One of the early longsword texts (Ringeck, if I'm not mistaken) says that the strongest blow with the longsword for a right-handed man is one coming from the right (the opponent's left) towards the left (the opponent's right) and delivered with a passing step. On the other hand, some later texts on the rapier and/or single sword (most notably Viggiani) state that the most powerful blow is a riverso--that is, a backhand blow delivered from the left (the opponent's right) towards the right, again assuming a right-handed fencer.

Now, this disagreement has intrigued me for a long while. Working from the assumption that both sources are correct, I've been assuming that Ringeck (and perhaps others in the Liechtenauer tradition) assumes that the right-to-left strike is more powerful (at least for the initial closing from Zufechten into Krieg) due to the passing step that helps put more of the body's momentum into the blow, while Viggiani finds the riverso more powerful because it has more distance to travel and gain momentum in a predominantly right-foot-forward style of swordsmanship (although Viggiani still makes infrequent use of passing steps and left-foot-forward guards). But the most fundamental cut (cut 1) in much later right-foot-forward English military sabre and broadsword systems is the diagonal downwards cut from right to left (along a similar line to the German right-side Zornhau). I wonder what others think about this?

(I'm not looking for any resolution or definite conclusion as to which blow is really more powerful -- just some discussion on the various factors involved in why some master or another might think that this cut or that is the most powerful, including but not limited to body mechanics, footwork, timing, and the like.)

If we look at the longsword to rapier period, I suspect it's because the earlier texts discuss the longsword, and using it in two hands, while the later texts discuss single handed weapons.

On possible reason for why this transition would change the side where you have the most power is that for two-handed use, most of the power in the cut is probably delivered by the left hand, whereas with a single handed sword you're obviously only going to get power from the right (or at least it'll feel that way).

So in both cases, the most powerful cut is one delivered towards the side of the "strong" arm.

As for the later variants where we're back to cutting right to left, perhaps influences from lighter fencing weapons made for a less strength-utilising style? Though I'm not familiar enough with these bits to have all that much of an opinion there.

I haven't read Viggiani; what kind of cut is he talking about, here? Done from the wrist, elbow, or shoulder?

As far as modern day chivalry sports go, a forehand with a step past or pivoted on the off side foot is the most powerful both with single and two handed "swords".
But if the opponent is using a shiled the most easily delverable hard blow with nothing half blocking or otherwise decreasing the effect in the target is an off body and it would hit a rather sensitive part of the body, kidney or armpit area. My way of doing that shot is from the shoulder and you turn the upper body left and lean forward and to the side a bit to get past the guard.
This would incidentally equate to what both sources are stating thoug probably with a modern approach to the technique.
I'll definitey look up the manuals discussed though, sounds like a good read.

Unless I misunderstood the original post, aren't both cuts mirroring each other? The longsword cut travels diagonally downwards from your right shoulder while the riverso travels along the same path but upwards. If you want to cut upwards with the true edge of a longsword you mainly use your right hand since your left can't do much and it cannot either with the false edge. A one-handed sword can more easily be drawn than a longsword, well, it really depends on the length of the sword and your ability, but assuming this is the case, you might get a preference for an upward cut from the sheath with a one-handed sword.

Both cuts mirror each other, both can easily be reversed into the other one and both can easily transition into a thrust. One is a rising cut and the other is a falling cut along the diagonal, that's basically what you can do with a sword. The montante drills of Figueyredo start with rising cuts and that's a longsword. I think that learning to cut upwards before learning to cut downwards is pedagogical more sound although it is counter-intuitive. One cut shouldn't be stronger than the other one, they should be equal and to teach that you start with cutting upwards.

Although the wrist is turned differently, I was reminded of the body mechanics of the tennis stroke, where forehand is considered stronger than backhand.

Quote:

Muscles Used Both the backhand and forehand strokes rely on strong leg and core muscles, as well as strong forearms and wrists, but because the angle of your arm is different with a forehand than with a backhand, certain muscles in the upper arm and shoulder are emphasized with each stroke. For example, the forehand relies more on the biceps and the anterior deltoids on the front of the shoulders. The backhand emphasizes the triceps and the posterior deltoids on the back of the shoulders. Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/541416-diff...z2Pu4muLY0

An important thing to add is the "push-Pull" motion you do with the hilt of the sword (right hand pushed, left hand pulls).

I've done a number of very simple strikes with just just those two motions with the hands and delivered VERY powerful strikes :D But if it came done to one, I'd say it's the Schielhau. Its breaks langennort (long point) and the pflug (the plow) guards, but when I apply the push and pulling with the hands it sends my opponents sword WAY offline and at the same time delivering a powerful cut, which can then also sets myself up for a nice thrust to the face :cool: There are variations I've seen and tried, and I feel that striking down the center feels strongest. Mostly cuz I'll use my back muscles and keep it tight within my body with my arms and hands. Let the body do the work ;)

-Reece

Interesting discussion so far! I'm particularly intrigued, too, by the point about the importance of upwards blows in esgrima vulgar, since the ascending "violent motion" blows that figure at the beginning of many Figueyredo montante plays felt so unique to me (not in the sense that they're unusual, but that they seem to be more strongly emphasised than in most other European traditions), and I'd certainly like to know either the reasoning or the traditional backgrounds behind it if we have any sources/evidence for that.

Hello Steve,

Thank you. I'm not on Facebook and I don't intend too. But I do have the the Destreza text published by Freelance Academy Press which I apparently didn't read well enough. This text doesn't say anything about the four circular movements but I guess this has to do with the four hand positions. Unless, once again, I didn't read it well enough.

This text says that a downwards movement is stronger (natural) because you can use the weight of your upper body while with an upwards movement you can only use your arms (violent). This is where I tend to disagree. Apart from gravity there also exists normal force or ground reaction force. This is why I think an upwards movement can be as strong as a downwards movement if you succeed in using the ground reaction force. So, to come back to the original post, which is stronger? Neither, they can be equal, unless you only use your arms instead of your upper body.

And this is disregarding the strategic advantage to which you were referring, I guess.

Patrick