally lower or variable hardness and would probably handle more abuse and similarly cause less upset when nicks occur. Though designed for flesh as we always hear, it would need to do against armour, other blades, seasoned wooden staves, langets etc even human bone at collision velocities( both parties or limbs moving towards each other, greatly increasing impact). No picnic.
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Thu 05 May, 2016 10:22 am
T. Kew wrote: |
Looking at this play from Viggiani, we can establish certain key features of the technique (I'm assuming interested readers can find the translation themselves):
- The attacker strikes a mandritto blow, descending from a high guard.
- The defender strikes a rovescio, rising from a low guard on their left with the point retracted.
- This rovescio is made with the true edge leading.
- The two blades meet true edge to true edge.
- The attacker's debole meets the defender's forte.
- The attacker's blade is displaced to pass the defender on the right.
We can use these listed features to consider whether an interpretation is correct. Noting that the text explicitly lists the two blades meeting true edge to true edge, we can be certain that any interpretation which does not have this feature is not a correct interpretation of this technique.
Particularly interesting here, although obviously harder to test directly, is the following fragment: "whereby mine [the attacker's sword] could be easily broken". This implies that edge damage was an expected consequence of this parry, even to the potential level of breaking one of the two swords involved, which reinforces that the blades must meet edge to edge, with considerable force.
In short: to interpret this play in line with the text of the manual, we must have the two swords meet edge to edge, with force. It may be possible to make an effective play without this bind/parry/block, but it cannot be the technique we are given. |
There is nothing above that implies major blade damage or breakage was an expected outcome of the action. As I noted earlier and as you note above, the edges of the blades do indeed come together, making first contact between the blades. However, the majority of the force of the defending blade will be focused into the flat of the attacking blade. This low left to high right impact is what causes the attacker's blade to be displaced to the defender's right side.
The above parry is clearly an Edge-to-Flat displacement, not an Edge-to-Edge block. A similar displacement is seen in Fiore's sword in one hand and in I.33 in the top image of Plate 6v. No edge hacking required.
Ran Pleasant
Instructor of I.33 Sword & Buckler
Accademia del Leone
Posts: 256 Location: London, UK
Thu 05 May, 2016 2:19 pm
Perhaps it would be useful if I simply quoted the play from Viggiani in a little more detail, for ease of reference.
Viggiani, Lo Schermo, trans. Swanger wrote: |
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 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,
but 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.
|
(Emphasis from Swanger's translation)
I've taken the liberty of adding my own emphasis to the quotes I've enclosed below.
Randall Pleasant wrote: |
There is nothing above that implies major blade damage or breakage was an expected outcome of the action. |
I disagree:
Viggiani, Lo Schermo, trans. Swanger wrote: |
...whereby mine [my sword] could be easily broken...
|
Randall Pleasant wrote: |
As I noted earlier and as you note above, the edges of the blades do indeed come together, making first contact between the blades. However, the majority of the force of the defending blade will be focused into the flat of the attacking blade. This low left to high right impact is what causes the attacker's blade to be displaced to the defender's right side. |
Viggiani, Lo Schermo, trans. Swanger wrote: |
...pay heed that in this delivering of the rovescio, the swords meet each other true edge to true edge, but that the forte of your sword [defender] will have met the debole of mine [attacker]...
|
Riddle me this: how can the defender cut with the true edge of her forte, into the true edge of the attacker's debole, while striking his flat?
If the parry was to be made with the edge against the flat providing the primary displacement, then the offender's sword would land on the defender's quillons, not the forte of her true edge.
A little further on, we similarly read:
Viggiani, Lo Schermo, trans. Swanger wrote: |
...you will also be more secure, being shielded by the forte of your sword.
|
Again, riddle me this: how can the defender be shielded by her forte if she has her edge on the attacker's flat?
Randall Pleasant wrote: |
The above parry is clearly an Edge-to-Flat displacement, not an Edge-to-Edge block. A similar displacement is seen in Fiore's sword in one hand and in I.33 in the top image of Plate 6v. No edge hacking required.
Ran Pleasant
Instructor of I.33 Sword & Buckler
Accademia del Leone |
Viggiani, Lo Schermo, trans. Swanger wrote: |
...the swords meet each other true edge to true edge...
|
In conclusion, if you wish to contend that parrying edge to edge is a bad idea, or that it doesn't appear in I.33 or Liechtenauer or whatever, then go on. But your claim that "If you properly follow the instructions of the historical master you will never need to hack your blades Edge-on-Edge" is an absolute one, and so the existence of a single counterexample disproves it.
Last edited by T. Kew on Fri 06 May, 2016 12:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Thu 05 May, 2016 10:30 pm
As someone who used to practice Stephen Hand's interpretation of George Silver's system, I've long found the aversion to edge-on-edge parries curious. I have trouble imaging a credible version of Silver's system for single sword that doesn't make extensive use of edge-on-edge parries. Now, I did only spar with Lance's RSWs, never with steel, so perhaps that's distorting my perspective, but guardant fight as I experienced it was all about a hard edge-to-edge stops followed by quick ripostes.
Posts: 180 Location: washington, dc
Fri 06 May, 2016 8:31 pm
I think we have an over-inflated sense of how valuable swords were in the Middle Ages, and how seriously combatants might protect their pristine edges. In El Victorial, Don Pero Niņo's sword is, after a particularly hard fight, described as being toothed like a saw, with the hilt bent, as a point of pride. Indeed, he sends this blade off to the woman whom he was wooing at the time. While I doubt he went out of his way to bang up the edge of his sword, it is clear that the "toothing" was an expected consequence of hard fighting. It should be noted that the author here was himself a man-at-arms, so while he may rely on chivalric tropes to some degree he was also deeply familiar with the realities of battle.
Posts: 147 Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Fri 06 May, 2016 11:08 pm
Alexander Hinman wrote: |
I think we have an over-inflated sense of how valuable swords were in the Middle Ages, and how seriously combatants might protect their pristine edges. |
I completely agree. This is a modern anachronism. Sure there were ceremonial or heirloom swords, but the vast majority were seen as tools for a purpose that could be repaired or replaced. It reminds me of the way most modern shields are way over built compared to their historical lighter/more fragile counterparts. We see these things as expensive and we want them to last a long time. While historical people expected wear and tear and replacement.
Posts: 385 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Sat 07 May, 2016 2:00 am
Alexander Hinman wrote: |
... Indeed, he sends this blade off to the woman whom he was wooing at the time. ... |
I have to ask, was the wooing successful?
Posts: 180 Location: washington, dc
Sat 07 May, 2016 1:39 pm
Nat Lamb wrote: |
I have to ask, was the wooing successful? |
Not exactly. She gave him 2 years to come get her but his military obligations meant he didn't get there in time.
Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Sat 07 May, 2016 10:42 pm
El Victorial was finished in 1448 or so. Much of the fighting it describes happened around 1400. Pero Niņo supposedly used cuts against armor. Of course, he was also extraordinary strong according to the text.
Posts: 802 Location: The Welsh Marches, in the hills above Newtown, Powys.
Sun 08 May, 2016 2:22 am
Quote: |
We see these things as expensive and we want them to last a long time. While historical people expected wear and tear and replacement. |
Correct. What we could do with is a table of sword costs relating to other everyday items to put things into perspective. I wouldn't want to nick the blades of any of my swords, other than the ones I use very regularly for 'work'. of course But in a fight, the object is defeat the opponent, not save the blade. Blades are replaceable, your body isn't. Nobody enters the fray with the cry 'I'd better win, this sword cost me 6 months of my student loan!'.
Posts: 92 Location: Australia
Mon 09 May, 2016 4:54 am
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