[Sam Arwas]

The nonsense statement that medieval swordplay features no parrying with the edge whatsoever gets spread a lot by people claiming/thinking that they are well versed in the subject. I'm very curious to understand what brings them to this conclusion. I have read one ridiculous article claiming that edge parrying is not shown in any of the treatises. I have not studied the treatises extensively but even I know that's rubbish. It also seems quite absurd that a person who is in a situation that requires him or her focus on avoiding mortal injury would be particularly concerned about getting their edge damaged.

[Steven Lussenburg]

Matt Easton in one of his Youtube video's mentioned there is an example from parrying with the flat in a Messer treaties.

It is indeed very silly and I doubt anyone who has looked at a sword very closely would support this idea. My feeling is that the idea originates from modern collectors who noticed their expensive collectors blades get damaged with test cutting/playing around. Only in such an innocent environment you could come up with a theory like that.

Anyone realising that swords are to kill and in a fight you have something else to worry about than damaging your edge (like not getting killed) would never buy such a story.

[T. Kew]

Some factions in the Western Martial Arts community have advanced the idea at length. ARMA are noted for it, at least historically, although I don't know their current doctrine on the subject (because they keep their doctrines secret).

For me, I don't care much about damage or practicality, although both can be interesting to consider. What I care about is the instructions of the sources I study. Time and time again throughout Ringeck, we are instructed to turn the edge towards the opponents sword, to fall upon their sword with the edge, to cleave into their sword, and so on. Not once are we instructed* to deliberately bind with the flat of our sword.

Some of these will bind on the opponents edge, and some on their flat. Which happens is irrelevant to me: what's relevant is that the action I do with my sword is what's instructed.

My suspicion is that the reason for this is a practical one. A sword is much stiffer in the plane of the edge, and will be able to receive and transmit much more force without you losing control. If you hold a sword out in langort and have an opponent strike the flat, it will be driven away. Turn the edge towards their cut, and you can bind it much more effectively. You can protect yourself more securely, control their sword better, and wind and so on more easily. You're also much less likely to get your hands cut off, which is always nice.

However, whatever reason they had isn't important. The important thing is to do what the historical source instructs.

*Some translations of one of the krumphaw plays do give this instruction, but it may be an error in translation or in that specific original MS. It seems likely that the intent is to instead strike onto the opponent's flat.

Furthermore, note that I'm talking about a specific source here. Later longsword sources have some hanging parries with the flat, and there are a few plays in the messer sources which use the flat as well. Those are interesting, but irrelevant to the main focus of my study.

[Niels Just Rasmussen]

[Pieter B.]

FLAT!




I am sorry I couldn't resist but I think Clements popularized it a lot.

[Adam Bohnstengel]

My opinion is that it comes from older movies and such. The characters are fighting for show and are purposefully coming together at an edge to edge 90* parry, like this +. That's crazy hard on a blade. Anything less than that though, I don't really count as "edge to edge". The idea that you can only parry with the flat is equally crazy goofy. I'm still beginner/ok level, but most of the parries I see are more like 30-60* and closer to a scissor type cross than anything.

[Michael Beeching]

I am inclined to say that "parrying with the flat" is a reaction to the countless years of misunderstanding about swordfighting in conjunction with bad Hollywood acting. In these instances, actors and bad fighters spend their time fighting each other's swords, and in the process, ruin them.

That said, I do not think parrying with the flat is a bad concept, so long as it is executed sensibly. With my experience limited to reading Ringeck, "Dobringer," and thus Liechtenaur, "pattying with the flat" simultaneously makes sense while also having no meaning whatsoever. This is because we are told to make no "empty voiders" in Master Liechtenaur's teaching - so, if one strikes a zornhau at an adversary, they void the opponent's weapon while cutting into one of their openings; presumably, the opponent is also cutting into one of theirs. The nature of this engagement should imply that when the zornhau intercepts the incoming blade, it is striking (mostly) against the flat, because the opponent is trying to cut the defender (or perhaps offender) rather than strike at the sword. The edges may bind, but serious damage should be mitigated because the angle will be slight.

It has been pointed out many times that a sword will inevitibly be damaged at some level in any serious combat. I believe a good swordsman (or woman) would first work to save their life in a fight, and through good technique, would work to preserve their livelihood as well - this livelihood includes their sword. So, in conclusion, I'd argue that parrying with the flat as an absolute doctrine (which I suppose ARMA claims not to be quite the case?) is just an overreaction to bad technique demonstrated through popular culture for quite a long time.

*EDIT*

Adam, it looks like you finished your post just a few minutes before I finished mine! I had to step away for a few minutes and was not trying to parrot any of your thoughts.

[Travis Canaday]

[Mike Ruhala]

Honestly I don't know how it got started but it was a commonly held belief in the 20th century and pre-dates Clements' influence though he did popularize it as part of his now thoroughly debunkable "clean break" theory. You can't even do the standard "blame the Victorians" thing on this, they primarily parried with the edge even in their thrust fencing. There are valid flat parries in the Med/Ren sources but they're definitely the exception rather than the rule. My guess is two main things got this myth going,

-We wanted ancient and indestructible swords like we hear about in other myths but swords clearly wear out with use, flat parrying seemed like a way to extend service life.


-People, even today, tend to endlessly repeat information from a perceived authority that they encounter early on. Somewhere out there in the wild there's probably an old arms and armor book that mentions the idea.

The wildcard is that it may have been influenced by Japanese swordsmanship or at least common perceptions of such. I have had the opportunity to fence with a few koryu guys who had about as much experience in their art as I have in mine and they did have a distinctly different approach to parrying.

[Philip Dyer]

First of all, Blood and Iron HEMA practitioners have demonstrated that you can parry safely with the flat without a nagel , ask long as it isn't a hard parry. Second, I think it came from sword collectors and Arma's over reaction to ridiculous Hollywood fencing where they treat swords like sharpened bats, which would turn swords into hacksaws, probably break them in short order and cause lot of pointless locks and jams. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9b8q7-M_dQ Here is two Blood and Iron sword master showing a flat parry with a sword just a normal crossguard. Also there are ( few) examples of blades that have been passed down for generations.

[Travis Canaday]

[Mike Ruhala]

That's a large part of the reason I wanted a high quality forged Dane axe like the one Eric McHugh made for me. Because all the steel is concentrated into a single durable piece and the haft is easily replaceable an axe has certain natural advantages as an heirloom.

[Nat Lamb]

In Australia there is a (recent, like 30 years) reason, I think. At least in N.S.W. and Victoria, the New Varangian Guard was more or less the only show in town for steel weapon re-creationists. They have, since the early 90s at least, had a "only parry with the flat" policy. To the best of my knowledge this is not due to any claims made about historical accuracy, just that 60% of the swords being used were semi home made, and the other 40% were stupidly over priced due to the cost of shipping anything to Convict-Island. As a result, everyone wanted to preserve their precious toys as much as possible.
I think that this has persisted as a habit in the re-enactment community here, rather than as a considered ideology.

[Houston P.]

I would just like to point out that the ARMA does not teach to completely avoid edge contact. In techniques such as Absetzen, you bind with the edge, and a vast majority of the techniques Mr. Clements shows from the Kron he is specifically showing from edge contact. We teach that a deflectional parry and especially a strike that simultaneously attacks and defends are preferable to making a strictly defensive motion of any sort. There are also many cases where the sources tell you to receive a strike on the flat or to " displace him with your long edge ", and one of Andre Pauernfeindt's 12 rules admonishes us to " remember the flat ". Indeed, I have never ( and I welcome correction on this, I am far from omniscient ) found a place where any of the Renaissance Masters tell you to receive a strike on your edge, only to bind or displace with it. We take things such as " when he cuts so you too cut, when he thrusts so you too thrust", to " avoid parrying, if the need befalls you, it will cause you trouble", " avoid...wide and ungainly motions ... Holding out their weapons and allowing them to be struck upon", and so on; to mean that parrying at all is less preferable than attacking. Thus we try to focus on attacking and defending in one motion, or seizing control of the fight and pressuring our opponent into remaining on the defensive ( rushing in boldly and seizing the Vorschlag ) . I hope that helps to shed some light on this issue.

[Mario M.]

I am not sure about how it spread within the martial arts community, but in case of the internet itself, it was this video by Clements;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtNZQBc4RpE

The amount of views it has is huge, I believe there was another one with even more views that disappeared some time ago.

I recall it also being reposted at a couple other sites, including Facebook, where it got millions of views(from memory, I could be wrong, but facebook videos often get several times more views than youtube videos) before all mirrors disappeared except the one I provided above.

[T. Kew]

[Mike Ruhala]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Houston P.]

I was referring to strictly doing an idle parry with the edge, as in saber fencing, or to move into edge contact at high speeds. That's why I mentioned the quote about allowing your weapons to be struck. I didn't mean not to seek a bind with the edge. We are taught to seek a bind with the edge and wind in to attack. You can also receive a strike on the flat as you turn your edge into it. I don't disagree with that. I also don't disagree that you cannot fully control your opponent, and so if they change direction mid cut and your defensive maneuver was already begun, you may very well hack their edge, and you would have to proceed from there. However, that Ringeck quote is really interesting. Mair only mentioned Sprechfennster as a flat on edge defense. I haven't read Ringeck yet, but I may have to now. So overall, thank you Mr. Kew. You have given me my next manual to research. As for Randall, I almost fully agree.