| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Ragnar A. Olsen
|
 Posted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 1:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
Then how do you explain all the sources written by professionals of the period telling us to displace with the edge? Sorry, guys, we can speculate about the properties of materials all we want, but the fact remains that it not only happened, it was *supposed* to happen according to the masters instructors of the day. We can argue all around that forever, and you can accuse me of falling prey to religious-type dogma all you want (and note I haven't insulted you in return), but facts are facts and can't be debated away. Modern theories not based on actual practice (meaning regular experience of real fights--no insult intended here to anyone, but that doesn't happen today) just can't hold up to what people who were *there* have to say. |
Hugh I apologize if what I said came across as insulting, that was not my intention at all.
Nor can or would I even being to attempt to explain why or what the instructors of the time said, as I have little to no knowledge of their teachings.
The thing is, just like you say here, facts are indeed facts. How metal behaves however is not speculation, but scientific fact that is well known and understood in our time. Regardless of if it's in a sword fight or an accident or some other application, the nature of how steel behaves in impacts do not change.
I had hoped my intent was clear here, I do not presume to know how one should parry, merely stating what will occur to the steel, which are in my mind at least two different things entirely. I hope this clears up what I mean. I in no way dispute, agree or disagree about anything anyone said on the subject of how to use a sword in a fight or which method to parry.
Merely to mention the effects those methods had on the sword itself.
I suppose this is what I meant with similarities religious debates, in that I don't think we should take what they teach about how to parry (or not), as guide on how steel behaves during impacts, but rather keep it confide to a guide to fighting. That it's better to keep such things separate. So when those of you who know and study manuals of fighting debate one way of parrying over the other, it seems to me at least, better to leave out justifying your(meaning not Hugh specifically but anyone) views with talks of how the steel will react, and focus more on the texts and teachings themselves. Otherwise such as in this case it might lead to perpetuation of faulty information about how swords/steel react to impacts.
Just to mention it again for anyone reading. I'm not stating that one way of parry is better or more correct then the other in terms of fighting and following what instructors of old said. Simply what happens to the sword itself.
Not really sure how successful I was in explaining that, but please believe me it was not meant as an insult, nor is this post. It's not meant as a personal attack or anything of that nature, just as an explanation on how the different type of impacts effect the sword/steel.
Regards
Ragnar
|
|
  |
 |
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | | [I'm not saying that edge vs edge is wrong, or that edge vs flat is correct in terms of fencing technique. But in terms of actual real life impact mechanics edge vs edge, leads to breakage faster and more consistent then edge vs flat, and I found the way in which you stated it was the opposite reminded me of religious debates more then a debate on real world mechanics, which I believe is something that should be avoided. |
Then how do you explain all the sources written by professionals of the period telling us to displace with the edge? Sorry, guys, we can speculate about the properties of materials all we want, but the fact remains that it not only happened, it was *supposed* to happen according to the masters instructors of the day. We can argue all around that forever, and you can accuse me of falling prey to religious-type dogma all you want (and note I haven't insulted you in return), but facts are facts and can't be debated away. Modern theories not based on actual practice (meaning regular experience of real fights--no insult intended here to anyone, but that doesn't happen today) just can't hold up to what people who were *there* have to say. |
EDITED: Was writing below before Ragnar posted his reply i.e. crossposting or posting at the same time !
I think you are both right but focusing on different issues:
1)Ragnar is focusing on: Damage to the sword and how to avoid it. ( What physically happens to the swords with different kinds of hard contact ).
2)Hugh is focusing: What wins the fight with damage to the sword being a low priority. i.e. What the masters had to say about using the edges ! And I think it means that with the rigidity of the sword using the edge one gets better control of the other's sword than using one's flat to strike the other's flat and it makes even less sense to strike with one's flat against the other's edge deliberately: It' s all a question of what works best to deflect/parry or in the bind/winding.
Edge to flat happens all the time and is advantageous to the one using the edge and a good side effect is that the " bounce " on the flat uses up energy that would otherwise be absorbed by material deformation as Ragnar mentioned.
Edge to edge also happens all the time but not always in the most damaging 90 degree hard parry.
In the heat of a fight for one's life there is no time to waste thinking about edge alignment but with good technique the edges to flat happens more often than not due to the good training of good fencers. ( Just recapping a bit what I said in my previous posts, hopefully more clearly ? ).
If both posts are read carefully, and not selectively focusing on " perceived " disagreements, I think there are interesting things to think about in both.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Gilleland
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jean, I think you hit the nail on the head, and I agree.
People here need to separate the two discussions. Were there edge to edge blocks and parries? Yes, they are described by period masters. Does blocking with the edge cause more damage to the sword? Yes, science can prove this through physics.
Both arguments are correct, neither wins over the other. It seems to me that people respond to posts before they actually identify which aspect of edge to edge blocking is being discussed.
Seek Honor before Wealth,
Truth before Honor,
God Before all
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: | | Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | | [I'm not saying that edge vs edge is wrong, or that edge vs flat is correct in terms of fencing technique. But in terms of actual real life impact mechanics edge vs edge, leads to breakage faster and more consistent then edge vs flat, and I found the way in which you stated it was the opposite reminded me of religious debates more then a debate on real world mechanics, which I believe is something that should be avoided. |
Then how do you explain all the sources written by professionals of the period telling us to displace with the edge? Sorry, guys, we can speculate about the properties of materials all we want, but the fact remains that it not only happened, it was *supposed* to happen according to the masters instructors of the day. We can argue all around that forever, and you can accuse me of falling prey to religious-type dogma all you want (and note I haven't insulted you in return), but facts are facts and can't be debated away. Modern theories not based on actual practice (meaning regular experience of real fights--no insult intended here to anyone, but that doesn't happen today) just can't hold up to what people who were *there* have to say. |
EDITED: Was writing below before Ragnar posted his reply i.e. crossposting or posting at the same time !
I think you are both right but focusing on different issues:
1)Ragnar is focusing on: Damage to the sword and how to avoid it. ( What physically happens to the swords with different kinds of hard contact ).
2)Hugh is focusing: What wins the fight with damage to the sword being a low priority. i.e. What the masters had to say about using the edges ! And I think it means that with the rigidity of the sword using the edge one gets better control of the other's sword than using one's flat to strike the other's flat and it makes even less sense to strike with one's flat against the other's edge deliberately: It' s all a question of what works best to deflect/parry or in the bind/winding.
Edge to flat happens all the time and is advantageous to the one using the edge and a good side effect is that the " bounce " on the flat uses up energy that would otherwise be absorbed by material deformation as Ragnar mentioned.
Edge to edge also happens all the time but not always in the most damaging 90 degree hard parry.
In the heat of a fight for one's life there is no time to waste thinking about edge alignment but with good technique the edges to flat happens more often than not due to the good training of good fencers. ( Just recapping a bit what I said in my previous posts, hopefully more clearly ? ).
If both posts are read carefully, and not selectively focusing on " perceived " disagreements, I think there are interesting things to think about in both. |
Yes, you have the right of it, Jean.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
  |
|
|
Robert Subiaga Jr.
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
A lifetime's work in science and engineering, science teaching, history of science. I've never run across anyone qualified in those fields who would ever say "You don't even have to run the damn experiment 'cause the masters have already established the truth."
Ever.
I could regale you, Hugh, with centuries' worth of concrete examples of established, accepted truths that have been flat out wrong. I could pile up hundreds of examples of folk wisdom in science and even common opinions among working scientists and engineers that experimental evidence overturns.
(Not only including but especially from fields where conditions are life and death and the common sense--dead wrong but so common in the sword community--is that there's no possibility for error among authorities because of the high stakes.)
I could also, I suppose, tack on examples from historical accounts and historical artwork on swords that are highly suspect, and certainly either exagerrations or accounts of fluke on-off. Swords cutting through helmets. Samurai swords that all the traditions and masters insist will cut through armor--and then can't even get through mail.
I could, but I have the feeling you and I have a disconnect in basic philosophy here about the what it takes for speculation to meet the standard of a declared truth.
Hell, you may even be right about the edge. But it goes beyond what's right on a particular point to the methodology of how one determines correctness.
If the methodology is "appeal to authority"--a known and catalogued fallacy of reasoning since at least Aristotle--then one may be right on any particular point, but will eventually, inevitably run into being wrong; either because the "masters" themselves were wrong or simply because the masters are being misinterpreted. Worst of all, there then is no mechanism for establishing and admitting that error.
So the ball is back in your court. Humor me, and for the sake of argument ponder and answer just this ONE question: What IF you were wrong on this--HOW would you come to know it?
If there is no answer but "The question is irrelevant because I simply CAN'T BE wrong on this"(OR "the ONLY evidence I accept is if my Holy Scriptures--that is the fechtbuchs--said something differently") then yes, this becomes nothing but a religiously blind faith.
Scientific "truth," contingent as it is, cannot be established unless it tests itself under conditions of possible falsifiability.
Starting in a hollowed log of wood—some thousand miles up a river, with an infinitesimal prospect of returning! I ask myself "Why?" and the only echo is "damned fool!...the Devil drives...
|
|
 |
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll reiterate an old post of mine because I think it's an argument to be made 
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | As I've said two years ago I think discussions of edge vs. flat parries do not take the perspective of the attacker sufficiently into account.
If a static block happens on the strong of the defender's blade, edge on edge, I think the blade of the attacker will likely take the most damage, as it is thinner at the impact point (which seems to be what Viggiani says). A wise attacker will at least try to slow his blade down in this situation, if he can. Therefore the most disturbing parry that your opponent can make is with the edge. If he parries flat you can just strike as hard as you can, his sword will probably break first anyway. A static flat parry is the kindest thing your defender can do short of not parrying at all: he is not threatening either your body or your sword.
The defender that parries with his flat is in fact doing his best to preserve both blades, but ironically mostly that of the attacker. Much as I would appreciate training partners doing that, I'm not sure it's really the wisest choice in actual combat. Assuming a static block is a good choice at all |
The gist of the issue here is that assumption that hard impact is happening, i.e. the attacker is actually hitting full force against the parry. This is not necessarily the best thing to do for him, and with a bit of control I'm fairly sure you can cushion the impact a bit. But it's the attacker's job; the defender must be solid if he's down to a static block.
Are there people actually training to preserve their attacking blade instead of trying to go through the parries? I'm fairly sure this can be done, not to mention that the control of the blade gained this way can be useful, for example in redirecting the attack.
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Robert Subiaga Jr. wrote: | A lifetime's work in science and engineering, science teaching, history of science. I've never run across anyone qualified in those fields who would ever say "You don't even have to run the damn experiment 'cause the masters have already established the truth."
Ever.
I could regale you, Hugh, with centuries' worth of concrete examples of established, accepted truths that have been flat out wrong. I could pile up hundreds of examples of folk wisdom in science and even common opinions among working scientists and engineers that experimental evidence overturns.
(Not only including but especially from fields where conditions are life and death and the common sense--dead wrong but so common in the sword community--is that there's no possibility for error among authorities because of the high stakes.)
I could also, I suppose, tack on examples from historical accounts and historical artwork on swords that are highly suspect, and certainly either exagerrations or accounts of fluke on-off. Swords cutting through helmets. Samurai swords that all the traditions and masters insist will cut through armor--and then can't even get through mail.
I could, but I have the feeling you and I have a disconnect in basic philosophy here about the what it takes for speculation to meet the standard of a declared truth.
Hell, you may even be right about the edge. But it goes beyond what's right on a particular point to the methodology of how one determines correctness.
If the methodology is "appeal to authority"--a known and catalogued fallacy of reasoning since at least Aristotle--then one may be right on any particular point, but will eventually, inevitably run into being wrong; either because the "masters" themselves were wrong or simply because the masters are being misinterpreted. Worst of all, there then is no mechanism for establishing and admitting that error.
So the ball is back in your court. Humor me, and for the sake of argument ponder and answer just this ONE question: What IF you were wrong on this--HOW would you come to know it?
If there is no answer but "The question is irrelevant because I simply CAN'T BE wrong on this"(OR "the ONLY evidence I accept is if my Holy Scriptures--that is the fechtbuchs--said something differently") then yes, this becomes nothing but a religiously blind faith.
Scientific "truth," contingent as it is, cannot be established unless it tests itself under conditions of possible falsifiability. |
Robert, for every case such as you mention, I can point to one in which a theory, promulgated by well-educated men, simply didn't hold up under the evidence of what really happened in the real world. That's because deductive reasoning of the sort you're trying to use (yes, based on an experiment, but one which only addresses a small part of the issue), is often flawed when the chain of logic is missing pertinent facts. This isn't blind dogmatic belief--a thing I loathe more than you do, believe me; that I leave to those who argue that edge-on-edge blocking wasn't accepted, recommended even, practice. As you should know, the results of an experiment can lead to an erroneus conclusion if the experiment doesn't take all the correct factors into account.
You ask me to consider what that would mean if I was wrong. The point is meaningless, because this isn't a point of belief, it's a point of evidence, and I (and others) have presented evidence to show our claim to be true.
The question here is "did professional fighting men perform edge-on-edge displacements?" Did they believe it was the best way to fight, based on actually doing it? There's the meaningful experiment; there's your scientific method, really--*doing* it. Not bracing modern sword-like objects into braces and hitting them, but actually fighting with the real thing in real conditions. We don't believe this to be true because of resorting to authority just because they are authorities, we know it to be true because they tested their beliefs in real combat and came up with a solution that worked.
It's like when Galileo went to Saturn and discovered the twists in the rings: No theory, up to that point, could explain them, according to a JPL scientist they interviewed afterward, but there they were, nonetheless. In this case, the authority was the pictures, and the theories had to be taken back to the drawing board; that is the only sense in which I am arguing by authority. Our authorities are the men who did it for real; we're not accepting what they say because they said it and they were godlike beings, we're accepting what they said because they are merely reporting the results of their experiments to us, and their experiments are better than ours because they're more realistic--they *fought* life-and-death battles with swords. They knew more than we do about this subject.
I am a firm and committed believer in the value of the scientific method. I hold science over blind superstition in every case. But experiment devoid of context is meaningless, and in this case, the context is real fighting with swords. If blocking with the edge was stupid, it would not have been commonly referred to. This isn't the same as thinking the world was flat or that the Philosopher's stone could transmute lead to gold--this is something medieval men actually tested every day.
And please, never again accuse me of religious dogmaticism, a thing I find offensive in the extreme. I have refrained from insulting you that way, and I expect the same courtesy. You may make your point without resorting to insult, just as I have done.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
To be honest, when I hold the "edge up" with my machete (read: Messer), it is not directly upwards, at a 90 degree angle to the earth. Instead, it is most comfortable and strong if it is crooked off to the side (leaning rightwards as a righthander). Unless they come at a steep left oberhaw, it's not going to directly hit my edge. Even then, it would likely be more along the bevel than the actual sharp.
I think "edge up" just means that the killing part points up, as opposed to the back of the blade.
Now, we have several examples of our most-hated edge on parries on actual existing antiques. Intentional or not, it matters little -- it happened.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
   |
|
|
Dustin R. Reagan
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe that edge-on-edge damage is more likely to cause a sword to break. I say this through my experience as a bladesmith, but also because at least one master tells us so, explicitly. I also believe that edge-on-edge defenses were used ( 100% of the time? no, but they were used ), for the same reason:
"...the two swords will clash true-edge on true edge, and since your forte will meet my debole, my sword may actually break"
-Viggiani.
Here, Viggiani is describing a defense, using true edge against true edge, where the defender catches the opponents debole ( weak of the blade ) on his forte ( strong of the blade ). The interesting thing is that he says that the attacker's sword may actually break!
Dustin
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
There really are only two choices here. You can listen to the period sources, or you can decide you know better and do things your way.
If you choose the latter, more power to you, but you're not practicing HEMA.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Michael
I fully agree that none of us should assume to know more than the historical masters. Likewise, we should not assume that we are listening to the historical masters...they are all dead and not talking. All that we have is written text, often a English translation from another modern language translation from an older version of that language. None of us truely know what the masters were attempting to communicate as they wrote their text. That is why we are forced into Interpretation.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ragnar A. Olsen
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I should probably have left well enough alone, as I as usual haven't managed to get my point properly across, so I'll try to do better this time. But first a disclaimer.
I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should parry, the end.
However, my two previous posts, were about Hugh Knights first post, where he compared steel to wood, and then went on with claims about how steel/swords reacts to forcefully impacts, and later in another post suggested that impact mechanics and the behavior of various materials are just speculations, in a way that was completely incorrect. Since this was one of Hugh's 5 points of "evidence" as to why one should strike swords together edge on edge and that it was completely wrong. I felt it could only be a good thing, to inform him of this error.
For all I knew, that could have been one of the core reasons for him believing that swords should be forcefully struck together edge on edge, so to clear that up could help a lot. Obviously that isn't the case.
As it turns out after rereading that initial post by Hugh, I'd like to comment on two of his other points of evidence as to why one should parry edge on edge. The first is < “...ward his blow with the edge of your sword.” (Brief Instructions fol. 24r). You can’t really get much more plain than that..> This line is highly open for interpreation as it stands there. It could well mean that you should use your edge against the flat of the attackers sword, and not edge on edge. It's very out of context, but I haven't read Silver and have to deal with the evidence presented by those that argue for or against.
The second piece of evidence for edge on edge was < And others show it to us, as in this plate from Talhoffer 1467:
http://mdz10.bib-bvb.de/~db/0002/bsb00020451/...l?seite=41 >. Here Hugh sees the defender block with the edge of his sword. But to me it shows very clearly a man blocking with the flat of his sword, not the edge.
So to on to the point of this.
I don't know what is the correct way to parry. However when the evidence supporting or used to argue the case is this flimsy¨, dubious or at worst completely false. I thought it was valuable that someone would point that out. It's also an indication that this issue is far from resolved or as cut and dry as Hugh and others who are proponents of smashing edges together at speed would have us believe.
Once again, I do not know which way is "correct", however I have to say that based on the evidence shown to me so far, and a bit of common sense, I'm leaning towards Edge to Flat over Edge to Edge, at least until I see some compelling evidence to support it.
Hopefully no one will feel slighted by this post, as it's not my intention. I'm using Hugh's post here because he was the most "vocal" on the subject and produced the most "evidence" to support his cause, that is all.
I'd also like to point out that the in the first post that started this thread, the question posed was if messer's were somehow engineered differently then other swords in order to stand up to the damage they would likely receive from edge on edge blows. Sadly no one has commented on this, I personally have no experience with messer's so I can only guess, but I very much doubt that they are.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | This line is highly open for interpretation as it stands there. It could well mean that you should use your edge against the flat of the attackers sword, and not edge on edge. It's very out of context, but I haven't read Silver and have to deal with the evidence presented by those that argue for or against.
Once again, I do not know which way is "correct", however I have to say that based on the evidence shown to me so far, and a bit of common sense, I'm leaning towards Edge to Flat over Edge to Edge, at least until I see some compelling evidence to support it.
Hopefully no one will feel slighted by this post, as it's not my intention. I'm using Hugh's post here because he was the most "vocal" on the subject and produced the most "evidence" to support his cause, that is all.
|
( Quote above edited down just to avoid Post clutter: Read Ragnar's entire post ).
Edge to flat is the ideal way to parry when possible with the occasional exception where the geometry involved makes edge on edge the only effective/safe way to parry. ( In my opinion, others have more experience than me here ).
Using one's edge to parry doesn't mean that you go out of your way to aim for your opponent's edge for as hard a parry at 90 degrees you can contrive to execute.
Oh, I'm agreeing with you by the way:D And this is the way many of us interpret the use of edge to parry, for some odd reason some people assume the edge to edge thing or assume that this is what we interpret the texts ( Some may, but most don't, I believe! Oh, and I don't think Hugh ever said that hard smashing of edge on edge is the way parry!?
Personally I fully agree with your posts and do not feel slighted in any way ( not that I think your comments are aimed at me ) and as I said in a previous post: Most of the problems with any misunderstandings here are due to misreading what someone has written, only selectively reading and not noticing nuances or disclaimers and reading stuff between the lines that isn't there. ( Oh, and the occasional unfortunate turn of phrase, by some, that could be perceived as dogmatic in isolation ! By the way I'm commenting on the entire Topic thread and no one in particular and why in general communications breakdown with on-line written communication ).
If people considered rebuttal points more as nuancing or questioning rather than disagreement or opposition, people would be slower to take offence or get defensive. ( Again a general comment   ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Thomas Obach
Industry Professional
Location: Elliot lake Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
just my 2 cents... i'm sure a decently heat treated sword should live up to edge to edge..... i'd be very worried though that the edge maybe become rebated during a strike.. .. without a decent edge, how well would it cut..?. try it. run a steel edge on the sword edge then try to cut a hanging cotton shirt.. ... and have fun
- i see in the vid that alot of blocks are done in the lower half of the edge... so i'd think this would save the important cop area !
i say ...save the cutting edge and it will definitely help the sword function well...
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | Michael
I fully agree that none of us should assume to know more than the historical masters. Likewise, we should not assume that we are listening to the historical masters...they are all dead and not talking. All that we have is written text, often a English translation from another modern language translation from an older version of that language. None of us truely know what the masters were attempting to communicate as they wrote their text. That is why we are forced into Interpretation.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW |
Hello Randall,
Yes, if someone chooses to interpret phrases like "cut into his strike" and "with your edge" differently, then I don't have much of a leg to stand on in this sort of debate.
I'm a bit confused though, isn't it okay now, according to ARMA, to stop an incomming strike with your edge as long as you call it an intercept, or has that changed? There was a video, put out not too long ago, where JC showed many edge on edge stops/deflections and called them "intercepts", which were supposed to be different from parries, but I don't remember the particulars.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Thomas Obach wrote: | just my 2 cents... i'm sure a decently heat treated sword should live up to edge to edge..... i'd be very worried though that the edge maybe become rebated during a strike.. .. without a decent edge, how well would it cut..?. try it. run a steel edge on the sword edge then try to cut a hanging cotton shirt.. ... and have fun
- i see in the vid that alot of blocks are done in the lower half of the edge... so i'd think this would save the important cop area !
i say ...save the cutting edge and it will definitely help the sword function well...
Greg |
I think there are at least 3 separate issues involved that do have some degree of overlap:
1) Damage to swords when fighting: How much, how avoidable, how much one just has to accept that it's a low priority at least during a fight.
2) Sword breakage during a fight due to immediate damage to the edges causing stress raisers or breakage due to damage sustained in earlier fights ! Maintenance i.e. sharpening out nicks and notches reduces this risk when one has the time between engagements ( fights ). The sword may remain usable, safe and functional but will accumulate edge irregularities over time until it becomes unusable or does finally break in use. Also, a sword well used will never be as perfect as one pristine right after it was made.
3) Swordsmanship: What keeps you alive ! You don't go out of your way to damage your sword and if good technique that keeps you alive also minimizes damage to one's sword then it's a bonus, but staying alive comes first and if a technique destroys your sword for later use it doesn't matter much if the sword held together until you won !
There are so many ways having a light or controlled touch ( parries/play at the sword/windings ) is better than overcommitted sword bashing that sword may get a lot less damage than one would think even over use in many fights, but one really BAD parry can cause a really BIG nick ..... So, a sword might last a long time with minor damage easily sharpened out or get a really deep gash that might ruin it for future use.
Oh, to address your specific point: An edge with even small nicks in it or dull spots will certainly not cut as well as a fresh and sharp edge, but there is no way around the fact that during a fight your edges may no longer be as effective as they where before the fight !
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ragnar A. Olsen
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | There really are only two choices here. You can listen to the period sources, or you can decide you know better and do things your way.
If you choose the latter, more power to you, but you're not practicing HEMA. |
Sorry for being a bit of a rambler but, this is why I've not posted before. Once I start it becomes some sort of compulsion to keep on posting.
Anyway. This type of reply in a debate is not really helpful at all. It smacks of being in possession of an absolute truth or secret knowledge that is not open to interpretation and cannot be wrong.
Consider how easily things are missunderstood or "wrongly interpreted" on a forum such as this were everyone more or less can speak the same language. It does not take much imagination or understanding of communication to see that a text written in a version of a foreign language that is no longer in use(or possibly meanings have changed), to spawn a host of different interpretations.
I was also under the impression that everyone practicing HEMA today are only able to do so based on scholarly work. That is to say, someone sitting down and interpreting old books.
That means that every single technique that is practiced by anyone alive today, that has not been taught by the person that wrote the book, is experimenting, and that the way he performs it is his theory of how it was done.
In other words you can never be 100% sure that you are doing it exactly as intended. Which would mean having an open mind, would benefit far more then going around claiming to be absolutely sure of what you are doing with no room for discussion without even bothering to support it with real hard evidence.
It's also highly probable that if you were to be able to go back 500 years in time, you would find that different people, did things in slightly or wildly different ways.
Your first post smacks of fanaticism and while the second comes across as very patronizing and a bit sarcastic, which was probably not your intent but my incorrect interpretation  (or at least I hope so)
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | Michael
I fully agree that none of us should assume to know more than the historical masters. Likewise, we should not assume that we are listening to the historical masters...they are all dead and not talking. All that we have is written text, often a English translation from another modern language translation from an older version of that language. None of us truely know what the masters were attempting to communicate as they wrote their text. That is why we are forced into Interpretation.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW |
Hello Ran,
WTF??? "We don't what they meant when they wrote it, so we kinda make it up?"
That's how your post comes across to me.
While your group may be forced to only work from "written text, often a English translation from another modern language translation from an older version of that language" (which might have been true a few years ago but I would think no more) I'm lucky enough to have friends within the WMA community that can do English translations from the original text.
Now it's true that we do need to work though the text (and other related texts) to figure out how to apply the techniques laid out by the now dead masters, but we do know what the masters were attempting to communicate... how to win a duel or fight without risk to oneself. I thought we all agreed on that part.
18th century British backsword is quite clear on the use of the edge to parry. 90 deg parries rule the day in the manuals, Edge on edge parries do happen in messer, but most techniques are edge to flat. A undamaged edge does the owner no good if he died to keep from chipping the blade.
Now as for messer construction: the weapon came from the knife. They ran the whole range of quality form being nothing more than a field tool with a guard (just like a modern machete) to being built for war as a finely made weapon, to pimped out ones for the upper class. The blades are quite wide, that fact alone would allow them to take edge to edge blows with a reduced risk of failure IMO.
Now here's the rub... though out history weapons fail when in use. They are all just tools. From the spear who's shaft splinters in use to the M-4 carbine that jams in the middle of a firefight, it happens. Would the fear of such failure keep the spear man from using his weapon? No. Would the fear of a jam in a firefight keep the soldier from firing his weapon? No. So, why do some cling to the concept that in period a swordsman would never touch edge to edge if needed to suppress or counter a incoming blow. The sword, no matter how finely made was just a tool to be replaced if broken.
Did those who wrote manuals with messer include edge to edge parries? Sure seems to have, both in text and illustrations. Is the "school" of 15th century messer based off of 90 deg parries like the 18th century backsword that I study? No, edge to edge parries just are another tool in the tool box for you to use in messer combat with edge to flat being the primary form of parries.
I'm under the impression that Cory & I are the only 2 people in this thread actively studying messer fighting.
Cheers,
DT
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: |
Anyway. This type of reply in a debate is not really helpful at all. It smacks of being in possession of an absolute truth or secret knowledge that is not open to interpretation and cannot be wrong.
|
But I am in possession of once secret knowledge that cannot be wrong. We all are. That's the beauty of HEMA. And while it certainly is open to interpretation, some things are much clearer than others. There are many aspects of the treatises that are hotly debated among whom I consider to be leading scholars. This is not one of them. Of course my opinion of who the leading scholars are is open to debate, but that is an arugment for another topic.
However, the intent of my post was not to take a stand on one side or the other, but rather to point out that the only valid source of HEMA information are the treatises. We don't have time machines, and none of us are that old...the books and accounts are all we have. Unless someone is running an underground to-the-death sword fighting club that I don't know about.
Modern experiments and technological wisdom are good and fine, but they have little to do with HEMA. Even if an experiment were to prove beyond shadow of a doubt that it is better to parry with the flat, that would mean nothing. We are practicing a medieval art, and using modern experiments and knowledge to influence the interpretation of that art is akin to claiming to practice medieval medicine while injecting your patients with antibiotics and sending them for MRIs because modern experiments have proven that tasting humours and leeching are bullshit.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | Anyway. This type of reply in a debate is not really helpful at all. It smacks of being in possession of an absolute truth or secret knowledge that is not open to interpretation and cannot be wrong.
Consider how easily things are misunderstood or "wrongly interpreted" on a forum such as this were everyone more or less can speak the same language. It does not take much imagination or understanding of communication to see that a text written in a version of a foreign language that is no longer in use(or possibly meanings have changed), to spawn a host of different interpretations. |
But not all languages have changed that much. Further, we often have boundaries with which we can limit our choice of interpretations (i.e. Latin and modern Italian to enclose Renaissance Italian--which is hardly different from modern Italian--and actually, we can come much closer than Latin--i.e. early modern Italian. Honestly, every Italian source we have is, at most, early modern Italian or a dialect thereof). Furthermore, it is not just one text with not context and without a continuum of traditions, but often a work fits within a lineage or a national grouping. This is very true with Italian treatises.
| Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | | I was also under the impression that everyone practicing HEMA today are only able to do so based on scholarly work. That is to say, someone sitting down and interpreting old books. |
No, not merely on scholarly work. That is, not just reading a works, but experimenting and practicing. Additionally, many of us come from other martial arts backgrounds, so we weren't just picking up a sword for the first time when we came the the historic western texts.
| Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | That means that every single technique that is practiced by anyone alive today, that has not been taught by the person that wrote the book, is experimenting, and that the way he performs it is his theory of how it was done.
In other words you can never be 100% sure that you are doing it exactly as intended. Which would mean having an open mind, would benefit far more then going around claiming to be absolutely sure of what you are doing with no room for discussion without even bothering to support it with real hard evidence. |
Well, there is plenty of room for discussion of many aspects of interpretations. However, sometimes what people think needs to be discussed is pretty clear and set because it is clearly described in unambiguous language. For example, if you come to me and say that a cavazione in Italian rapier (i.e. disengagement) is performed using the elbow, I'm going to flat out tell you that you are wrong. If you argue this case, then you've almost certainly demonstrated either an inability to understand Italian, or you are working from a bad translation, because the Italian rapier masters are extremely clear on this particular example. Now that doesn't mean that someone won't find an example that contradicts it someplace, but (in this particular example) it hasn't happened, and therefore promoting a contrary position to the "common wisdom" of the WMA community is nothing more than offering an argument without any real evidence.
Now as to parrying with the edge, this is another example which is pretty much cut and dried withing certain texts and traditions. Specifically, in Bolognese swordsmanshp, the edge is clearly used to parry on certain occasions--the Italian is clear and unambiguous. For someone to convince me otherwise he will have to be able to read the original sources, and find where it says things like "catch his cut on the true edge of your sword" and show clear and defensible reasoning as to why the text doesn't "mean" what it "says". Merely saying that one interpretation is as valid as another or that the language has changed too much is insufficient, because in this case, that statement just isn't true. Note that this doesn't negate the argument that you think that a different way is better (i.e. parrying with the flat)--you might feel this way, and you might or might not be correct. However, that doesn't mean we don't understand the original treatises.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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