Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Edge to Flat Cuts Video Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next 
Author Message
Lancelot Chan
Industry Professional



Location: Hong Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 1,273

PostPosted: Sun 10 Jun, 2007 7:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

All the swords that I've worked with, ranging from Albion to Atrim, Tinker to Cold Steel, Windlass, you name it... all the edge to flat contact would result in the edge being blunted immediately. The same with the winding move. Perhaps not many practitioners tried to use sharp edge against another sword? Otherwise, this would be a well known and obvious effect. The blunting I mean, doesn't result in the blade unable to cut. But the slicing ability would be greatly decreased to the degree of being ineffective.

Greg Coffman wrote:
Mr. Chan, not knowing the swords you are working with, it sounds like your swords have either too thin, too keen, or too soft an edge.

Edge to edge contact is not the same as edge to edge parries. ARMA doesn't like edge to edge parries but we have never said that there won't be edge to edge parries.

With blade damage, some is to be expected. With normal usage nicks and scratches are normal. However, much more serious edge damage can result from hard edge to edge parries which then cannot be grinded out easily or without substantial reshaping of the blade. That is what I have been taught.

Ancient Combat Association óhttp://www.acahk.org
Realistic Sparring Weapons ó http://www.rsw.com.hk
Nightstalkers ó http://www.nightstalkers.com.hk
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Angus Trim




Location: Seattle area
Joined: 26 Aug 2003

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 870

PostPosted: Sun 10 Jun, 2007 9:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lancelot Chan wrote:
All the swords that I've worked with, ranging from Albion to Atrim, Tinker to Cold Steel, Windlass, you name it... all the edge to flat contact would result in the edge being blunted immediately. The same with the winding move. Perhaps not many practitioners tried to use sharp edge against another sword? Otherwise, this would be a well known and obvious effect. The blunting I mean, doesn't result in the blade unable to cut. But the slicing ability would be greatly decreased to the degree of being ineffective.

Greg Coffman wrote:
Mr. Chan, not knowing the swords you are working with, it sounds like your swords have either too thin, too keen, or too soft an edge.

Edge to edge contact is not the same as edge to edge parries. ARMA doesn't like edge to edge parries but we have never said that there won't be edge to edge parries.

With blade damage, some is to be expected. With normal usage nicks and scratches are normal. However, much more serious edge damage can result from hard edge to edge parries which then cannot be grinded out easily or without substantial reshaping of the blade. That is what I have been taught.


Hi Lance

Good points.........this almost could be spun off to another thread of what happens to an edge when used appropriately, or inappropriately. And lets not forget such variables as sharpness right at the edge, edge geometry, edge hardness, grain size, and all kinds of other kool variables.......

Very simply, edges degrade over time. Cleaning an edge with a cloth can degrade the edge somewhat {hopefully, less than microscopically each time}, polishing will affect an edge, touching an edge can degrade an edge, and corrosion has an affect........

So, if this happens, what happens during a cut? What happens when a bottle is cut, or a mat? What happens when a pork shoulder is cut? What happens when a blade binds with another, and the edges run down one another? Etc and so on.........

What happens to a "paper cutting sharp" edge vs a "sword sharp" edge in these kinds of contacts?

All good questions, and questions that have been answered to an extent in the past, but not to any real depth, and lets face it, there's new info available today............

swords are fun
View user's profile Send private message
Lancelot Chan
Industry Professional



Location: Hong Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 1,273

PostPosted: Sun 10 Jun, 2007 9:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would like to make it clear that my posts about the edge to flat contact would blunt the edges were in no ways as complaints of the swords' quality. I just wanted to share this fact to the community. Many people concern about edge to edge damage, but some may not aware that edge to flat also inflict damage to the edge as well, or how light a contact would ruin a slicing edge. It was enlightening for me and helped me to understand more why so many thrusting techniques were presented in the period manual. Once the swords engaged in bind and wind, the edges lose their bite fast. A cut will still work, a slice may not. The blunter the edge, the harder for the cut to work. But then, even a rounded point could thrust to lethal effect. It is the longest lasting offensive function. One may even say that a broken blade can still deliver deadly thrust, not to mention that thrusting also work against armor a lot better than cutting as well as slicing. From this rationale I think it's easy to see why the point of the longsword was well favored in many traditions.

Just want to make sure that Gus didn't take my replies as in the wrong way. Wink

Ancient Combat Association óhttp://www.acahk.org
Realistic Sparring Weapons ó http://www.rsw.com.hk
Nightstalkers ó http://www.nightstalkers.com.hk
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Angus Trim




Location: Seattle area
Joined: 26 Aug 2003

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 870

PostPosted: Sun 10 Jun, 2007 10:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lancelot Chan wrote:
I

Just want to make sure that Gus didn't take my replies as in the wrong way. Wink


Oh no, Lance not at all.........

Actually supporting what you said and adding to it.

There's no such thing as a bullet proof edge. Some edges will hold up better than others, but there are so many variables to this, I don't think they can be easily counted, nor would they all come up in a single thread, even a thread devoted to it..........

swords are fun
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Mon 11 Jun, 2007 9:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Steven

Sorry for taking so long to reply. You do present some good comments and questions.


Steven H wrote:
The parry against zwerchau. The parry demonstrated was John Clements scooting back and doing a very high sheitelhau type strike on top of the flat of the incoming blade. However if the attacker performed the zwerchau with a slope step to the right (as instructed for all attacks by Doebringer) then the parry fails to defend against the attack. The defender is struck by a blade angled around their own. Also the attacker (John Clements) is not threatening his opponent with this displacement. To counter attack he must first clear his opponents blade and then counter attack, because he has stepped back and out of measure. So he takes three tempi: parry, clear/step in, riposte.

The counter shown by John Clements in the video is made in reaction to the Zwerchau. If a Zwerchau is made with a step offline the you would be reacting to it. Regardless of what type of step is made by the adversary you cut down on his blade, where ever the blade is.

You are right that the counter cut does not threaten the adversary. However, (a) you have prevented him from cutting you with and (b) you are normally left in a better position than you adversary. The adversary may Zucken by throwing a second Zwerchau to your right side. You can counter his second Zwerchau by throwing your own Zwerchau to your right side (his left). Since the adversary's first Zwerchau was knocked down his second Zwerchau will most likely follow a high path, while your Zwerchau will most likely follow a low path. Thus, your Zwerchau cuts him and his edge impacts the upper flat of your blade.


Quote:
Additionally this parry is easily deceived by attacking the low line or a change through.

Being deceived is always a possibility. But part of the skill set that one must learn is recognizing a fake cut from a commited cut.


Quote:
The defense against zwerchhau that I prefer, and I believe is supported by the text is a Zornhau with a slope pass forward. This defense closes the line against an opponent who slope steps and also threatens the attacker and the counter-attack can be made immediately as the defender is in range.

We may be working from different interpretations of the same text but I'm not sure. In any case do keep in mind that the Zwerchau not only breaks the guard Vom Tag, it also is used to counter what comes from that guard. Cutting a Zorn to close the line suggest to me (I haven't seen you do this yet) that after the impact of the blades that the adversary will be in the better position for a follow up cut.


Quote:

The hanging parry. John Clements demonstrates a hanging parry with the blade 90 degrees off from the line of engagement, receiving the opponents blade on his flat, and he does not step. I am not aware of a text which describes or illustrates a hanging parry made like this.

The only similar parries of which I am aware are made with a deep pass forward to move inside the point of the opponents weapon, frequently to grapple. This version seems more martially sound because in the parry demonstrated by John Clements it is too easy for the attacker to merely change through and thrust.

The footwork used with a hanging parry will depend upon the situation. You can step offline to either side and follow up with a cut, you can stay put or step in so as to follow up with a thrust, or (as you stated) step into/pass the adversary to grapple. In this video http://www.thearma.org/Videos/mov2.mpg John Clements uses a hange parry to Run Though an attack to cut to the back of the leg.


Quote:
I think this summarizes well the objections many have to ARMA's approach to this issue. By trying to make sure that all parries don't damage the sword some techniques are compromised.

Doing things as described in the texts leads to most parries causing no blade damage and only effective parries.

It is not really a matter of making sure parries don't damage our edges. It is more of a process of coming up with an interpretation of a technique and then taking a very hard look at it. You check to make sure the interpretation matchs the historical text and that it is martially sound. If the interpretation does not work at full speed and intent against an unwilling adversary it is not martiallly sound. We must make the assumption that the masters were themselves very martially sound, thus if the interpretation of the masters is not martially sound then are you really doing what the masters say? You also have to ask yourself, if an interpretation requires you to seriously damage your weapon is it martially sound? If an interpretation requires you to seriously damage your weapon is it really matching what the master said?

All the best,

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
View user's profile Send private message
Kyro R. Lantsberger





Joined: 21 Apr 2006

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed 13 Jun, 2007 5:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
Hi Glen!

My own personal view, admittedly unsubantiated at this time, is that the teachings we see recorded in the manuscripts is a superset of some skills that would have been more universal.


My thinking is starting to move in this direction as well. Ive got some analogies which I think apply here, which I am still trying to articulate well.

#1 First, a great deal of the problem in HEMA is a bit of an inferiority complex arising from the fact that we dont have an unbroken tradition like many Asian arts do.

#2 Second, I really dont think that #1 matters a great deal. Lets look at our own contemporary martial arts......Jigoro Kano founded Judo in what, the 1880s? In 120 years we now have Kodokan Judo, Sambo, Kosen Judo, and Brazilian JuJitsu developed out of Kano's original syllabus. These arts, though similar in many ways, emphasize different skill sets and idealize certain aspects of grappling, and even different sub-sets of material.....Kosen Judo emphasizes newaza (mat grappling) much like Brazilian Jujitsu but the flavor(?) is still more pin and control oriented compared to what you will see in BJJ.

Or take Tai Chi Chuan in the same manner. From the Golden Age Time of Yang Cheng Fu/Sun Lu Tang, lets say 1920s, early 1930s, there has been an INCREDIBLE amount of diversity between schools and different teachers who share the same base material. Some groups went completely into the health/chi development side of things. Other groups kept the combative tradition, but even within the schools that retained combat training some emphasized joint locking, others throwing, others a trap boxing method much like Wing Chun.

Consider also that in the modern era we have photos, video, and peer review, yet still have the situation where 5 different Tai Chi schools will have 5 different ways of performing a technique, or using the other example we could find different judo schools, and even different individual judoka modifying their grips to gain certain advantages.

I also forget that it is well documented that Moreihei Ueshiba taught his art differently at different stages of his life and devlopment, and I can concur with this same effect in my long term training with different Chinese masters.

Taken all together, I think if we impose our modern experience into HEMA, I think we are looking to find a "magic bullet" where one might not exist. Combat is fluid, brutal, and unpredictable. All of the masters are giving us what they found to be high-percentage/advantageous from the background of their experience and teaching.

I havent used the terms edge or flat here up to this point <----hey, I used point, too!!! I think that these either/or questions which become so frustrating feel that way because it isnt the question at hand which is the problem, it is the larger issue of interpretation of manuals, understanding the period masters, and the uncomfortable-in-a-good-way feeling that we dont know everything yet.
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Mele
Industry Professional



Location: Chicago, IL USA
Joined: 20 Mar 2006

Posts: 356

PostPosted: Wed 13 Jun, 2007 11:09 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall,

I wrote a much longer reply, which IE ate, so I'm going to be much more succinct this time. Please knock off the intentional misquoting and quoting out of context. First you did it with Guy, and even after the man had someone post his clarification of his comments, you persist in doing it. Now you are doing it with me.

Randall Pleasant wrote:
[quoteNeither you or Greg Mele have enough of The Truth to allow you to claim that this issue has been "thoroughly debunked". Far from it. You have an interpretation of the period text, nothing more. You do not speak for the historical masters. The only bottom line in this issue is that you and your friends have an interpretation and ARMA has an interpretation. As I explained to Greg, I have not studied Viggiani but in the quote from Viggiani I read nothing that required me to damage my edge. Of course, Greg disagees and that's find


No Randall, I don't. Let me be clear. I NEVER SAID THAT PARRYING AS VIGGIANI ADVISES WILL DAMAGE YOUR SWORD. I QUOTED THE MASTER, WHO SAYS THAT IF YOU FOLLOW HIS ADVICE YOUR *BLUNT* FORTE WILL STRIKE HIS SHARP DEBOLE AND *HIS* SWORD MAY BE BROKEN.

Is that clear?

You and John Clements have built a mythology wherein there is a "flat parry" camp and an "edge parry" camp. But it is a myth. If you read what I and others have written - and quoted directly from the source material - its been made clear that parries in medieval and early Renaissance swordsmanship occur one of three ways:

edge to edge - (which ARMA denies)
edge to the attacker's flat (which ARMA uses)
flat, receiving the attack (which ARMA uses).

Edge to edge is further subdivided by making a hard block or "stop" on your forte above the cross, or striking into a cut with a cut of your own. Most serious HEMA practitioners are aware of and use all three of these categories. So the first myth is that ARMA is doing something no one else is.

Then there are the videos. One shows John striking with his edge against someone's flat. Great! But arguments on whether it's a good Zornhau aside, what's it prove? That John can parry edge to flat - like most of us do. That doesn't disprove the fact that the texts specifically tell you to also parry edge-to-edge.

Then there is a video of John slamming a sword at a 90 degree angle into a stationary weapon, so their blades meet in the middle. We then get to see all of the edge damage. This would be meaningful if it at all reflected an edge parry used by anyone other than kids in their backyards or bad stage combat.

A static parry would be made with the forte - not the middle of the blade - stepping into the attack to abosrb and stop it before the cut was in full force. A deflection with the edge would be cutting into his cut and deflecting it - not slamming into a stationary object. Nothing in the video remotely resembles what anyone who's been arguing with you calls an edge parry.

So the videos prove nothing. I gave you textual evidence from the men who lived and died doing this, and they record all of the methods I list above. Viggiani's description of how to parry is the basic methods taught in the Bolognese school - the dominant tradition of Italian fencing for the 200 years your organization focuses on. They are not outliers. There is exactly one time that you are told to parry on your flat in the six texts that survive - it's in Marozzo - and a few where you strike their flat. But by and large it is deflections with your edge against his edge and blocks with the dull forte. I can *document* that.

There is nothing to interpret in someone telling you "parry by striking his flat' as found in the Krumphau, nor is there anything to interpret in "your swords will clash, edge to edge." That's explicit. I'm sorry that your director has written multiple essays and articles debunking "edge parries", and did so based on the teaching of Hank Reinhardt, not the historical masters, (I know that because, reading neither Italian or German, he had never seen textual evidence of a flat parry until I provided him with the quotes I found while researching my SPADA article in 1999.) and for whatever reason he is patently incapable of admitting he was wrong about this in the same way that Steve Hand admitted he was wrong that there was no evidence of flat parries.

But that doesn't change the fact that you cannot produce one piece of evidence from an historical master-at-arms that says to only parry on the flat, nor one that says don't parry with your edge, not one. So instead you take the argument out of context and debunk things that people have never claimed to do, all the while trying to find ways to read multiple levels of meaning into any actual source material that contradicts the official dogma.

Itís been clear for years that you have no interest in discussion, debate or any meaningful dialogue. This is religion and you are here to proselytize and make converts, not get to the truth. But have the decency to preach without intentionally misquoting people and without continuing to misrepresent what a parry edge-to-edge is, or promote the mythology of the edge parry camp and flat parry camp. We both use the edge, we both use the flat, and itís just that you refuse to believe the swords are used edge-to-edge. Continuing to do otherwise is disingenuous at best, lying at worst.

The sad thing is, Nathan and Chad will probably have to lock this thread before it is done as well. Iím sorry for that; as a moderator on a forum I hate being in the middle of this. But that is part of your modus operandi: you politely argue, then as your argument goes south, you intentionally misquote and put words in the others mouths, then you get indignant and begin to insinuate and insult until they take the bait. At which point the moderator has to close the thread and folks remember the mud-slinging, not that you couldnít carry the debate. Youíve done this on multiple forums, you do it on YouTube, for Godís sake. Itís the lowest form of praying on otherís civility and attempting to keep everyone playing nice.

Chad, my apologies, but this is an old, tired road. Iíll refrain from posting further on this thread.

Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jun, 2007 9:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greg

My responce to your very long message will be made in parts as I do not have the time to address everything at once.

Greg Mele wrote:
Please knock off the intentional misquoting and quoting out of context. First you did it with Guy, and even after the man had someone post his clarification of his comments, you persist in doing it. Now you are doing it with me.

Again, I clearly did not in any manner misquote Guy Windsor out of context.

Guy Windsor wrote: "...something else training with sharps teaches you is the damage contact does to the edges; much of my opinion about how to parry with a longsword is designed to save your edge; hitting his flat doesn't damage your edge nearly so much..."

Read Guy's statement and you will see that the context of his statement is actually found within the statement.

From Guy's statement it is clear that:
A) The context is "training with sharps".
B) Guy experienced edge damage.
C) Guy's opinion on how to parry is designed to save [protect ?] the edges.
D) Hitting the flat does not cause as much damage.

If you feel that something in the above is unclear then please do explain it.

Again, that you, Guy, or anyone else don't like that I used the quote does not mean that I mis-quoted Guy. If Guy mis-stated himself then he can, of course, post a new statement. As an educated man, you know that the written words of people are quoted all the time, regardless of whither or not they approve of it. So please stop these silly personal attacks.


Quote:
The sad thing is, Nathan and Chad will probably have to lock this thread before it is done as well. Iím sorry for that; as a moderator on a forum I hate being in the middle of this. But that is part of your modus operandi: you politely argue, then as your argument goes south, you intentionally misquote and put words in the others mouths, then you get indignant and begin to insinuate and insult until they take the bait. At which point the moderator has to close the thread and folks remember the mud-slinging, not that you couldnít carry the debate. Youíve done this on multiple forums, you do it on YouTube, for Godís sake. Itís the lowest form of praying on otherís civility and attempting to keep everyone playing nice.

That you don't like the way this discussion has gone is not a reason in and of itself to the thread locked. Stop the personal attacks and there will be less chance that the moderators will have to. Please note, you are right in that I have been polite, my argument has not gone south, I have not mis-quoted anyone, I have am not indignant nor have I insulted, nor have I baited anyone. Many ARMA members have a long memories of our experience of your and other's civility, one only has to read through this thread to understand our experience.


Quote:
Chad, my apologies, but this is an old, tired road. Iíll refrain from posting further on this thread.

That either you or I become tired of this thread should have no impact upon this thread. The next time an ARMA member post a link to a video please do consider taking any needs for rest.


Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
View user's profile Send private message
Christian Henry Tobler
Industry Professional



Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 690

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jun, 2007 10:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall,

No one has attacked you personally. They have however attacked your method of debate, a method that is provocative, and frankly, reprehensible.

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jun, 2007 8:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This topic was temporarily removed from public view to allow the participants within it to cool down, gather themselves, and get back to acting professionally on this site. Please see Chad's Moderator Notice regarding this decision.

I'm going to repeat what he has said here and then I'll add a bit of my own commentary afterwards.

The expectations of every member of this site on every discussion topic include:
    *Do conduct yourself in a professional manner. We support forum members engaging in constructive debate, disagreeing with the opinions of others, or requesting further information or even the citation of references. We do, however, expect this to be done in a respectful manner and without personal attacks. If you don't agree with somebody's post, argue with the post's content, not with the person who made it.
    *Do not troll our forums. Posting with the specific intent of stirring up trouble or inciting disruption will not be tolerated.
    *Try to avoid duplicating topics already discussed. Use the forum's search function to check if the topic you wish to post exists in the forum already. It's very possible that a similar discussion has already taken place.


We've attempted to get this message out to the entire myArmoury.com community since the birth of this site. For the most part, the message has been heard and I'm pleased with the results. But there are times that I've been baffled by the inability for some to understand the expectation of professionalism. It is to these people that I say this:

1) Any person offering up a challenge of physical confrontation to another person, be it a direct challenge or inferred, will be permanently banned from this site. I don't care if the challenge is fueled by violence and anger or competitive sportsmanship or even with a sincere desire to educate. The bottom line is if I see this, I will use my judgment on the matter and issue the consequence. Those of you who have been guilty of doing this in any form should be ashamed of yourselves. Imagine how the rest of the world reads these kinds of things. You give this entire hobby a serious injury by such behavior.

2) I welcome discussion, disagreement and debate. Do it with respect. Act professionally. If you do things to stir the pot, annoy and embarrass others, or to insult another member, I'll get rid of you. Some of the people in this very topic have recently lost their ability to post for a matter of weeks. I will keep this up and will issue permanent removal of posting rights should it continue. I have no desire to have this site turned into a cesspool of such behaviors.

3) Respectful and professional debate and discussion does not include disingenuous attempts to discredit others. It does not include deliberately taking information or words out of context. It does not include red herring tactics and snide, sarcastic remarks to others. Heed these words.

4) If you find your posting rights removed, I will message you with a short and to-the-point message indicating the length of such action. This issue has already caused me too much work as it is and so I will not explain any further or respond to you should you wish to whine to me after the fact.

5) Please do not confuse this message for me indicating that every member of this topic is guilty of misbehaving. There are some that have behaved well and others who have not. I'm not about to single anybody out in public here. I simply want you all to find a way within yourselves to discuss topics in which you are passionate with respect for your fellow colleagues and community members. I want it to be perfectly clear that the inability to do so is what will cause you to lose the ability for any form of discussion here; not your inability to agree. If I need to simplify it further I offer this: find it in yourself to learn to disagree.

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Christian Henry Tobler
Industry Professional



Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 690

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jun, 2007 9:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dear Nathan,

I think anyone reasonable should be able to follow these guidelines. I for one will be harkening back to your rules, as stated above, when posting with regard to any potentially contentious topic.

Thank you for the clarity and reasonableness of your post.

Respectfully,

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Travis Canaday




Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 145

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jun, 2007 10:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randal,

I think the reason the videos and your comments get people all worked up is because they take the tone of ďARMA is the only one who is doing things right, everyone else doesnít know what they are talking about.Ē Your and John Clementsís comments basically question both the historical and martial validity of everyoneís sword work but ARMAís.

You may not have been misquoting Guy Windsor, but to use that quotation of his along side your argument could be seen as misrepresenting Guyís opinion on the issue. It seems as though you are using his name to lend credit to the theory that edge on edge parries are not correct historical technique, nor martially sound. Clearly Guy does not feel this way.

Guy Windsor wrote:
...one should parry with your edge, as the most stable part of your weapon, but do so where possible against his flat, for maximum effect and minimum damage to your sword. However many of the documentable techniques do involve edge contact, with attendant damage to the weapon, which was clearly acceptable to our forebears...

Travis
View user's profile Send private message
Gary A. Chelette




Location: Houston, Texas
Joined: 29 May 2007
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 337

PostPosted: Fri 15 Jun, 2007 9:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mr. Christian Henry Tobler,

I've been to your site and I am interested and I'd like to start a separate thread with your permission.
I do not fight with live steel, nor do I belong to any group that does. But I do see a couple of things that may help me in my fighting form and I'd like to ask some questions on method.
I have competed for many years in the SCA and fought with a "Bastard Sword" in many events and have done well.
I'd like to improve upon my technique and ask how you and others approach certain aspects.

Though we use rattan not steel, I'm sure the mechanics are the same.

Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Christian Henry Tobler
Industry Professional



Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 690

PostPosted: Fri 15 Jun, 2007 9:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hello Gary,

Absolutely, go right ahead. I'll be happy to field any questions you have.

We use steel for some practice, and some light bouting, but for our tournament fighting we're using Lance Chan's very excellent padded swords.

But, I agree with you...your use of rattan shouldn't impede our conversation at all: I've bouted with outstanding combatants coming out of the SCA, the European reenactment scene, Asian arts, etc. A good fighter's a good fighter, no matter what medium he trained in.

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,462

PostPosted: Thu 29 Sep, 2011 8:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

ok... yes im ressurecting THIS old thread which seemed to get as tense as the cuban missile crisis

but i have a genuine qestion

most of this topic is on pretty much only ONE tweapons use, the 2 handed sword and its usage but what does the literature say on OTHER weapons
messer?
ageorge silver broadsword (prety much arming sword or side sword

highliand broadsword?

sword and buckler?


viking style sword and shield?

polish sabre fencing?

any variety of chinese indian or arabian techniques?


i am in particular keen to know about how arming sword in absence of shields or sidearms were used
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sam Gordon Campbell




Location: Australia.
Joined: 16 Nov 2008

Posts: 678

PostPosted: Thu 29 Sep, 2011 6:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William,

I'm used to Silver primarily (but I'm trying to learn a bit of everything under the sun [longsword is nice, but it just doesn't do it for me]) so as far as I am aware using a weapon alone (and I assume you mean unarmoured) timing and distance are your "armour", whilst ones weapon has to be your "shield" as it were.
Single handed weapons (whether or not used in conjunction with a buckler or off-hand weapon) in my limited experience and limited reading (but more so in my experience from bouting) seems to be a case of "When, where, and why". Biomechanicaly it makes sense to use ones edge closest to the hilt as your knuckles, wrist, elbow etc., all line up so when one wards/blocks it stops the momentum dead. Does it damage both swords? Yes. If you did it all the time would it be bad for your weapon? Yes, but I'd rather have a notched blade than a notched nose.
That being said, using the flat means one can (again in my limited experience) riposte quite rapidly and allows one to "flow" more. That being said it seems to be a trained response rather than a "Oh shit!" natural reflex.
Edge to flat: Edge beats flat statically, but flat ripostes more easily.
To each their own I guess.

Edit: I guess I should point out that I'm a big proponent of, even though you like a particular style/system/school/culture/whatever, learning a little bit of everything and all so as that oneself is more well rounded imho.

Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.
View user's profile Send private message
Aleksei Sosnovski





Joined: 04 Mar 2008

Posts: 313

PostPosted: Thu 29 Sep, 2011 11:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I may be wrong, but I think later (18-19 century) fencing manuals for saber often if not always show solid blocks with the edge. But then again, some sabers had first third of the blade blunt just for that purpose. And these manuals were made to quickly teach people who never held a sword before.

I don't remember manuals showing solid blocks with crossguard (except using nagel on messers), but my experience shows that crossguard can be used very effectively to stop incoming blows, especially in case of two-handed swords (it is possible to stop a huge zweihander with a light longsword this way). When blocking with crossguard, incoming weapon usually strikes the egde of your sword near the crossguard and then slides to the crossguard thus blunting your sword but not making any deep nicks. That all works very well with simple solid crossguards (and if the handle is done properly crossguard does not become loose after tens of such blocks), but complex hilts of the later centuries seem to be too delicate. But then again, it is probably better to have ones hilt damaged rather than the blade.

Single-edged weapons also have the blunt "edge" to block with.

A separate case are blocks where you allow incoming blade to slide along you blade, for example when you deflect a vertical blow from above by placing your blade in the blow's path with the point lower than the hilt. If you do such block with the edge, you will most likely have your sword instantly deprived of its cutting ability because large part of the edge you blocked with will be totally blunt.

Shortly, there are numerous ways to avoid an incoming blow. I believe that some simple actions such as blocks with the edge or the crossguard were not depicted in the medieval and renaissance manuals because they were a common knowledge. One could even deliberately block with the edge to damage opponent's sword if he knew his own sword was better/sturdier. And surviving a fight is of course much more important than not damaging ones weapon. But it is logical to assume that in times when good weapons were expensive and fencing was a part of everyday life people were learning to use their weapons without damaging them, thus not blocking with the sharp edge unless it was absolutely necessary. And if we want to recreate medieval fencing we should do the same.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Fri 30 Sep, 2011 9:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William,

For sword and buckler look into the I33 MS. It is very good and some great information in it. Are you specifically asking how these swords are used rather flat on edge or edge on edge, etc.? Or general use.

Since many of these MS relating to fencing/fighting are not always 100 clear interpretation is key, so if you can look with a broad eye and if you can the originals.

http://freywild.ch/i33/i33en.html

Alex,

I agree. This seems very much how I think about it.

I always wonder how commonly utilized some of the more abusive stops and blocks on edges the masters were teaching were. Of course the possible use of it is there but was the scenario these were to be used like pulling your car into the median to avoid the blazing five car pile up in front of you. You know the car is going to get trashed, likely destroyed but you have a better chance of survival than the issue before you. Some thing you knew you could do but only if necessity required it over things that would be less egregious to your sword (hence survival). Like any tool if it fails when you are relying on it you are dead, or have a higher likelihood of soon becoming so. I cannot imagine some one purposely damaging something in such a dangerous place unless motivated by little other choice. In many situations it seems there are a number of possible actions or reactions to make, which I suppose is the basis of my question.

I have no doubt that in some scenarios such techniques were employed and useful but there must be some serious thought and training to use them all where appropriate.

As to knowing your sword is of a better quality and counting on it breaking your foes weapon........ highly unlikely to my mind. The science of metallurgy was inexact at best during this time frame. I doubt many people could go into battle knowing their arms, armour and other equipment were so good they could count on such factors in their advantage.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Dustin R. Reagan





Joined: 09 May 2006

Posts: 264

PostPosted: Fri 30 Sep, 2011 9:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Aleksei Sosnovski wrote:
But it is logical to assume that in times when good weapons were expensive and fencing was a part of everyday life people were learning to use their weapons without damaging them, thus not blocking with the sharp edge unless it was absolutely necessary. And if we want to recreate medieval fencing we should do the same.


I think it's even more logical to assume that they would use blunts or wasters (as seen in many of the existing fechtbuch) when training.
View user's profile Send private message
Mackenzie Cosens




Location: Vancouver Canada
Joined: 08 Aug 2007

Posts: 238

PostPosted: Fri 30 Sep, 2011 11:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Back in 2002 Gregory Mele wrote an article in Spada 1 ISBN 1-891448-37-4 called Much to Ado about Nothing with some interesting discussion about flat and edge parries. Its worth a read.

I wonder if he has anything to add to what he wrote int he article


mackenzie
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Edge to Flat Cuts Video
Page 5 of 9 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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 2003-2019 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum