| Author |
Message |
Craig Peters
|
 Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Craig,
You need to understand medieval art a bit before drawing the conclusion you just did. Swords are *never* drawn edge-on in medieval manuscripts. This changes a bit in the 16th c. sources. So we can't divine edge orientation from the plates in Talhoffer. So, yes, in fact it's completely ambiguous.
These aren't snapshot photos - they're bits of medieval art, and must be understood in that light.
All the best,
Christian |
Christian,
As someone who personally owns over 55 different texts on all sorts of subjects on the Middle Ages, (including Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship and In Service of the Duke), I am well aware of the limitations of medieval art. However, as you said yoruself, swords are never drawn edge-on-edge in medieval manuscripts. That seems rather odd, since medieval illustrators are not known for their consistency. If nothing else, you'd at least expect a stylistic error where someone depicted an edge-to-edge illustration by accident. And yet your argument seems to be that just because we don't see them in the manuals doesn't mean that they weren't used; by extension, I might argue that just because we haven't seen a unicorn doesn't mean they don't exist. In either case, the absence of something does not provide a good argument for its existence.
And if you're suggesting that medieval artists lacked the necessary skill in perspective to depict an edge-to-edge depiction, it seems rather odd that someone like Albrecht Duerer would be insufficiently skilled to depict an edge-to-edge impact in his manual, for instance. And, though it is in the 16th century, it would be absurd to argue that the illustrator of Joachim Meyer's Kunst des Fechtens lacked the ability to depict edge-to-edge impacts.
The fact that we don't see edge-to-edge depictions in medieval manuscripts is far better evidence for the argument that they were not used.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Nicholas Zeman
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yes, but by the same logic you would have to conclude that all cutting attacks were made with the flat of the sword, since we can see from the images that the edge is never shown in perspective. Most of the Zwerchau plates I have seen depict the flat of the sword aligned with the viewer, which unless we are all performing it wrong means that there is a discrepancy in the illustration and actual perspective. Perhaps the Zwerchau was intended to strike a person with the flat of the sword, since that is what seems to be happening based on the image?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | Do you mean this plate here, which unambiguously depicts edge-to-flat action with the thrust?
|
Actually, it's very likely that picture shows a Winden. Note that the figure on the left has his thumb on the flat of the blade just as we're shown to do in von Danzig. That means the orientation of the blade isn't perpendicular to the ground as the drawing might suggest to someone eager to prove the ARMA argument, but closer to parallel to the ground, which, in turn, means the edges are quite possibly in contact.
If you start practicing some of these plays, Craig, you'll find that winding that way is very strong and that having the cross more to the horizontal gives your hand better protection against a Schnitt. If you do this play the way you suggest, with flat on flat as the medieval perspective might make it appear, then the figure on the right can simply scrape his blade up to cut the fingers of Left's hand.
I know this because back when I first started practicing the longsword we all believed that Winden was done with the edge perpendicular to the ground--it seemed natural to us since we, like you now, failed to understand the perspective being used in this sort of drawing. But as we practiced this we discovered that the fingers were horribly vulnerable, so when Christian came up with the realization that von Danzig (and others) showed Winden with the blade parallel to the ground we were thrilled.
I suppose it's *possible* that the figure on the right's edge is vertical (as in a Shielhau), but, again, it's far more likely that his sword is also parallel to the ground judging by the way his cross lays across the back of his right hand... meaning that this is pretty clearly edge on edge contact.
Don't worry about it, it takes a lot of practice to understand most of these Talhoffer plays, and even then, you have to see them in the context of other manuals to make the connection.
So, as you can see, this isn't "unambiguous" at all, you just have to do a lot of work with Talhoffer to understand it.
Folks, read Stephen Hand's Silver book about edge-on-edge contact and then let's drop this silly topic once and for all. As Bob Charron said in a seminar I once attended: "They just ground the nicks out. No Problem." Or you can simply read the literature of the period. Take, for example, The Unconquered Knight, a 15th-century book about a famous knight named Pero Nino. In it, we read the following account written by Pero's servant who was at the battle being described. After the battle, Pero Nino came away, and "...his sword had its gilded hilt almost broken and wrenched away, and the blade was toothed like a saw..." (emphasis mine). (Taken from the translation by Joan Evans, In Parentheses Publications, p. 21)
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
Last edited by Hugh Knight on Thu 19 Apr, 2007 2:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
  |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | However, as you said yoruself, swords are never drawn edge-on-edge in medieval manuscripts. That seems rather odd, since medieval illustrators are not known for their consistency. If nothing else, you'd at least expect a stylistic error where someone depicted an edge-to-edge illustration by accident. And yet your argument seems to be that just because we don't see them in the manuals doesn't mean that they weren't used; by extension, I might argue that just because we haven't seen a unicorn doesn't mean they don't exist. In either case, the absence of something does not provide a good argument for its existence.
And if you're suggesting that medieval artists lacked the necessary skill in perspective to depict an edge-to-edge depiction, it seems rather odd that someone like Albrecht Duerer would be insufficiently skilled to depict an edge-to-edge impact in his manual, for instance. And, though it is in the 16th century, it would be absurd to argue that the illustrator of Joachim Meyer's Kunst des Fechtens lacked the ability to depict edge-to-edge impacts.
The fact that we don't see edge-to-edge depictions in medieval manuscripts is far better evidence for the argument that they were not used. |
Sorry, but you're mistaken. It isn't that they lacked the skill, it's that they were following an artistic convention. A sword, in most medieval art, that has its blade parrallel to the ground will appear merely as a line and will get lost in the rest of the drawing, so they developed a *custom*--a convention, if you see how I mean that--that was always followed. So your argument is invalid.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Zeman
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great post, Hugh, thanks for the insight into the Talhoffer plates. By the way, has anyone been cut by a notched or jagged edge (by accident I hope)? It is a really nasty wound, I had this happen from a sharp jian that had nicks along the edge, and some stupidity on my part when first practicing some sidesword (I had no sideswords at the time but I had these practical jians laying around). A light scrape with a jagged edge tore a huge chunk of flesh from my thumb. I am not suggesting in any way that edges were nicked in order to make it serrated, but a damaged edge can still deal mortal and nasty wounds, sometimes even worse than a pristine edge.
I am still waiting to see, from ARMA members, some illustrations or videos of people using the flat to make parries, where they would consider it incorrect to use the edge. I would like to see exactly where and when you are making a deliberate attempt to use the flat area of the sword instead of the edge in a static parrying action (yes I said static, hard stopping action). As many of us have realized, there are a lot of misunderstandings based on the internet forums about terminology and what we mean by the word parry (deflection is another nebulous term). I think a specific demonstrative video by ARMA describing their method and specific technique that relates to this debate would be a great way to clear some things up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | 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
The class is listed as "Basic Cutting". You are right that I don't know what drill was being covered. However, when the pictures I linked are taken along with all of the other pictures from that class there is little doubt that the pictures do show cutting rather than some type of winding action. Also, in the third picture Greg's point is indeed shown in front of Steve's lower opening. However, the view in the picture is from Greg's 7 O'clock or 8 O'clock position (his rear left side), if the view was moved to Greg's 6 O'clock (directly behind him) then his point would be shown off to his left side just as it is for the other people in the pictures. Some of the people in the pictures may be new, I included the picture of Greg and Steve so that this would not be an issue.
Listing the pictures in question and disagreeing with their content was not an attack. The listing of the pictures was only an observation. Disagreeig with what is shown in the pictures is just that, a disagreement, not an attack. I have no reason to doubt that Matt's is a careful scholar or that he is a formidable fencer. But that does not mean I can't disagree with him. As a long time ARMA member I have too much experience being attack for little or no justification to now want to do the same to others (remember I was given my own page on that silly armatruth web site).
Again, my messages are not written with anger or as an attempt to attack or cause hard feelings. I'm not attempting to win the debate, nor do I even view this debate as something winable. I am still enjoying these discussions.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does anyone have anything new to add to this debate? In this thread, and in others we see on various discussion boards, we often reach an impasse. Posts will continue to be made, of course, but no new information is offered; the posts just get louder and louder and people begin to get bent out of shape.
No one seems likely at this point to convert to the opposite side of the debate than the one they were on. We have opposing ideas but no way to resolve them. We have people who continuously want to get the last word. There is a lot of nit-picking going on but no progress.
I'd rather see folks agree to disagree and move on if nothing substantively new is going to be presented.
If a poster has nothing new to add, I'd urge them to think twice before hitting the reply button.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Christian Henry Tobler"]Craig,
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| 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." |
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.
|
I'm compelled here to rise to Kevin Cashen's defense. He's known as one of the more honorable gentlemen in the swordmaking industry. He's a true gentleman, if anything maybe a bit naive about the swordmaking industry, and about the political atmosphere in the WMA. He and I had the opportunity to talk during the last Atlanta Blade Show, and I commented about this article........ he had no idea about the underlying politics of the WMA ..............
For swordmakers, hard edge to edge contact is a real no- no, none of us like to see it. In his case though, what he was referring to is the hard kind of contact you see hollywood do.........
And he's correct about the notches and deep marks left on an edge. They are indeed potential stress risers, and if left in place, can eventually be the spot of a catastrophic failure.........
Clean them up, ie, sharpen the blade, and it goes away, though so does some material of the blade........
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
The class is listed as "Basic Cutting". You are right that I don't know what drill was being covered. However, when the pictures I linked are taken along with all of the other pictures from that class there is little doubt that the pictures do show cutting rather than some type of winding action.
|
If it is indeed a class about basic cutting, it's not all that surprising to see edge contact. It could be just an exercise where both partners strike with the same attack at the same time. You can do a succession of alternative attacks on the right and on the left. The strong contact can actually help because it gives a clear rythm.
I mean, we do exactly that at the beginning of each kenjutsu lesson, so it is traditionnal at least in eastern schools... It's useful in order to develop a basic sense of distance, control of the weapon, body position and movement. It's good for stamina, warms the muscles up, and the errors tend to stand out after a few dozens of repeated attacks at speed. It's also actually fun for beginners
I think we need to keep in mind that there are plenty of exercises and drills that can involve edge to edge strong contact, just to preserve the continuity of the motions. Sometimes the "wrong thing" is done on purpose, because the goal of the drill is not realistic fighting technique but increased weapon and body awareness. The "real" fighting technique is never too distant anyway, it's mostly a case of modifying the angle of the attack a bit, shortening or lengthening the distance, to make your sword avoid the opponent's and strike his body instead.
Drills of this kind appear in some of the manuals I have. In Saint-Didier, one of the fighter controls the drill but gives openings and does not counter attack, but merely places his sword in a position from which he could counter. In Thibault some attacks are made "en courtoisie", that is, the point stops just in front of its target instead of going through, stimulating further exchange of attacks between the fighters. If used in earnest most of those drills would end at the first strike. My personal conclusion is that they were used to reinforce your body and your reflexes, rather than to just demonstrate a lethal blow.
If this involves blocks with the edge, then why not? With training swords or wasters the damage would be still minimal, and as long as the lethal technique are still taught...
Whether such drills existed in earlier German schools, I honestly don't know.
Regards
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject: Nothing to post |
|
|
Wrong darn thread and now I can't delete this post.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
Last edited by Joe Fults on Thu 19 Apr, 2007 4:19 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nicholas Zeman wrote: | | I am still waiting to see, from ARMA members, some illustrations or videos of people using the flat to make parries, where they would consider it incorrect to use the edge. I would like to see exactly where and when you are making a deliberate attempt to use the flat area of the sword instead of the edge in a static parrying action (yes I said static, hard stopping action). As many of us have realized, there are a lot of misunderstandings based on the internet forums about terminology and what we mean by the word parry (deflection is another nebulous term). I think a specific demonstrative video by ARMA describing their method and specific technique that relates to this debate would be a great way to clear some things up. |
Nicholas
All of the following pictures show the flat of the sword being used to set aside/parry a cut.
A cut being set aside with Alber, allowing for a follow up thrust.
A cut being set aside with Pflug, allowing for a follow up thrust.
A hanging parry.
A hanging parry.
Using the Pflug to aside a cut, allowing a follow up cut.
A hanging parry.
Using the flat to knock aside an Oberhau, allowing a follow up cut.
Setting aside a cut with Pflug, allowing a follow up thrust.
I am guessing that this is a Zorn-to-Zorn. The edge of one blade will impact the flat of the other blade. It appears that Jake on the left has pulled his arms in so as to not hit his training partner in the head. In sparring the arms are extended more fully.
Setting aside a cut with Pflug, allow a follow up thrust.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
 |
|
|
Jason Elrod
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I gotta say Randall those pictures don't seem to help your case at all. 1/2 of those shots seem to have some edge to edge contact. To my untrained eye . . . just looking at the images. . . nothing more. I'd say that the below pics have some edge to edge contact:
Pic 3
Pic 5
Pic 6
Pic 9
Pic 10
Of course there is no 90 degree contact.
I wonder if someone from each side of the arguement could summarize their position for me in a succinct manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason Elrod wrote: | I gotta say Randall those pictures don't seem to help your case at all. 1/2 of those shots seem to have some edge to edge contact. To my untrained eye . . . just looking at the images. . . nothing more. I'd say that the below pics have some edge to edge contact:
Pic 3
Pic 5
Pic 6
Pic 9
Pic 10
Of course there is no 90 degree contact.
I wonder if someone from each side of the arguement could summarize their position for me in a succinct manner. |
I'd have to agree, definitely some edge to edge there......
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In most all of those pictures, the flat was offered to take the blow and not the edge. Nobody is saying that the edges do not ever touch. However there is a difference between directing the edge towards the incoming blow and directing the flat to take the blow.
The times where this comes to my mind are the upper and lower hangings, or ochs and pflug. The idea is to take the blow on the flat while keeping the sword pointed at the other person and ready for a thrust. If the other person steps in confidently enough, they may even impale themselves. This is what John C appears to be doing in many of the photos by taking the blow in pflug. Hanging point is another technique demonstrated in the photos when the flat is expressly used to receive the blow. Hanging point is a very dynamic technique instead of a static block, however it is also the easiest technique with which to make sure the other person's sword hits yours squarely on the flat.
This comes as clarification of the pictures and to clarify at least my stance on this issue. To point to areas where we probably all agree...
Banging edges together damage blades. When practicing effective techniques and according to the historic teachers, edges do come into contact. Usually the angle is not so severe as to damage the blade. Oh and deliberate edge bashing like what is seen in movies or in stage combat is neither historical, martial, or artistic.
I think that last point was the purpose of the original ARMA article. Here on this forum we are a bit more refined in our understanding of edge contact then what was stated in that article three years ago. What other things can we all find to agree on?
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
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Christian,
Not to get involved in the whole flat to edge war (Not a pacifist per se but anyways). The quillons are in a fine location even if using flat as most blades on impact are not going to be completely staight and the blade somewhat at a diagnal angle to it. Not sure that makes sense but it was a try. I usually have to draw it.
As far a stops. I noted that it is more popular from what I can see in the early modern period. Having worked a bit in arms and armour collections I notes that many sword had the forte thick and unsharpened. Maybe related to sword type or time? Maybe the sword evolved for it? That said I think as has been said before a straight 90 degree hit edge to edge is possible but unlikely.
I do not think most of those pictures look edge to edge as much as they look like waster distortion. The ones using swords do look clearer to me as not.
Interesting debate.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason Elrod wrote: | I gotta say Randall those pictures don't seem to help your case at all. 1/2 of those shots seem to have some edge to edge contact. To my untrained eye . . . just looking at the images. . . nothing more. I'd say that the below pics have some edge to edge contact:
Pic 3
Pic 5
Pic 6
Pic 9
Pic 10
Of course there is no 90 degree contact. |
Jason
Given that the middle of a sharp sword is always thicker then its edges you are right that it is next to impossible to have a perfect 90 degree contact. However, you must admit that there is a big difference between the edge-to-flat actions shown in the ARMA pictures compared to the head-on direct edge-to-edge actions shown in the pictures from WAMW 2005.
Picture 3: It is comepletely clear that the defendign blade is being bent downward. Given that the flat of the defending blade is completely visiable and the view of the picture is from above the fighter who is cutting down it is impossible for their blades to be meeting head-on. If the edge of the defending blade had been turned into the cut then it would have appeared as a thin line in the picture just like the other blade.
Picture 5: What is important to notice in this picture is that John has presented his flat to protect his right side, he has not turned his edge into the cut. The resulting impact would have been at a lower enough angle that had this action had been performed with sharp swords the edges would not have dug into each other.
Picture 6: If there is one thing I can assure you is that John does not present his edge when performing a hanging. From the guards of John's sword is it clear that his edge is not turned into the cut.
Picture 9: Jake's sword is still angled off to his right. Jake's sword will travel around to almost be where his point is in line with his training partner's face before it impacts the training partner's blade. Again, any edge contact is at a very low angle, thus the edges will not bite into each other. I also note again that Jake appears to be pulling his cut so as to not hit his training partner in the head. If Jake's sword was being shown at the point of impact then the training partner would be receiving an impact upside his head. Plus Jakes sword would have to be about six feet long to stick out that far behind the other man's head.
Picture 10: Again it is important to note that John has presented his flat rather than his edge. With the flat present any edge contact will be at a low angle. If the edge was presented then there would be a very hard edge-to-edge impact that could possibly cause a major gouge in one or both blades.
To summerise, not one of the ARMA pictures show a hard head-on edge-to-edge impact.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Randall,
I'm sorry, but regarding picture 6, I simply don't believe what you're saying. John's edge is *clearly* turned against his opponents; it's obvious in the photo, both from the position of the blade itself and from the position of John's hands.
And this is for a good reason too: the closest thing to a hanging parry, and we should be clear here that this term stems largely from John's early misreading of the Ochs guard, is the series of Bogen (bowing) techniques found in Leckuchner's Messerfechten, originally appearing in 1478. Interestingly, by the end of the 15th c., these techniques are then incorporated, in modified form, into the mainstream of longsword practice. Peter Falkner is the first to really show this, but it becomes a part of the repertoire by the 16th c.
Against the stroke JC is encountering, it's inevitable that there will be edge contact if one uses such a parry, particularly if it involves countercutting into the stroke.
On an unrelated note, in photo 7, JC should have his short edge presented downward, instead of the orientation he has it in. I wondered about this for a long time after reading von Danzig, but realized it's to prevent the problem in this picture, that is, if you hold the short edge up, your right wrist has to break, rather than remaining strong and straight.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Christian
Thanks for the reply.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Also, at least one of the parries in Pflug look like it would have considerable edge contact. |
Possible, but you will notice that the edge of the defending blade was not turned into the cut.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | it simply isn't possible to accept all blows on the flat and still maintain a counter-offensive. |
True. But with rare exceptions using the flat does almost always allows a counter action, where as a hard edge-to-edge action, with rare exceptions, almost never do. For example, if when perform a hanging you turn your edge into the cut then your edge is not aligned for a follow up cut after the adversary's blade has passed by. If lthe blades gouge into each other then they can stick together rather than flow apart. One the other hand, if the flat is presented by turning you right palm up and forward then you can make a very quick follow up cut because your edge is already aligned. If the flat is presented by turning the palm down (this is weaker) during a hanging then one has blade alignment for a very quick Zwerchhau
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
BTW - don't you find it the least bit strange that if the flat were the primary parrying surface that the quillons' position makes little sense? |
No. In my experience it is extremely rare for any ARMA member to be hit on the hands when sitting aside a cut from Pflug. There are two exceptions that come to mine. Newbies will often attempt to set aside a cut with their hilt/hands rather than their blade. But pain teaches so they quickly learn to pull their hilts back out of the way of incoming cuts. The more senior students will sometimes fail to perform a technique correctly. For example, on rare occasion in the DFW study group someone practicing a hanging drill will yell "CUT" to their training partner and then they fail to perform the hanging. Since our drills also involve the other training partner practicing hitting another person such a failure can lead to a nice pop on the head. But pain teaches. In ARMA the guards are not viewed as hand protection, rather they are view as instrutments for controlling the other blade during binding actions. Like the rest of the sword the guards are also view as weapons.
All the best,
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Elrod
|
| Posted: Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So no one wants to try to summarize their position for me?
The reason that I ask is that I'm not so sure that the positions between the two sides are so different.
I could be wrong but it looks like both sides are saying that proper technique will insure an effective parry. And I don't think that either side would advocate changing the actions of the technique in order to insure that the blade contact occurs directly on the flat or on the edge . . . or is this the rub?
So the physical mechanics involved during the techniques will give you the appropriate parry. And where the blades hit will be a function of angles involved. So If I present the wrong counter to a cut then I could have a 90 degree edge on edge contact. . . accidentally. Now In executing the wrong counter I wouldn't try to adjust the angle of my blade in order to accept the blow on the flat of my blade. . . would I? Executing the proper technique seems more important and getting the appropriate response to the attack would be even better since I'd like to live.
So if I defend against a strike with an appropriate counter/parry there will be miniumal edge on edge contact based upon the mechanics of the actions themselves. Correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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