[Randall Pleasant]

Christian

So, I'm not the only one who stays up late into the night.

[Randall Pleasant]

[Greg Coffman]

[Hugh Knight]

[Greg Coffman]

The technique is Hanging Point, a guard, like I have said twice now. It is depicted in Meyer, Talhoffer, and Sutor.
http://www.schielhau.org/Meyer.p9.html
http://www.schielhau.org/talpoint.html#tal23
http://www.schielhau.org/Sutor.text.p6.html
It's pretty common and a technique we teach begginers; first because it is easy and effective, second because it quickly teaches proper use of the flat.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Greg,

The plate in Talhoffer is unlikely to represent Hangentort, as that guard (which is just a high adaptation of Schranckhut) doesn't come into existence until later.

However, this position, in its later incarnation is likely held with the blade facing edge up and down, not with the flat presented. Meyer shows it thus and by this time the artwork is starting to depict blade orientation (though probably not in Sutor, whose illustrations are extremely crude by Meyer's standards).

Also, look carefully at the hands of the hanging point figure in Meyer - there's no way he's presenting his flat.

All the best,

Christian

[Nicholas Zeman]

Jason,


I know you asked for a summary of positions on this question, and I think the problem is that we are all discussing slightly different things and different systems from different periods. Most of the examples and focus of this discussion has revolved around German Longsword, which is fine, but I think it tends to overlook the many other systems of fence with many other weapons, and even the Italian Longsword.

The problem here is that only the Medieval systems are fairly mute about whether to use the edge or the flat in parrying actions. So we can have a big argument over it because the techniques are rarely specific about this, the artwork is subject to interpretation, and there is just so much we still don't know. The Renaissance systems are all very much specific about using the edge to parry with. And often the parry action is done debole to debole (for false edge parries in the Bolognese school), or forte to debole, or middle to middle, all using either the false or true edge of the sword. They did not seem to be concerned with damage to the edge of the sword at all.

Nobody here has really addressed this important 200 year stretch of history, in which the instructions are quite clear, I think because it cannot be disputed based on the writings of the Masters. And to discuss the Bolognese school, or the British Backsword/Baskethilt schools would be to admit that many fencing Masters advocated exactly what the flat parry supporters are arguing against. Once again, this may or may not be directly related to the German Longsword tradition, however we keep using generalizations about parrying, but only arguing about the German longsword side of things. It also makes a difference because John Clements, one of the biggest proponents of parrying with the flat of the sword as opposed to the edge, specifically stated that in Renaissance cut and thrust the flat was used (in his book on the same subject). We know he was wrong about that, because we have the original Master's writings which contradict his statements. I am not making this a personal attack on him or his book, I am simply stating that it is possible to be wrong about this subject, and it has been demonstrated in at least a few areas that the argument was simply incorrect when compared to the actual instructions from the actual Masters of the art.

So here we are, stuck arguing about the same thing, only now all of the examples coming from the flat parry camp are isolated to German Longsword because you will rarely find anything ambiguous about any other school of fence from later periods, who say to make static edge parries quite clearly (yes, Thibault is an exception).

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Travis Canaday]

At least to me, it seems that the people who are really arguing this whole flat vs. edge issue are those on the "flat" side of the argument. They are the ones who believe that proper technique should conform to this idea that the edges should not meet. If this issue wasn't ever mentioned by those who wrote the medieval manuscripts than why should we worry about it? Apparently it didn't matter much to them. As Nicholas mentioned, later masters specifically advocated edge on edge contact. This is a modern argument that began with Clement's modern theory.

[Randall Pleasant]

Nicholas

It appears that you are very much mis-understanding the edge-on-edge issue. Although it has been pointed out many times over the years and several times in this thread I will say again that this issue is NOT concerned with should a parry be made with the edge or should a parry be made with the flat. People on both sides of this issue agree that both the edge and the flat are used depending upon the context of a given techinque. The ONLY thing this issue is concerned with is direct high speed head-on edge-to-edge impacts by very thin sharp swords. If there is no impact, or the impact is at a slow speed, or the impact is at a very low angle, or the swords do not have very thin sharp edges, then it is outside of this issue. Therefore, edge-on-edge is not an issue in winding actions and thrusting actions. Over the years John Clements and other ARMA members, myself included, have repeatedly noted that the swords arts that come along after the Renaissance, such as the saber arts, do include edge-on-edge actions. Therefore, the post Renaissance sword arts are not a part of this issue.

By the way, what is your opinion about Guy Windsor experience?

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW

[Craig Peters]

[Craig Peters]

[Craig Peters]

Hugh,

Also, you haven't taken into account the possibility of exaggeration in period literature. In chivalric literature it's not uncommon for helms to be cloven in two by a sword stroke. To date, I am unaware of anyone who is able to do this with reasonable consistency. The best I have seen is a small split in a helmet from a hard strike, but most of the damage left on the helmet was in the form of a dent. It certainly did not qualify as the helmet being rent asunder. At any rate, hyperbolizing the extent of damage done to the sword certainly is not out of the realm of possibility either.

[Randall Pleasant]

[Nicholas Zeman]

I understand the argument, as I have read every article on the subject posted by ARMA, and participated in many discussions on the subject. I actually do agree that forceful square-on edge on edge contact between two sharp swords will cause damage to one or both swords. I don't think that's really a debate anyone can have, given the results of a simple experiment. I also think that the flat was used quite often in various ways for defensive actions. What I'm not so sure about is the fact that systems of fence and techniques were developed around the fear of damaging the edge of your sword.

When discussing Renaissance swordsmanship, however, we really aren't talking about 19th century saber. The Bolognese school, founded by Dardi (or Bardi), who was a contemporary of Fiore specifically advocates using the edge in parrying actions. They were using sharp cut and thrust swords, with thin edges. They never mention using the flat of the weapon in a defensive manner at all. Now, we can discuss whether the edge of the defending weapon will strike the flat of the attacking weapon, perhaps it does, or makes oblique contact with the edge in some manner. But my point was that in all of the examples of presenting the flat of a sword for defensive purposes, the flat was specifically turned so that the attacking sword would strike it, not the edge. This does not really go along with what Marozzo, Manciolino, or del Aggochie tells you to do (or Viggiani for that matter). They say that you can either use the true edge or the false edge to parry. You can counter-cut, deflect with the false edge, or enter a guard that places the sword between you and your opponent's. But any way you look at it, the instructions given by the Bolognese Masters mean that you will be presenting the edge of your sword to his strike. They don't really say what part of your sword will contact his, and from my own experience more often than not there is an oblique contact, often the forte of the defending weapon taking the force of the blow (when doing the static hard stop). Marozzo's Spadona (2 handed sword) section says that there are two places you can be crossed with another sword, true edge to true edge and false edge to false edge. That sounds a lot like hard edge to edge contact to me.

In several of the images you posted John was using a Pflug guard, with his flat presented to take the force of the cut. Now I understand that this is German Longsword, and not Bolognese sidesword, but in his book he specifically stated that Renaissance sidesword systems used the flat of the sword to parry, so I assume he does something similar with a sidesword. This directly contradicts the Bolognese school writings. Unless we aren't understanding the words of the Masters correctly, you cannot present the flat of your sword to an attack and then say you are using the true edge to parry with.

As far as Guy Windsor goes, I think he had a great section about this issue in his book Swordsman's Companion. He basically stated that using the flat to make a stopping parry instead of the edge was much weaker biomechanically, as you can observe. He then advocates striking the edge into the flat when counter-cutting or deflecting, which I agree with. He also states elsewhere that using the edge in many actions against another edge will cause damage, but that's what cutlers were for.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Nicholas!

[Hugh Knight]

[Hugh Knight]

[Craig Peters]