| Author |
Message |
Craig Peters
|
 Posted: Tue 17 Apr, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
I've done this many times and it just isn't particularly important whether the edge or flat are brought to bear.
While we're on this subject...just what do you mean by 'intent'? Intent to harm my opponent? Intent to damage his sword? Because if we're talking about the realities of intent to actually harm an opponent with a sword, I hope that no one on this forum knows what that's really about. |
I mean exactly what my fellow ARMA members mean about training with intent:
In ARMA's approach to historical fencing we have a philosophy of teaching and training with "intent." By this we mean practicing actions realistically in proper range and speed with the intention to safely make controlled contact.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/Intent.htm
As for your other comment, I cannot say whether or not you train with intent. I know that there are quite a few people out there who lack it in their training, and it shows when they spar. Similarly, techniques and responses will work differently when performed with realistic speed and intent, and many interpretations that appeared viable will not be.
| Quote: | I would be concerned about impacting edge on edge in a lethal duel. Yes, if push came to shove, I'd rather ding my sword than myself. But, at the same time, using your edge as a method of defense against an incoming strike opens up the possibility of a major edge failure. It's pretty hard to fight effectively and preserve one's own life if your edges are falling apart on you; as Kevin Cashen states in his article on The Physical Reality of Forceful Edge-to-Edge Cuts:
"Notches in a sword blade are points of concentrated opportunity for catastrophic failure; this is not opinion or belief, it is material science fact based upon the way our universe works." |
I'm not sure what you mean about major edge failure, or how that effects the outcome of a fight. Given most fights would've involved few contacts, it's really hard to see how this is germaine. [/quote]
Perhaps not in a duel, but it could become very relevant in a battle. Swords are not disposable tools, as you know, and it makes sense that our ancestors would make efforts to take care of them, including avoiding edge-to-edge damage.
| Quote: | | By that way, that's a very poor and ungentlemanly-written article; everyone should be deeply suspicious of a supposedly scientific analysis that involves invective like: "...in order to maintain the stability of their delusions about forceful edge-to-edge impacts." And frankly, given the author admits he's no swordsman, I'm content to react to his opinion with considerable skepticism. |
One doesn't have to be a swordsman to understand the physics behind forceful edge-to-edge impacts, nor to understand the effects that it has on steel.
And while we're on the matter, I do not support the author when he makes comments about delusions and the like. For me it's a matter of disagreeing on the subject, but I do not mean to imply that either you or Mr. Grandy are delusional. I was quoting from the part of the article that I felt was relevant to my argument.
| Quote: | | Unsurprisingly, given Peter's careful scholarship, this is a far better article; but all it does is support what I said earlier - that the vast majority of impacts involve oblique contact. Again, arguing against 90 degree contact is simply attacking a straw man, as no one is advocating any such thing here. |
I'm not sure where you stated that the majority of impacts involve oblique contact. The closest thing I could find was "I strike with my long edge into his cut: depending on the angle of his attack, I may meet edge to edge, edge to flat, or somewhere in between." At any rate, Peter's article indicates that whatever edge contact occurred, it was mostly incidental, and when practicing with steel blades we've found that there is some edge contact with certain techniques.
| Quote: | Again, as I mentioned to Bill, von Danzig's text indicates that you impact with the long edge. It does not specify that you hit your long edge against his incoming edge.
Given the angle of a Zwerchhau, particularly one directed to the upper openings, there's no way to defend it with the long edge that involves *no* edge to edge contact. You're most likely to hit the edge at about 30 degrees or so, and as contact is made, his blade will flatten out against your long edge. |
But a defense that does not involve "no" edge to edge contact isn't the same as one where the edge is primarily used for mitigating the attack. We've found in the ARMA that when we perform an oberhau against a zwerchhau that the primary contact between the two blades is edge to flat. There is some edge to edge contact as you state, but this is incidental to the angle of the attack. It certainly does not constitute a specifically edge-to-edge form of parry because the main part of the opponent's sword impacted is the flat.
| Quote: |
Again, this is still a straw man. By attaching pejoratives like "rigid" you're obfuscating the question of whether the edge is used to parry. I repeat: no one is advocating rigid anything. In fact, Bill Grandy and I have pointed out repeatedly that the notion of a rigid parry, or block, is anathema in this system, or any medieval combat system, and is not a meaningful point of discussion.
The answer remains, yes, sometimes the edge parries. When a Zornhau is employed to break an incoming Oberhau, the long edge strikes his sword. It momentarily makes contact before turning into a thrust - the Thrust of Wrath - that hits him in the face. This technique is relatively insensitive to the angle the edges meet each other. The most likely impact is an oblique one. In this case, one would have to move in most unnatural ways to achieve either a stroke fully to his flat or fully to his edge.
|
I'm not in disagreement that there's edge contact which occurs in winden, and that there's incidental edge contact in certain parries. What I do disagree with is characterizing such incidental contact specifically as an "edge-to-edge" parry. It's misleading, and if someone did not know what they were doing, they might think that more serious forms of edge contact were appropriate based on the argument that edge parries do occur.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Apr, 2007 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Christian
Sorry about taking so long to reply, work, family, taxes, and a minor wreck tied me up the last couple of days. As in my reply to Bill, I want say that I enjoy these discussions and try hard to learn from them and in no way do I intended to insult. Again, I must point out that I am presenting only my opinion, I do not speak for ARMA or any of its members.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | I heard you were at WMAW...you should have introduced yourself! I don't know your face, so I didn't know who to look for. |
We did introduce ourselves but my last name probably threw you off. Although my family name is today spelled "Pleasant", it is actually "Plaisance" (born and raised in Louisiana). I was in your longpoint class at the WMAW 2006 event and very much enjoyed it. Hopefully, I can repeat the experience in the future. In regard a face, well lots of gray hair, plus a red shirt and bad knees. In the following pictures I am at the far wall talking to fellow ARMA member Mathew Webb.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | The interpretation is not entirely based on the images from von Danzig. The *text* is specific in saying that the sword is *on* the right shoulder. The folks from Ochs, as well as Stefan Dieke, pointed out the distinction in the text to me. The text says:
Do it like this: stand with your left foot forward and hold your sword on your right shoulder or with outstretched arms up over your head, and stand thus in the guard.
Incidentally, when translated perfectly literally, that's what Ringeck says too. My bad!! That means that the two families of texts describing that version of vom Tag both agree it's on the shoulder. Not 'at', but 'on'. |
I cannot comment on the translation since I don't speak or read the language. However, in my view neither version of Vom Tag is "on" the shoulder. The ARMA version is over the shoulder and your version is in front of the chest leaning against the chest & shoulder. Therefore, I can only conclude that the translation does not really support one version over the other.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | The reason for this becomes very obvious when practiced. This position eliminates any possibility of rearing back and telegraphing the stroke. Any such backward movement is an empty tempo for your opponent to exploit. |
A number of us in ARMA have tried this version of Vom Tag in free play and sparring. However, we did not reach the same conclusions as you. To be non-telegraphing a cut from your version of Vom Tag the sword must be pushed straight out from the chest and the hilt torqued below the level of the shoulders. This results in a cut that is both short and weak. In order to make a more powerful cut from your version of Vom Tag the sword must first be raised up to the level of the shoulders before making the cut. This results in a telegraphing cut. Raising the sword from in front of the chest can be observed in videos posted on the Internet by some groups.
I am left with the following questions about your version of Vom Tag:
1) Does one not have to raise their hilt when performing a right Zwerchhau?
2) With the sword leaning against the right chest/shoulder how does one perform a left Zwerchhau?
3) When one performs a right Zornhau that is quickly followed with a left Zornhau (an X cut) does one move their hilt over their left shoulder or in front of their left chest before making the second cut?
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Regarding the drawing of Pflug, this too is quite purposeful. Late Medieval artwork often exaggerates body positioning to stress a point. The idea being conveyed is one of the sword being strongly 'pre-loaded' at the hip so that, again, any movement to thrust will include only the intended movement, with no instinctive pulling back to charge the thrust. |
I fully agree that the hilt is pulled back in Pflug, not only to be pre-loaded for a thrust but also for the protection the blade provides for that side of the body. But my point was that the images cannot be taken literally. That the image is exaggerated (hilt held un-naturally well behind the back hip) only makes my point.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | I can't agree with your analysis about the orientation of edges and the on the shoulder positioning of vom Tag; in fact, the opposite is quite true: the shouldered position tends to yield a much more 'oblique' encounter with the edges, rather than a 90 degree impact (which isn't likely in either variant).
The best advice I can give is to try to do, as much as is humanly possible, to do the posture in von Danzig as precisely as one can; those drawings contain a wealth of kinesthetic information regarding body position, weighting, focus and targeting. One could give an entire seminar on just those drawings quite easily. |
The differences in our analysis probably can only be resolved with in-person discussion. Hopefully that can happen one day. However, I did observe a lot of non-oblique edge impacts at the WMAW event, many of which resulted from Zornhau to Zornhau cuts.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | In any case I think this whole issue is largely a straw man, and a pretty tired out one to boot. |
This is a subject in which a person can knowingly or unknowingly very easily build a straw man. But I would also like to think that we have the integrity and self-awareness to not do so.  The subject is indeed tiring.  However, it is an important issue to more than just ARMA, it also appears to be an important issue to Guy Windsor.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | ...with the majority involving oblique contacts that are neither and both. |
If the impact is oblique then it is not edge-on-edge. Rarely do we a perform a perfect 90 degree edge-to-flat displacements. Even when performing a simple hanging parry with the flat of one's blade it is almost impossible for the on coming blade to hit both edges of the defending blade at the same time. But that oblique impact is much different then the impact that would result if the edge of the defending blade was turned up into the on coming blade.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
The masters are silent on all of this, largely because the idea of worrying about nicking your edge in a life and death encounter is akin to worrying about scratching your car's paint after surviving a near-fatal crash. I've performed all the primary techniques - none of which create theatrical-style 90 degree impacts - with blunts and with sharps, and I remain unfazed by this being something anyone should seriously be worried about. I too bouted with steel swords at WMAW, and with Brian Price and Guy Windsor at that (who's a marvelous combatant, and most excellent gentleman, to face) and my swords look just fine.
|
Yes the masters were silent on the issue. However, since we are talking about a negative, it is just as likely that it is because they knew not to damage their edge needlessly.  We must also remember that in a life and death encounter the swords will be sharp, not blunt, thus we are not talking about nicks but rather we are talking about deep gouges.
Respectfully,
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Apr, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Randall,
I'm glad you enjoyed the class.
I'm pressed for time right now, but I wanted to clarify: I don't rest the blade against my chest in vom Tag at all. The only point of contact is near the top of my shoulder.
EDIT:
I've got a tad more time now, so I thought I'd add some more thoughts regarding vom Tag on the shoulder. The text, which whether you wish to believe the translation or not (and, any German dictionary, modern or old, will clearly tell you that "an deiner rechten achseln" means "on your right shoulder"), agrees with the illustration in von Danzig precisely. The word 'an' in German always implies contact, or something being 'against' something else.
Similar correspondence can be seen in the ward that Walpurgis is assuming in I.33 ("Priest's Special 2nd Guard"), which the text says is "located on the right shoulder". She holds the guard even more forward than the von Danzig depiction of vom Tag.
All the best,
CHT
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
Last edited by Christian Henry Tobler on Wed 18 Apr, 2007 2:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
  |
|
|
Risto Rautiainen
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Apr, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guy is not a member of this forum, but as I pointed this thread to Mr. Windsor, he said I could post his reply here:
| Guy Windsor wrote: | | "Taking comments out of context is poor scholarship. What I actually wrote meant that in my opinion, one should parry with your edge, as the most stable part of your weapon, but do so where possible against his flat, for maximum effect and minimum damage to your sword. However many of the documentable techniques do involve edge contact, with attendant damage to the weapon, which was clearly acceptable to our forebears. That's what sword-sharpeners are for. This argument is a decade old and was daft enough when it started. I see no reason to continue it here." |
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Frost
Location: Denver, Co. Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Apr, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The article is at least useful for bringing up or contributing to discussion on the subject. There are quite a few problems I see with the article from the get go. From the very start of the article it's heavy slant towards one side of the argument is highly prevalent. At no point is there any mention of what kind of sword were used, wear on the blades they were struck, how they were struck ie amount of force one being stationary or both of them held and wielded by people, etc... He goes on to claim that edge to edge contact is the "creation" of hollywood, while latter on quoting lines from a Shakespearian play essentially using a historical product of what hollywood is now. The author also blatantly ignores almost any evidence for edge to edge contact being use and taught by sword masters throughout history. IMHO taking these things into account I would find this article to be rather one sided, lacking in a honest and open exploration of the subject and not useful for anything more then a conversation piece, of which we already have a surplus of on this subject.
With my own experiences ( which are not exceptionally wide or highly in depth) I have experienced and seen evidence that edge to edge contact can be made without damage to a blade when performed with the forte, or minimal damage incurred to other parts of the blade. My experiences come from actively taking part in sidesword combat, longsword study and combat, and demonstrations for the public. In one instance I and my partner gave a demonstration on the differences of hollywood, i.e. Erral Flynn, and actual combat, i.e. Achille Morozzo. During the demonstration we used Del Tin sideswords and managed to create a lot of nicks and dings on the blades, after which my partners blade was able to easily and cleanly cut through a layer of denim I was waring at the time. I was also able to remove pretty much all the damage to the blades with nothing more then a hand file and sandpaper.
I know and understand that my experiences are not a end all of study, but they do help to add real evidence to the argument that edge to edge blocks and parries were used with only minimal damage inflicted upon the blade while subjected to common and frequent combat situations.
Last edited by Kevin Frost on Wed 18 Apr, 2007 1:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
 |
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Apr, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | 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. |
Bill
If I see my adversary is starting to throw a horizontal right Zwerchau to my left side then with a simiple step to my left (into his cut) I will cut an Oberhau (as described in Goliath) onto his blade, knocking it down with my true edge and catching his false edge on my guard. My true edge comes down on the upper flat of his blade because I torque my hilt hard so as to be in longpoint (my point off to his right) as his edge is coming around. My goal is not to just catch his cut, rather I attempt to stifle his cut. If I catch his edge but don't stifle the cut then he could end up in Ochs and I would be facing his point; I want his point to be way off to my left. When my true edge comes down on his upper flat it is most likely that the fist contact is with the edges, but it is at a low angle and most of the energy of my cut is into his flat rather than into his edge. Goliath says if he follows up his first Zwerchau with another Zwerchau to his left (my right side) then I should throw a low counter Zwerchau to my right to his neck or uppper opening. Note that since his cut was displaced downwared the starting angle of his blade will most likely result in his second up Zwerchau following a path higher than horizontal. On the other hand, at the end of the stifle my blade is at an angle such that my counter Zwerchau will follow a path lower than horizontal. Thus, we end with the classic Zwerchau to Zwerchau counter, his cut hit my upper flat and my cut hits him.
Make sense?
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Zeman
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Apr, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Perhaps if we want to do a scientific analysis based on surviving antiques we should go back and examine all of them not for edge damage, but damage to the flats and ridges instead. If indeed the blows were taken on the flat in defense, or made to the flat by the edge in a counter-strike or deflection, then we should see a pattern of gouges and nicks in these surfaces. It seems like a worthwhile undertaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Apr, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Risto Rautiainen wrote: | Guy is not a member of this forum, but as I pointed this thread to Mr. Windsor, he said I could post his reply here:
| Guy Windsor wrote: | | "Taking comments out of context is poor scholarship. What I actually wrote meant that in my opinion, one should parry with your edge, as the most stable part of your weapon, but do so where possible against his flat, for maximum effect and minimum damage to your sword. However many of the documentable techniques do involve edge contact, with attendant damage to the weapon, which was clearly acceptable to our forebears. That's what sword-sharpeners are for. This argument is a decade old and was daft enough when it started. I see no reason to continue it here." |
|
Risto
Guy's quote was NOT taken out of context. My original post included the following quote:
| Guy Windsor wrote: | | something else training with sharps teaches you is the damage contact does to the edges; much of my opinion about how to parry with a longsword is designed to save your edge; hitting his flat doesn't damage your edge nearly so much |
Based on the above quote I said that it SEEMS that Guy had reached a conclusion similar to that of John Clements and ARMA.
Using comments out of context is a situration in which comments are used in a manner so that their orginial meaning is changed. In what way did I change the orginial meaning of Guy's comments? Did Guy not experience edge damage? Does Guy not have an opinion on how to parry so as to not damage his edges? Does Guy not believe that hitting the flat causes less damage than hitting the edges? Please tell me how I have changed the meaning of Guy's comments. If you show me where I have done so then I will indeed extend a deep apology to Guy. I do ask that you note clearly that this has nothing to do with Guy's personal position on the edge-on-edge subject, his overall feelings on the subject, or his feelings about my position on the subject, it has only to do with the meaning of the specific comments that I quoted.
To accuse me of taking his comments out of context when I clearly have not, for what appears to be because he does not like the subject and/or my position on the subject, is Guy's statement about my "poor scholarship" not a case of Ad hominem? Before making further accusation against me I suggest that Guy take a few minutes to actually read my messages with his own eyes.
As an anthropologist, archaeologist, and software engineer I have over many years of experience gained an good understanding of real scholarship and during those years I have quoted the public works and comments of many people both in full and in part. If their work was public I never did ask anyone if they objected to being quoted. Our little infant field of Western swordsmenship, especially as it is played out on the far butt end of the Internet, is no exception. If it is said in public then it can be quoted.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Apr, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And now we're crossing lines we'd been flirting with for a while. Debate all you want, but leave the rancor and personal stuff out.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Apr, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | ...with the majority involving oblique contacts that are neither and both. |
If the impact is oblique then it is not edge-on-edge. Rarely do we a perform a perfect 90 degree edge-to-flat displacements. Even when performing a simple hanging parry with the flat of one's blade it is almost impossible for the on coming blade to hit both edges of the defending blade at the same time. But that oblique impact is much different then the impact that would result if the edge of the defending blade was turned up into the on coming blade. |
And here's where I think we're misunderstanding each other. As I've stated many times, I really never do a displacement in Liechtenauer that is a 90 degree edge to edge smash. But I do many of the deflection where my edge goes against my opponent's because for certain couterattacks and defenses that is unavoidable. As Christian states, they are not the Hollywood style edge to edge combat that keeps being brought up, but rather more oblique angles.
Throughout this entire conversation, I've considered "edge to edge parries" to mean any defensive action that brings your edge into contact with your opponent's edge, and oblique edge-to-edge defenses appear all the time in techniques. But if you (and possibly others) are defining "edge to edge" as specifically 90 degree edge contact, and that oblique edge-to-edge contact is not really the same thing as an edge-to-edge parry, then maybe we've been on the same page the entire time.
Have we perhaps just been arguing over a misunderstanding of semantics here? 
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Apr, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Have we perhaps just been arguing over a misunderstanding of semantics here? |
This is probably largely the case, and something that I'd considered before. But, short of knowing how you perform your counterstrikes, and short of you knowing how I perform mine, it's difficult to say to what extent we differ in interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Risto Rautiainen
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Apr, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Randall. BTW, I didn't say it was poor scholarship. I'm just a messenger, but I doubt that Guy will continue this conversation through the internet as it seems to be hmm. futile I guess. Would be better talked in person. It is true that you can get the impression from that piece of text that Guy really want's to preserve his blade in all circumstances. But I beleive he would have written otherwise had the discussion at SFI been specifically about edge damage. Although you use words like "appears to" or "seems", the not so careful reader might not notice.
Peace, Risto.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
My understanding of the ARMA article is that it was written in response to the hard edge contact as seen in movies and practiced by stage groups or other entities not connected with WMA. The date of the original post on this thread was 2004. A lot has happened in the WMA communities since then. I don't think the article was written to comment on practices in the WMA community informed by period teachings but to combat through common sense the attitude from outsider of "Of course you are supposed to block with the edge." In this sense, edge to edge contact would mean not just any edge contact but near 90 degree contact or practices in which the edge of the sword is purposefully placed in the way to take the brunt of the incoming blow. That was one of the myths which the WMA community has had and still has to debunk in the public eye.
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 Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: | | My understanding of the ARMA article is that it was written in response to the hard edge contact as seen in movies and practiced by stage groups or other entities not connected with WMA. The date of the original post on this thread was 2004. A lot has happened in the WMA communities since then. I don't think the article was written to comment on practices in the WMA community informed by period teachings but to combat through common sense the attitude from outsider of "Of course you are supposed to block with the edge." In this sense, edge to edge contact would mean not just any edge contact but near 90 degree contact or practices in which the edge of the sword is purposefully placed in the way to take the brunt of the incoming blow. That was one of the myths which the WMA community has had and still has to debunk in the public eye. |
Seems to make sense in the context of the above i.e. film / stage fighting where edges are " BANGED " together as hard as possible as often as possible and the point it to aim at the opponents sword deliberately rather than sword contact being only a means to an end and not an end in itself.
A lot of edge to edge contact can happen with minimal or reduced damage to edges if the energy is diffused by angle and deflections or sliding rather than hard contact with the least force used needed to do the job. ( Or edge to flat contact !? )
I'm not even attempting commenting on the actual art(s) of swordsmanship and only looking at it from the point of view of what happens to the steel of the swords depending on what forces they are subjected too. ( Also, I'm much closer to the
" general " public in my level of understanding than to the real experts discussing / arguing about exactly how things are done: I may be aware of a little more than the general public but no expert  ).
So with real swordsmanship I'm understanding from the previous much more knowledgeable posts that damage may have occurred, may have been avoided when possible but would tend to be on average less severe than badly controlled bashing typical of movie fights: This does mean that occasionally very hard edge to edge contact might have happened deliberately or accidentally when someone made a mistake.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | And here's where I think we're misunderstanding each other. As I've stated many times, I really never do a displacement in Liechtenauer that is a 90 degree edge to edge smash. But I do many of the deflection where my edge goes against my opponent's because for certain couterattacks and defenses that is unavoidable. As Christian states, they are not the Hollywood style edge to edge combat that keeps being brought up, but rather more oblique angles. |
Bill
This issue keeps coming up because edge-on-edge actions not only still being practiced, they are still being taught. As can be seen the following pictures from WMAW 2005 straight head-on edge-on-edge stops are being taught in a class. I can only assume that the other insturctors in these pictures found these hard stops acceptable. Such hard stops are not acceptable in ARMA.
http://www.wmaw.us/wmaw2005/WMAW2005/Saturday...a_0067.jpg
http://www.wmaw.us/wmaw2005/WMAW2005/Saturday...a_0064.jpg
http://www.wmaw.us/wmaw2005/WMAW2005/Saturday...a_0068.jpg
These pictures also show another problem with such hard stop actions, they are not martially sound because they do not leave one in a position of advanage over their adversary. In each case, the person who make the stop would have had to make a major re-alignment of their weapon in order to perform a cut, slice, or thrust.
| Bill Grandy wrote: | Throughout this entire conversation, I've considered "edge to edge parries" to mean any defensive action that brings your edge into contact with your opponent's edge, and oblique edge-to-edge defenses appear all the time in techniques. But if you (and possibly others) are defining "edge to edge" as specifically 90 degree edge contact, and that oblique edge-to-edge contact is not really the same thing as an edge-to-edge parry, then maybe we've been on the same page the entire time.
Have we perhaps just been arguing over a misunderstanding of semantics here? |
Any high speed impact of thin sharp edges at more than about 60 degrees presents a significant possibility of causing major edge damage. My guess would be that the edge impacts that occur during what ARMA members refer to as an edge-to-flat action normally occur at about 25 degrees or less.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Randall,
Your comments are misleading here.
The pictures don't convey what the instructor is advocating, as he (Matt Galas) isn't pictured. They instead convey what the students are doing. Some of these students may be very new to the art, given this was billed as a 101 level class. You also have no idea of what drill is being performed here.
Further, the last picture shows Greg Mele in a position to thrust to Steve Hick's groin or at the very least to above his right hip - a quick bleedout target given the femoral artery runs through there.
Advantage in a bind is gained by placing strong upon weak (not edge on flat or vice-versa); the Liechtenauer masters stress this repeatedly.
You weren't at this class and you don't know what's going on in this drill; it's unfair in the extreme to attack others in such fashion to try to win a debate. Using out of context photos to prove a point is the kind of argument that's starting to make this sound more and more like the extremes some people will go to try to debunk the lunar landings.
Besides which, what's pictured is almost exactly what Talhoffer shows in one of the 1467 codex's plates - the one called "Two Lower Openings". Considering Matt's careful scholarship and formidable fencing skills, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the genesis of this exercise.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Zeman
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps hard stopping actions with the edge are still being taught because there are many people that do not prescribe to ARMA's interpretations that they were never done. I train in 19th Century Saber, where hard stops with the forte edge are absolutely done. I train in 16th Century Bolognese sidesword, where hard edge parries are specifically taught by the Masters, and the edge is specifically advocated to use in making the hard stopping parry.
Now I know that these are not German Longsword, but I don't recall any of the ARMA articles I have read saying that you never use edge to edge parrying actions in German longsword, they mostly say that they were never done ever until the 19th Century. Which I cannot accept, given the evidence. The Bolognese school is only a generation removed from Fiore, and I doubt between 1410 and 1510 people started using the edge of the sword instead of the flat to make parrying actions. And I seriously doubt that people started using hard stopping actions all of the sudden, when they did not 100 years previous.
The entire position of the no edge parry argument seems to be based on both concern for the damage to the edge of the sword, and on the idea that hard parries were never done. One of these we know is incorrect. We know hard stopping actions were done, period, because they were advocated in multiple Italian manuscripts, and even in the earliest (Fiore) they appear all over the place. We know that Silver and other English schools made liberal use of the hard stopping parry.
So I sometimes grow weary of this erroneous statement being used to bolster an argument about edge to edge parries. We know they were done historically, they are specifically advocated and instructed in multiple treatises from the 16th Century onward. We can argue about whether they were done in German Longsword, and it seems perhaps they were not as common as in other traditions, but then we should limit this argument specifically to the Lichtenhauer tradition of longsword, and not make sweeping statements about all historical swordsmanship.
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
Besides which, what's pictured is almost exactly what Talhoffer shows in one of the 1467 codex's plates - the one called "Two Lower Openings". Considering Matt's careful scholarship and formidable fencing skills, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the genesis of this exercise.
|
Christian,
Do you mean this plate here, which unambiguously depicts edge-to-flat action with the thrust?
Or perhaps you meant this one, which likewise shows no edge-to-edge contact?
http://www.schielhau.org/talpoint.html
As it says in the Myth of Edge-on-Edge Parrying article: "Despite what some enthusiasts imagine they see, there are also no edge-on-edge blocks in the various editions of Hans Talhoffer’s fencing texts (c.1443-1467). As researcher-practitioner Mark Rector notes in his modern version of the 1467 Talhoffer Fechtbuch, 'Talhoffer never shows anything resembling static, blade on blade blocks. His setting aside techniques are fluid and dynamic, and naturally lead into counter-attacks.' (p. 12)."
http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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