| Author |
Message |
|
Nicholas Zeman
|
 Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 1:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Well, just for the record I think your videos are entertaining and illustrate some excellent German longsword being used in freeplay. I didn't know that some of the guys were off the street EMA people, but it makes sense seeing as there is a high variability in the skill of the combatants. Of course there is some really bad footwork in places, and some bad sword work here and there, but everybody in the community needs to work on those issues, and I have yet to date to see anyone with perfect form in a longsword bout. So good job guys, keep them coming!
|
|
  |
 |
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nicholas Zeman wrote: | | Well, just for the record I think your videos are entertaining and illustrate some excellent German longsword being used in freeplay. I didn't know that some of the guys were off the street EMA people, but it makes sense seeing as there is a high variability in the skill of the combatants. Of course there is some really bad footwork in places, and some bad sword work here and there, but everybody in the community needs to work on those issues, and I have yet to date to see anyone with perfect form in a longsword bout. So good job guys, keep them coming! |
Thanks thats very kind of you. We need to be more clear about what those videos actually are. A lot of the time you see people in there who are sparring full contact for the first time. Even long time HEMA practitioners usually do badly their first time going at it full-speed.
Do you agree the examples I cited illustrate the edge contact issue we were talking about in Zwerch / Zorn ?
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jean, at 1:33 in the video your zorn against his zwerch is a left zorn. This is interesting and not what I was thinking of or expecting. It also appeared to be effective in this case. I don't know if that is what the text is talking about or if that would be effective normally.
Bill, I think it should work to stay on the blade and move into pflug once the momentum of the zwerchau has been stopped. Or you could twitch to cut a right underhau and regain the bind under his blade. Also, it seems like there should be a way to cut at the fingers from above by coming over his sword and ending in longpoint. with the initial zornhau. Honestly, I am not familiar with what "changing through" means.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: | | Jean, at 1:33 in the video your zorn against his zwerch is a left zorn. This is interesting and not what I was thinking of or expecting. It also appeared to be effective in this case. I don't know if that is what the text is talking about or if that would be effective normally. |
Thats true it's a bit unorthodox. I forgot about that. I think it does work though because I do it all the time. We have other video somewhere of me doing it successfully a couple of other times. It's really the same as a zornhau from the left side version of the on the shoulder vom tag, only starting from further back. You can also do it false edge as a scheilhau. I started doing that because my opponents would anticipate an unterhau from the tail guard (which, if they aren't expecting it, can be a very effective attack), if you learn to do that oberhau cut you can attack either way depending on what they seem to be anticipating. I have to admit though, it's a little embarrassing but I first got the idea of doing zwerch from a tail guard from watching the duel in The Seven Samurai. It seems to fit with the system but I would be really interested to know if anyone knows if it's ever mentioned in any of the fechtbuchs, particularly in the Lichtenauer tradition which is what we are studying.
Like I said we don't really have any instructors so we make a lot of mistakes. Part of the reason we make the videos is so we can figure out things we are doing wrong.
Well the first Zwerch to Zorn is quite traditional anyway.  And I think it does illustrate exactly what you were talking about.
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
I'm actually glad you said that. This means we're talking about two different things, then. I have interpreted the "no-edge parries" argument to mean that there are no defensive actions where the edge meets the other edge. If those are not considered parries in this argument, then we're coming much closer to an agreement. |
Think about your definition of a parry before you got into historic European martial arts. It was probably something along the line of "put your sword up in the path of your opponent's incoming strike to block his blade". With a little bit of modification, this definition also describes a historic parry, if we change it around to indicate that you need to receive his strike on your flat at such an angle that it deflects downwards and away.
An action like suddenly striking your opponent's sword and then following with an immediate short edge cut upwards would not have fallen within this definition. Nor would rapidly closing in and stifling his attack before it even had a chance to get started.
| Quote: | Well technically so does a proper parry.  |
Ideally yes, but we both know that this isn't always the case.
| Quote: |
Again, it seems then we've been arguing different things, then. This is how the term "parry" is used in the classical definition (i.e. any defensive action used with the blade). So in the definition you provide here, I agree totally, and purely defensive actions should be avoided. But if that's your definition of a parry, then I don't see why there's a debate at all about edge or flat: You just shouldn't do purely defensive parries of any kind, making the entire debate moot. |
The point wouldn't be moot- the question would still remain: why on earth would you want to intentionally badly damage your edge if you could avoid it? This alone is more than a methodologically sound reason to try to find interpretations of the historic masters which work and protect your edges.
| Quote: |
If someone is striking with a zwerchau, which is travelling in a horizontal plane with its long edge towards me, and I'm supposed to do a zornhau to stop his blade with the long edge, I don't see how it is physically possible to strike the flat... unless if your interpretation of a zornhau is very different from mine. And maybe it is? This is why I asked Randall if he had a video of what he was talking about, because the only way I can see striking the flat is to modify the zornhau to the point where it isn't really a zornhau anymore. |
Your text from von Danzig says "Note, when he strikes with the Thwart from his right side to your left side above to the head, then parry with the long edge and keep the point before his chest." I don't see anything in there about a Wrath cut. The fact that von Danzig states explicity to use the long edge would suggest that it isn't necessarily a zornhau; otherwise, why would he have felt the need to make the distinction on using the long edge? To the best of my knowledge there is no short edge zornhau.
| Quote: |
Well, that isn't what you said originally. You said edge parries don't jive with the idea of "loathing those forced to defend". Seeing as a correct edge parry (in the classical definition) should always lead into an attack (either in the same tempo, or at least immediately following the defense), then this quote isn't related to what we're talking about. |
That last part that I wrote was just my own opinion on the subject, and certainly was not Liechtenauer's. His argument would be that both edge parries and flat parries are bad, and I agree. However, if forced to choose one or the other, I would rather go with a flat parry.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Craig,
| Craig Peters wrote: |
Think about your definition of a parry before you got into historic European martial arts. It was probably something along the line of "put your sword up in the path of your opponent's incoming strike to block his blade". With a little bit of modification, this definition also describes a historic parry, if we change it around to indicate that you need to receive his strike on your flat at such an angle that it deflects downwards and away. |
Except there are no such actions described in the treatises. The actions describing blade contact involve counter-cutting into an attack and working in contact with his sword, thereby accounting for his actions, or Absetzen, where a similar thing is accomplished without any actual cutting. No mention is made of anyone's flat in any case.
| Quote: |
The point wouldn't be moot- the question would still remain: why on earth would you want to intentionally badly damage your edge if you could avoid it? This alone is more than a methodologically sound reason to try to find interpretations of the historic masters which work and protect your edges. |
Because a sword is a tool, your life is not. Sorry, but these folks didn't think in terms of "shucks, I screwed up my new Albion" while fighting a duel to a lethal conclusion. If someone strikes an Oberhau to me, I don't worry about nicking my edge with the Zornhau I cut into it to answer the blow. 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.
| Quote: | | Your text from von Danzig says "Note, when he strikes with the Thwart from his right side to your left side above to the head, then parry with the long edge and keep the point before his chest." I don't see anything in there about a Wrath cut. The fact that von Danzig states explicity to use the long edge would suggest that it isn't necessarily a zornhau; otherwise, why would he have felt the need to make the distinction on using the long edge? To the best of my knowledge there is no short edge zornhau. |
You needn't see that, but there is no hard distinction between a stroke proper and a similarly constructed Versetzen. In any case, that's hardly the point - Bill demonstrated clearly here that the long edge is used to parry the Zwerchhau.
| Quote: |
That last part that I wrote was just my own opinion on the subject, and certainly was not Liechtenauer's. His argument would be that both edge parries and flat parries are bad, and I agree. However, if forced to choose one or the other, I would rather go with a flat parry. |
This passage, taken from my translation of the end of Liechtenauer's prologue, has nothing to do with edge alignment. It simply speaks to the paramountcy of using offense to create defense, rather than relying upon purely defensive actions, which create tempi, and thereby cede the initiative to the opponent. That quote really has no bearing, yea or nay, on this discussion, I'm afraid.
Again, searching for ways to justify that swords consistently meet in one fashion or another is not productive - there's ample evidence to suggest that all possibilities came into play depending on yours and your opponent's actions.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
  |
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hello Craig,
| Craig Peters wrote: |
Think about your definition of a parry before you got into historic European martial arts. It was probably something along the line of "put your sword up in the path of your opponent's incoming strike to block his blade". With a little bit of modification, this definition also describes a historic parry, if we change it around to indicate that you need to receive his strike on your flat at such an angle that it deflects downwards and away. |
Except there are no such actions described in the treatises. The actions describing blade contact involve counter-cutting into an attack and working in contact with his sword, thereby accounting for his actions, or Absetzen, where a similar thing is accomplished without any actual cutting. No mention is made of anyone's flat in any case. |
Christian,
The Absetzen certainly are an example of what I've described above. I am unclear, however, as to how an absetzen made using the edge, rather than the flat, will succeed when fencing with speed and intent.
| Quote: |
Because a sword is a tool, your life is not. Sorry, but these folks didn't think in terms of "shucks, I screwed up my new Albion" while fighting a duel to a lethal conclusion. If someone strikes an Oberhau to me, I don't worry about nicking my edge with the Zornhau I cut into it to answer the blow. 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. |
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."
http://www.thearma.org/essays/impacts.htm
And, if you don't find that compelling, Peter Johnsson notes in his article on sword edges in the Lindholm translation of Ringeck:
"Occaisionally damaged blades survive with marks from use still intact. In Figure 3 we can clearly see damage in the edge of a single-hand sword from about 1500. The original is in the Deutsches Klingenmuseum, Solingen... The nicks in the edge were caused by another blade meeting it at a slanting gliding angle during a parry of some kind. The damage to the sword shows that the two swords never met in rigid blocking parries, not even at the forte of the blade. The damage was most likely caused by the two swords meeting at an angle of around 30 degrees in deflecting, pushing movements. No nicks in this sword are particularly deep, most being less than 1 millimeter deep" (Lindholm 217-18).
The evidence we have is an article on physics and a historical specimen which shows no evidence of rigid edge-to-edge parries, despite the fact that it shows evidence of being used to parry.
Lindholm, David. Sigmund Ringeck's Knightly Art of the Longsword. Boulder: Paladin Press, 2003.
| Quote: |
You needn't see that, but there is no hard distinction between a stroke proper and a similarly constructed Versetzen. In any case, that's hardly the point - Bill demonstrated clearly here that the long edge is used to parry the Zwerchhau. |
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.
| Quote: |
This passage, taken from my translation of the end of Liechtenauer's prologue, has nothing to do with edge alignment. It simply speaks to the paramountcy of using offense to create defense, rather than relying upon purely defensive actions, which create tempi, and thereby cede the initiative to the opponent. That quote really has no bearing, yea or nay, on this discussion, I'm afraid.
|
The text doesn't have to do with edge alignment specifically. However, it does imply that a rigid edge-to-edge block is not consistent with Liechtenauer's philosophy, as I've noted.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craig,
| Craig Peters wrote: |
The Absetzen certainly are an example of what I've described above. I am unclear, however, as to how an absetzen made using the edge, rather than the flat, will succeed when fencing with speed and intent. |
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.
| 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.
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.
| Quote: | And, if you don't find that compelling, Peter Johnsson notes in his article on sword edges in the Lindholm translation of Ringeck:
<snip>
The evidence we have is an article on physics and a historical specimen which shows no evidence of rigid edge-to-edge parries, despite the fact that it shows evidence of being used to parry. |
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.
| 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.
| Quote: | | The text doesn't have to do with edge alignment specifically. However, it does imply that a rigid edge-to-edge block is not consistent with Liechtenauer's philosophy, as I've noted. |
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.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
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. |
You shouldn't make too many assumptions. Fencing technique can apply to other scenarios. I've had to protect myself in a life or death situation with a stick from having my skull caved in by a steel pipe, and I used HEMA fencing techniques to save my life.
| Quote: | | 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. |
With all due respect Mr Tobler, please forgive me for saying that your remark here comes across a bit disingenuous, I'm sure unintentionally. "Major edge failure" could mean a huge gaping hole in your sword which may be the precise point that it snaps in two at the next hard impact anywhere on the blade, whether flat to flat, flat to edge or edge to edge.
| Quote: |
By that way, that's a very poor and ungentlemanly-written article; |
Not at all unusual in this debate on either side. This seems to be one of those discussions, like that old longbow vs. armor one, which people seem to have an emotional investment in. I can understand why some folks who may have made some very bombastic claims (and I do not mean you Mr. Tobler, I'm referring to people who I have not seen on myArmoury) might be defensive, but why so many people get so emotional about this is beyond me.
| 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. |
In this particular discussion at least, both sides are talking past each other, and with increasingly acrid tone. As an essentially impartial observer, may I suggest that we may not be so apart here after all?
The pro-edge parry side seems to think the anti-edge parry side is claiming that all parries are done on the flat exclusively with no edge contact whatsoever, and that it's better to be cut than to nick your sword. This is incorrect, thats not what they are saying.
The anti -edge parry side seems to think the pro-edge parry side is advocating hard 90 degree edge parries every time. They are not saying that either.
Both sides seem to admit that most parries are more or less oblique, one side just feels that if correct form is utilized, this oblique angle is usually closer to a flat-to-flat or an edge-to-flat. The other side believes that a wider range of impacts are likely depending on the particular tactic employed.
I don't think really that they are that far apart. Lets not descend into the acrimony of some other boards which shall go unnamed. As Mr. Tobler seems to suggest, lets try to be gentlemen here (and ladies, for those who may be interested in this discussion) and make no assumptions except that the other people taking part in this discussion are doing so in good faith, in a sincere attempt to further knowledge of HEMA for the entire community. It certainly appears that way to me.
Meanwhile those of us peasants who are not actual scholars can attempt to humbly facilitate your dialogue 
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some thoughts and observations to add to Bill and Christian's points...
A recent article by Craig Johnsson, published here, along with other sources, suggests that medieval swords varied wildly in hardness but were usually a lot softer overall than the sword we use today. Also, these swords tended to be softer towards the forte than the foible.
I have conducted some tests with Windlass swords, which are the softest swords I have, involving forced edge to edge "bashing", both dead-on and at angles, with varying levels of force. Here are the results:
1. Not one of theses low grade budget swords has failed, come close to a failure or even hinted at failure.
2. Dead-on edge to edge contact makes swords sticky (the edges grab each other), whereas contact at angles, even small ones, allows the edges to slide along each other without significant resistance.
3. The damage looks worse than it is and is easily repaired (not made to look pretty but made to be safe against stress fractures)...consider the abuse that blunt steel longswords take on a daily basis.
4. Similar tests done with harder swords (RC 50+) resulted in more significant edge damage. I wonder if perhaps medieval smiths were not a tad smarter than we are about such matters.
5. Striking a softer, obtuse edge (ricasso or forte) with a harder, sharper edge results in either minimal or no damage at all to the harder edge. This test was done with Albion Gladius and an A&A fechterspiel.
As for blocking with the flat, as many have said before...that is near impossible. Unless you win the odds lottery and land an impact at a perfect angle, there will be some edge to edge contact, always. All that will change will be how extreme the angle is. Trying to minimize that angle while in a life or death struggle seems to me to be....well...a bit nuts, actually (no offense to anyone, but that is how I see it).
I think that if I were a medieval knight and I was challenged to a judicial combat match I could not refuse, I would pray that it was with someone that cared a lot more about his sword's edge than I did.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow I can see that the appeal to reason was well recieved.
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | As for blocking with the flat, as many have said before...that is near impossible. Unless you win the odds lottery and land an impact at a perfect angle, there will be some edge to edge contact, always. All that will change will be how extreme the angle is. Trying to minimize that angle while in a life or death struggle seems to me to be....well...a bit nuts, actually (no offense to anyone, but that is how I see it). |
Nobody is arguing that you try to minimize the angle of contact for the sake of sparing your sword, what I have seen is an argument that using correct form will tend to minimize edge contact. This is a disengenuous argument. So is the idea of "blocking with the flat". People have explained several times what they mean by an edge-flat contact and I even posted a video demonstrating it clearly. A zwerch zorn bind will almost by definition be an edge-glat contact.
| Quote: | | I think that if I were a medieval knight and I was challenged to a judicial combat match I could not refuse, I would pray that it was with someone that cared a lot more about his sword's edge than I did. |
I think if i was in a judicial combat i would pray my opponent was more worried about proving his pet thories in combat than winning the fight.
Jean
P.S. You aren't the only person who has ever struck two swords together edge to edge I have seen it done many times and done it myself. Since you brought up Windlass swords I witnessed a blunt paul chen practical viking sword knock a chip out of the edge of an MRL longsword the size of a quarter with a direct edge contact.
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
Nobody is arguing that you try to minimize the angle of contact for the sake of sparing your sword, what I have seen is an argument that using correct form will tend to minimize edge contact. This is a disengenuous argument. So is the idea of "blocking with the flat". People have explained several times what they mean by an edge-flat contact and I even posted a video demonstrating it clearly. A zwerch zorn bind will almost by definition be an edge-glat contact. |
Sorry, I haven't seen this video. But I have seen the video you posted of you free playing with simulators that have neither an edge nor a flat (though one part of the weapon may be less thick than the other) and was not able to see your point being illustrated. Zwerch-zorn binds, the way we do them, usually make contact on the forte near the cross (with a slide to the cross). It is an edge to edge contact, though no where near dead on.
| Quote: | | P.S. You aren't the only person who has ever struck two swords together edge to edge I have seen it done many times and done it myself. Since you brought up Windlass swords I witnessed a blunt paul chen practical viking sword knock a chip out of the edge of an MRL longsword the size of a quarter with a direct edge contact. |
I tend to perform experiments a bit more methodically than just bashing things together. However, your point is valid, and freak damage does occur, especially in budget swords that bear little resemblance to their historical counterparts. In fact when it comes to heat treatment, it seems that very few modern swords bear much resemblance to their historical counterparts. Which is really not something that should be overlooked when considering edge damage.
I think the problem with this entire argument is that people one one side think you should just do the technique and are focused on good form and results, while people on the other side are focused on not damaging their swords (and some people are somewhere in the middle), but most of us are actually doing the same things (as far as edge is concerned). The difference in priorities, however, can be the difference between success and failure.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
Last edited by Michael Edelson on Mon 16 Apr, 2007 10:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Sorry, I haven't seen this video. But I have seen the video you posted of you free playing with simulators that have neither an edge nor a flat (though one part of the weapon may be less thick than the other). |
You are quite wrong. Making another assumption here, they are rife in this thread. My longswords are about 5/8" thick and from 4" - 2" wide. So yeah they have a very clear, very discernable edge and a very clear, very discernable flat. They are not rounded or tube shaped. Look closer next time. Just because they have duct tape on them doesn't make them boffers.
If you think I'm lying about this there are about 30 prominent HEMA scholars who have my weapons, I can PM you some names.
| Quote: | | I tend to perform experiments a bit more methodically than just bashing things together. However, your point is valid, and freak damage does occur, especially in budget swords that bear little resemblance to their historical counterparts. In fact when it comes to heat treatment, it seems that very few modern swords bear much resemblance to their historical counterparts. Which is really not something that should be overlooked when considering edge damage. |
I would tend to agree with that, you were the one who cited experiments using Windlass swords...
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
You are quite wrong. Making another assumption here, they are rife in this thread. My longswords are about 5/8" thick and from 4" - 2" wide. So yeah they have a very clear, very discernable edge and a very clear, very discernable flat. They are not rounded or tube shaped. Look closer next time. Just because they have duct tape on them doesn't make them boffers. |
I've been doing this sort of thing for a long time now and have seen and used more types of simulators than I can remember. The best ones are blunt steel, but they are very dangerous. Nothing else even comes close.
However, yours sound pretty good! How do you make them? From what materials? How do they behave?
| Quote: | | I would tend to agree with that, you were the one who cited experiments using Windlass swords... |
I performed them not only with Windlass swords, but with Albion swords, Angus Trim sword, Arms and Armor swords (but only blunts) and Del Tin swords. I used mostly Windlass swords for two reasons...they are by far the softest (and I think that is important) and they are, of course, the cheapest. So cheap as to be disposable.
I think it is significant that harder swords (when based into other harder swords) showed a lot more damage than two Windlass swords bashed into each other.
btw...you seem a bit angry and sarcastic. Perhaps something I said led to that. If so, I apologize, that was not my intention.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
Last edited by Michael Edelson on Mon 16 Apr, 2007 10:11 pm; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Jean,
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | You shouldn't make too many assumptions. Fencing technique can apply to other scenarios. I've had to protect myself in a life or death situation with a stick from having my skull caved in by a steel pipe, and I used HEMA fencing techniques to save my life. |
I didn't assume no one ever had a fight or that their WMA skills might be expressed in such an encounter. I assumed no one ever had a real swordfight, and that they weren't loony enough to go at their training partners as if they were in a life and death struggle.
Frankly, I tend to bridle at the language of 'intent' because there's an underlying insult in it: that 'we' (insert whatever party applies) fight for real and therefore have the truth, whilst the rest of you don't get it because you aren't fighting 'in earnest' or with intent.
I am gratified, btw, that your skills proved so useful in the preservation of your safety. I teach dagger and ringen to my own students with some eyes towards their modern-day protective value.
| Quote: | | With all due respect Mr Tobler, please forgive me for saying that your remark here comes across a bit disingenuous, I'm sure unintentionally. "Major edge failure" could mean a huge gaping hole in your sword which may be the precise point that it snaps in two at the next hard impact anywhere on the blade, whether flat to flat, flat to edge or edge to edge. |
There's no apology necessary here, for I read no offense. However, I fear you misunderstood me, or I haven't made myself clear. I simply don't believe a few nicks equals a substantial chance at breaking a blade, particularly if we are not discussing purposeful slamming of swords into each other.
| Quote: | | I don't think really that they are that far apart. Lets not descend into the acrimony of some other boards which shall go unnamed. As Mr. Tobler seems to suggest, lets try to be gentlemen here (and ladies, for those who may be interested in this discussion) and make no assumptions except that the other people taking part in this discussion are doing so in good faith, in a sincere attempt to further knowledge of HEMA for the entire community. It certainly appears that way to me. |
Now this is something I think we can all agree with, and I thank you for the sentiment!
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
I've been doing this sort of thing for a long time now and have seen and used more types of simulators than I can remember. The best ones are blunt steel, but they are very dangerous. Nothing else even comes close. |
Yeah except you can't really do full-contact, full-speed work with steel. And even blunt steel reacts differently at the bind than sharps, as I'm sure you know. I think we are seeing in the HEMA community generally what Schola Gladiatoria calls a triangulated approach (I'm paraphrasing), using sharps to test-cut (very important in learning how to fence) steel blunts to do drills, hardwood wasters or aluminum wasters for drill and light sparring, and padded wasters or modified shinai for full-contact sparring.
Also flexible steel rapiers seem pretty good for thrust work.
If you don't do any full-contact sparring you will never learn reach and measure. I see it all the time.
| Quote: |
However, yours sound pretty good! How do you make them? From what materials? How do they behave? |
We make them with a couple of types of special orthopedic foam and ultra-high pressure pvc which you can order commercially, and aluminum quillons and metal pommel. It costs about $30 in materials to make one. Probably a lot less if you could get materials in bulk.
They weigh and balance identically to real steel sharps, (my padded bastard sword is identical in length, wieght to the ounce and centimeter of balance point to my Albion Constable) and handle about like hardwood wasters. Used flat out they are painful on impact but sufficiently padded to be just short of breaking bones. You do often get bruises and you have to use good hand protection and helmets. We feel that some pain is necessary to reinforce the fear of being hit a bit more. They are fairly slippery but don't slide off each other as well as hardwood wasters, steel or aluminum. We make two types, the lighter core weapons are a bit less dangerous to use but can flex a little, the heavier core weapons barely flex even at the hardest impact.
I used to sell them but don't have time to make them any more. There was a how-to document on the net somewhere but I lost the URL after Katrina, I can't find it. We'll be posting a new one to myArmoury and some other sites soon.
| Quote: | | btw...you seem a bit angry and sarcastic. Perhaps something I said led to that. If so, I apologize, that was not my intention. |
Sorry I was getting a little frustrated with the tone in this thread, but i wasn't as angry as I probably came across. I apologize as well. I'm also a bit sensitive of our padded wasters being referred to as boffers, I get that alot. Duct tape is a curse!
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Yeah except you can't really do full-contact, full-speed work with steel. |
I am not admiting to the following, merely acknowledging its existence....
Yes, you can, if you are prepared to face injury. You protect the head, face and neck...it would be utter stupidity to risk an injury anywhere in that area. Furhtermore, you use blunts that are sufficiently flexible, like A&A's fechterspiels and wear clothing thick enough that it is not possible for the point to pierce flesh. Aside from that, you risk nothing more than broken bones and severe bruises. Under rare circumstances, the risk of these injuries may be, to some people, worth the knowledge and experience gained.
| Quote: | | And even blunt steel reacts differently at the bind than sharps, as I'm sure you know. |
Yes, but it's very close.
| Quote: | | I think we are seeing in the HEMA community generally what Schola Gladiatoria calls a triangulated approach (I'm paraphrasing), using sharps to test-cut (very important in learning how to fence) steel blunts to do drills, hardwood wasters or aluminum wasters for drill and light sparring, and padded wasters or modified shinai for full-contact sparring. |
This is the approach I use when setting a curriculum for my study group. The above approach is something I would only consider with one particular individual with whom I have been practicing one type of swordsmanship or another for more than 10 years now. Not that I would ever do such a foolish thing.
| Quote: |
I used to sell them but don't have time to make them any more. There was a how-to document on the net somewhere but I lost the URL after Katrina, I can't find it. We'll be posting a new one to myArmoury and some other sites soon. |
If you ever start making them again, I'd love to get my hands on a pair. They sound great.
| Quote: | | Sorry I was getting a little frustrated with the tone in this thread, but i wasn't as angry as I probably came across. I apologize as well. I'm also a bit sensitive of our padded wasters being referred to as boffers, I get that alot. Duct tape is a curse! |
Speaking of curses, the Internet seems to be perpetually cursed by misunderstandings and unintentional insults. Thanks for understanding.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Apr, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | A&A's fechterspiels and wear clothing thick enough |
I'm real interested in these fechterspiels... is that the same thing as what I've heard people referring to as 'longsword foils'? Jake Norwood got to try some featherswords modeled after the ones in Joachim Meyer, I believe they were made by a group in Poland. He said they were outstanding. Once again we may be facing a dilemma (with training weapons) which was already solved to a large extent by the masters.
The A&A variety look great but are a bit on the high end of my budget. I may take the plunge on them anyway at some point.
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Olsen
|
| Posted: Tue 17 Apr, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: | | A&A's fechterspiels and wear clothing thick enough |
I'm real interested in these fechterspiels... is that the same thing as what I've heard people referring to as 'longsword foils'? Jake Norwood got to try some featherswords modeled after the ones in Joachim Meyer, I believe they were made by a group in Poland. He said they were outstanding. Once again we may be facing a dilemma (with training weapons) which was already solved to a large extent by the masters.
The A&A variety look great but are a bit on the high end of my budget. I may take the plunge on them anyway at some point.
Jean |
Off-topic, and I apologize,
I would very much like to play with one of the A&A Fechterspiels myself, especially in comparison to a few other 'real' blades. I saw one being used in a couple of videos online recently and have some questions. In the techniques shown, the blade bent a great deal in the cut - like 6 or so inches. I haven't noticed this occuring in any videos I've watched of test-cutting, and don't recall the same occuring with the blades I've put through a few untargeted cuts. I'm curious to know how much this affects the feel of the sword, and really wonder how it compares to something stiffer in the bind.
Michael Olsen
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 17 Apr, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Michael and Jean,
The flexibility of the fechterspiel does affect some techniques, mostly disarms. It has no noticeable detrimental effect on the bind, in fact the flexibility teaches you to pay attention to where your forte is. Unlike Windlass swords, fechterspiels are only overly flexible in the foible, which makes them some of the safest (if not the absolute safest) bouting blunts you can buy.
I could not imagine studying HES without them.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic