[Patrick Kelly]

http://www.thearma.org/essays/damagededge.htm

Arma has published an excellent new article on edge damage. It's a worthwhile read.

[Bill Grandy]

I don't know how to get into this without it being a edge/flat parrying debate, but here goes.

The article is well researched, but only shows half of the evidence. There is ample evidence of parrying with the edge in period fencing texts as well as evidence of flat parrying. I don't even understand how anyone can try so hard to say that it was only done one way and not the other.

It also is ridiculous to lump fighting in all of the middle ages and say that throughout several hundred years everyone fought the same way.

A search of SFI's HES board will find you plenty of evidence for both sides (if you care to read through pages and pages of bitter sniping from different camps of thought). John Clements has already listed some excellent sources about flat parrying in his article here, so I'll list a few of edge parrying.

Edge parry from Joachim Meyer's fechtbuch: "When your adversary strikes at you from his right side with an Oberhau, then hit with a zornhau from your right shoulder against it. Strike with your true edge and in your strong."

Edge parry from Codex Wallerstein, Plate 9: "...so deflect with you
short edge and run on him..."

Every Italian sidesword manual I've ever heard of very specifically says to parry with the edge, although there seems to be some disagreement between masters as to preferences towards the true and false edge. (Marozzo has a preference for using the false edge more often, Viggiani has a preference for using the true edge).

Every single saber manual I've ever seen specifically say to use the edge.

Greg Mele wrote a fantastic article in SPADA on the subject called, "Much Ado About Nothing, or The Cutting Edge of Flat Parries". In it he shows plenty of evidence for both cases, where he basically states that those who staunchly say things were done one way or the other simply haven't done their homework. He sums it up best with, "The when, why and how that flat and edge are used must be based on an understanding of the underlying dfensive principles and biomechanics taught explicitly and implicitly by the medieval masters themselves."

So in other words, Edge or flat? It depends.

[Patrick Kelly]

[Bill Grandy]

It depends. Many of the masters do not say anything about your opponent's blade, though there are definately cases where masters specifically will say a certain technique should be done by using your edge against the flat. Meyer in particular, and although he's technically a Renaissance master, he still follows along the medieval Liechtanaur lineage. But medieval masters were largely quiet on the subject, leaving a lot of room for interpretation. This is most likely because they were more concerned with voiding the attack, or striking in a single-time defence.

A perfect example of something that could be interpreted either way is from Sigmund Ringeck (Tobler's translation): "If he strikes an Oberhau (downward cut) at your head, jump to his left side with your right foot; while you jump, turn your sword so that your hilt is high in front of your head and your thumb is down [on the flat of the blade] striking at his left with your short edge. You catch his strike with your hilt and hit him simultaneously on the head."

So in this case, someone's striking down and you're both defending with the sword and striking in one motion. If it is a perfectly downward strike, then you'll hit edge to flat. But if there is any degree of sideways motion (and there almost always is) then you'll strike edge to edge. Some people will say that ideally you hit edge to flat, some say you should be hitting edge to edge, some say it doesn't matter so long as you lived to tell the tale.

In Italian sidesword, such as found in Marozzo, they will say things such as "strike with your false edge a falso manco to deflect a mandritto squalembrato" (strongly paraphrased from no particular manual ) which would mean that your opponent is striking a diagonal cut downwards, and you would strike aside the oncoming cut with an upwards cut with the false edge. I'm not the best versed in the sidesword manuals, but they do appear to be more specific about these things than earlier manuals were.

And I have never even heard of a flat parry in saber. Any classical/historical saberist will use many static edge parry-riposte actions. While I'll concede that saber is much later period, we're still talking about a very sharp sword, one that would take as much damage from edge parries as many earlier medieval ones, and these guys didn't seem to mind.

On SFI there are pages and pages of evidence, enough to show that it simply can't be generalized into, "They always did this," or "they never did this."

[Alexi Goranov]

[R. Laine]

It is also worth remembering that most parrying is done with the forte, where edge damage doesn't really matter as much and where the edge was sometimes left duller anyway, which will also reduce damage.

[Bill Grandy]

I was indeed referring to the zwerchau.

And yes, I agree, it usually will not hit at an exact 90 degree angle... but if the whole debate is over whether the edges hit at 90 degrees or at 45 degrees, well, then that just seems silly to me. (To be honest, I think the fact that there IS such strong disagreement over something like this is silly, but such is human nature.)

Another one that I see as an edge parry: "If you are in vom Tag (the roof guard, sword high, tip pointing up) and he strikes a Zwerchhau ("cross strike", the technique previously described) above you, immediately strike a Zornhau ("strike of wrath", diagonal downward strike) with strength against his sword and find an opening to strike with the point."

In this technique it is clear, to me, that you need to use your edge against the oncoming edge, unless if you interpret the Zornhau in this case to be striking with your sword sideways. Again, there is enough ambiguity that people can place their own lense over to make work within their own preconceived ways, but really, I think it's so much easier to just do what the primary source says. A zornhau is performed by making a downward cut with the true edge, and a zwerchau is a horizontal cut with the sword above the head. I just can't see modifying the strike specifically to avoid edge contact.

Is it a 90 degree angle edge to edge parry? More of a 60-70 degree, depending on the specifics of where you were standing vs. what your opponent was doing. Is it really important to be that picky? I really don't think so, but maybe that's just me.

My whole point was just that we can't make these blanket statements that things were always done a certain way, ESPECIALLY when there's so much evidence that multiple things were done.

[Patrick Kelly]

Gentlemen,

I referenced this ARMA article in the hopes that it would stimulate exactly this kind of discussion. All too often these discussions never reach past the level or "absolutely yes" or "absolutely no". Not to mention the equally worthless position of "you do whatever it takes to survive" . (certainly not a worthless viewpoint, but not one that engenders detailed conversation).

Thank you.

Bill,

I agree that the original debate seems to concern a 90 % angle edge-on static parry, and I also agree that it's ridiculous to spend time discussing it in that context.

[Chris Holzman]

[Gary Grzybek]

[Alexi Goranov]

[Robert Zamoida]

One thing to consider in the debate of edge vs. flat defense is what happens after the defense, and how what portion of the sword used in defense plays a role in the actions immediately after. Take for instance uke nagashi in japanese swordsmanship; this is where the hilt of the sword is brought up over the head, with the tip of the sword lower than the hilt and used as a defense against overhead cuts. When learning this technique I was always taught to present the side/back of the sword when receiving the incoming blow, to prevent damgage to the edge upon contact with the opponent's sword. But, one thing that I learned when practicing this technique was that when the blow was received using the side of the blade and my sword was brought around for the counterattack the edge presented itself for an effective countercut with virtually no extra effort on my part. However, when I practiced this technique by receiving the blow with the edge rather than the side, it was more awkward and difficult to properly orient the edge for the countercut. So it is important not only to consider the effects of edge vs. flat defense upon the integrity of the sword itself, but how presenting either the edge or the flat will affect the effectiveness of the counter attack; in other words, how easy will it be to properly orient the edge for an effective counter attack after the defense has been made.

Another thing to consider is the grip of the sword. Regardless of the weapon I was studying I was taught that it was best to hold the weapon as if I was holding a small bird; tight enough that the bird could not fly away, but not so tight as to crush the life from it. This degree of looseness in the grip allows for an easier manipulation of the sword when presenting the flat, back, or edge, depending on what you're doing with the sword at the time. In The Rules and Regulations for the Sword Exercise of the Cavalry, pages 18-25, there are illustrations depicting the hands in various stages of performing the six main cuts. Each individual cut is shown in stages, depicting how different fingers are either tight or loose upon the grip, depending on the stage of the cut. By alternating the strength of the grip of each finger it is easier to maniuplate the orientation of the sword, flat vs. edge, in order to execute whatever technique you are trying to perform.
In the next section of the book, Modes of Parrying, we see how the grip of the sword affects the orientaion of the sword when executing the defenses. The first two are the Left and Right Protects. Through both text and illustrations Le Marchant is explicit in stating that when executing these two defenses, the back and side of the blade are to be presented, not the edge; the illustration depicting Left Protect shows the knucklenow formed by the stirrup hilt alongside the back of the hand, and the curvature of the blade going away from the left side of the body. It is interesting that Le Marchant chooses these two defenses as the first to be taught; when practicing these with my 1796 light cavalry saber I find these defenses to be the more difficult to execute than those that follow, because of the ways that I must adjust the degree of my grip in order to execute them as he describes.
The next defense, Horse, Near Side Protect appears at first to contradict Le Marchant's admnishment not to oppose an enemy's saber with the edge. When adopting this defense the sword is placed alongside the left side of the horse's head, with the point lower than the hilt and with the edge up, in the direction of the incoming attack. Le Marchant acknowledges this, stating "The edge will be upwards in this instance, but it must necessarily be exposed from the nature of the guard." One thing that I have noticed, when attempting to adopt this defense as depicted on page 28, is that although the edge, rather than the flat or back, is presented against the incoming attack, it is presented in such a way that many blows will fall just beside, rather than directly upon the edge of the sword.

Ultimately I think that whether you use the edge or the flat of the sword for defense, you not only want to minimize any damage to the sword itself, but also to be able to quickly and easily launch an effective counter attack.

[Bill Grandy]

[Joel Whitmore]

I don't pretend to be an expert about these texts. However, I think that some edge on edge contact would be inevitable. So no one has ever mentioned who drew the illustrations. Was it a scribe? Was it the fencing master himself? I think one can get in trouble relying on medieval illustrations to "prove" a point. We all know that hitting two sharpened swords edge-to -edge will nick or dent the edge. I think what needs to be discussed here is would there be an advantage to blocking with the sword's edge as opposed to the flat? In what situations would that be? Argueing over what a particular cryptic passage means or what an illustration is a waste of energy. Many of you here have experience in swordplay and I think you need to speak up. Please don't think I am "taking sides" on this issue, but as Patrick observed, some pretty heated exchanges have broken out over this issue. I would really like to hear your opions on the questions I posed above. What do you guys think?

Joel Whitmore

[Stephen Hand]

Dear Joel,

The reason this topic keeps coming up is that most people don't realise that parrying can constitute many different types of action, all valid ways to use your sword to prevent the other chap's sword hitting you. The other confusion is that counterattacks, attacks made by the defender while the initial attack is in motion and which dominate many early systems are not parries, even if they prevent the opposing sword from hitting you. They are attacks and trying to think of them as parries gets you in all sorts of strife, both in words, and in fencing. By the way, attacks made after parries are ripostes, not counterattacks.

Many early texts use a lot of deflections, which must absolutely be done with the flat. Ceding parries must also use the flat. You've mentioned blocks, or what the English called stoppes. These are designed to stop the opposing sword, taking away it's momentum and leaving it in the state that Silver called Lying Spent. Stoppes, as the historical authors all state, must be done with the edge, as close to the hilt as possible. This results in very minor damage to the blade, but I have never seen a sword break when stopping with the edge of the forte. I have seen a sword snap when stopping with the flat of the forte (trying a stoppe with the flat also places your wrist in a horrible position, the edge is in line with the bones of your forearm so presenting the flat requires you to turn your wrist, which places an unbelievable stress on your wrist) and of course the mechanics of leverage dictate that stoppes cannot be done anywhere on the blade other than the part of the forte closest to the hilt.

So in short, were parries done with the edge? indisputably yes. Were they done with the flat? again, indisputably yes. There is indisputable historical evidence for parries that can only be done with the edge and ones that can only be done with the flat. Were these actions the same sort of parry? no, not at all. Can we come up with one overarching rule that covers all parries? no we can't, because a parry is simply a defensive action with the blade against your opponent's blade that prevents you from being hit by his attack. There are a lot of different actions that fit those criteria. Trying to oversimplify the art of parrying, saying all parries were done this way, or that way is counterproductive to our understanding of historical fencing. We should read each individual historical text and do precisely what the master tells us to do, without any preconceptions that actions must be performed this way or that way. Only by approaching the historical texts with a clean slate can we hope to understand what they're saying and perform it with any degree of authenticity.

Cheers
Stephen

[Bill Grandy]

Well said, Stephen!

[Joel Whitmore]

I own several of the translated manuels and I think you are overgeneralizing my point here. I am not implying that ALL of the fencing manuels are cryptic or that every one of them is trying to conceal the arts they convey. Now pardon me for being percieved as sensitive here, but your tone is why this topic is always hard to discuss. If the fencing manuels were so crystal clear on this topic I don't think this would be such a debated issue. There are some unanswered questions I think that have not been brought up and your post did not adress the ones I mentioned earlier. I was specifically refering to the ilustrations that people so much rely on to take one position or the other. Who drew them? Did they use actual students for models or was the artist drawing form memory? Another question that begs to be answered in my mind is was edge integreity all that important in fencing duels? Were the swords used thought of as precious objects or just tools to be disgarded after the duel or battle? I think that these questions need to be answered (if possible) to further this discussion. We modern swordsmen tend to be overprotective of our sword edges in part, I think, because swords for us are not common objects. I think you are spot on in projecting modern snesibbilities onto another era; that can lead to erronous assumtions.

[Joel Whitmore]

I am curious about the stoppes you mentioned. Does this apply to the longsword also? It would seem to me that these stops would apply to certain situations only. Having cut with my A&A Two hander, I would not see anyone stopping that blade completely on a charged overhand strike. If the other person were not moving out the way I really believe the best he could do is have his own sword crash into his head. I suppose if you were helped this might not be as bad. The only manuels I own and have read are The Codex Wallerstein, The Secrets of German Swordsmanship, Fiore de LIbere's and the translated Talhoffer text Medieval Combat: A 15th Century Manual of Swordfighting and Close-Quarter Combat. If possible, could you elaborate on these stoppes? I am very curious here.

Joel

[R. Laine]

[Bill Grandy]