[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Mike,

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Oh, one little addendum, regarding that slash from Nebenhut as a Vorschlag: the admonition to use it *when his arms are high* is critical. I stupidly did this to Claus Sørensen, in my martial challenge with him in Denmark, when his arms were low, and I was appropriately punished for my folly!

CHT

[David E. Farrell]

Mike - something I'm surprised I never asked before: I have heard/read from a number of folks (some with JSA backgrounds, some who may just be repeating what they've heard elsewhere) that the curvature of the katana and related japanese swords (also the curved european sabers, but those aren't two handed) resulted in a drawing action that isn't as natural with a straight-bladed weapon. Or is the curve of the 'average' katana not enough to really change the cutting action?

I've noticed with my black prince, a XVa, that I have to really pull my hands in towards my body as I complete a cut to cut entirely through a target, much more so than I do with something like a type XIIIa blade.

[Michael Edelson]

[Michael Edelson]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Mike,

[Jean Thibodeau]

Good discussion and what I appreciate the most is that even when 180 degree opposite to each other's theories and interpretations are present they are rebutted point by point but not in the usual and unfortunate way when people just oppose so as to not lose an argument and hardly address the points and it degenerates into fruitless stubbornness !

On the contrary the ideas are expressed clearly and to the point and as a " reader " one can gain insight into both views and learn from both approaches: At times it not so much one being right or wrong but almost a question of subtle emphasis on different aspects of the same thing.

In fact one can each take many things of value from even contradicting approaches and just meditate on each: No need to declare a winner or a loser of the debate as I see only winners when the goal is trying to understand each other or each other's technique.

These discussions are so much more productive when egos or emotions are left at the door and the exchange is one of ideas.

Oh, it's very nice to not be tempted to want to take a side as I'm certain that I could learn a great deal from both Michael and Christian if I had the pleasure of being able to get instruction from each or even better both.

[Greg Mele]

Gents,

Why don't we look at the weapons in use, and where the techniques tell us to cut?

How well a sword cuts is a factor of how wide the blade is. Just like a bowie knife or messer outclasses a rondel dagger because of its wide belly, a sabre of any variety (and a katana is a sabre), is going to out-cut a Type XV sword, which is what many of the weapons depicted in the 15th century sources are. There is no big shock to any of this - we know quite extensively which blade forms were used when and where, and what their properties are. Also, note how often the foot soldiers wearing said jacks and *light* armour are shown with messers and falchions - weapons that are meant to but cut and crush.

As to how false edge cuts were *used* , at least in Italian sources, there are three ways. As an opening action, by and large they are *parries* out of low guards - deflections. When they are attacks, they go after the hands and the throat, and immediately return with a descending cut. (However, it is more common to open with a thrust from a low guard.) When they are secondary actions, they follow after a cut from above, and immediately strike back up the same line, inside the opponent's guard. Again, the primary target is the face/throat. The cut is very fast and slashes through the target, often returning with a *third* blow, again from above.

So I think the targets and how it combines with other blows tells us a lot about how the rising false edge cut is meant to be used.

But, the bigger issue is, what are the targets we are *overwhelmingly* shown to use the edge against.

Obviously, I'm far more familiar with the Italian material, but I can tell you that in Fiore and Vadi's work, cuts are made against:

1. arms/hands
2. head/neck

(there is one instance of a direct attack to the leg, but it is a rather specialized action - you've been knocked down, so you cut his ankles out from under him.)

Now thrusts are made to the face/throat, groin, body and armpit. A thrust really doesn't care if you are wearing a gambeson or aketon.

This is the same thing that we see in the Bolognese school, with either sword and buckler, polearms or spadone: cuts target the extremities and the head/neck, thrusts go after the face and torso. I can think of a few belly/groin cuts, but they are the extreme exception to the rule.

I am less versed in the German material, but going through my head of how the various techniques work, and thinking of the masters, like Talhoffer, who actually show wounds, it is overwhelmingly cuts to the head/neck and arms, and thrusts to the face and body.

None of this should be a big surprise - the top of the head and the torso are the two parts of the body most likely protected by a soldier - but the face and neck are often vulnerable, and arms are the forward target - you have to extend them to fight, and if you cant hold a weapon, you can't fight.

I do think there is an interesting parallel here, with JSA, and one that shows how irrelevant the meme of "civilian" and "military" fencing is in western swordsmanship, prior to the advent of the rapier. Note that the targets you are avoiding even in "unarmoured" fencing are the ones most likely to be protected against the cut, and least likely to instantly end a fight. So whether armoured or no *in that moment*, you are using the same art, just the more armour you find on the man, the less you cut at.

From what I have observed and read, pre-Edo era kenjutsu attacks the same targets and for the same tactical reasons - they are fight enders *and* they avoid armour (there are some interesting discussions of this you can find online from the headmasters of Kashima Shin ryu and Katori Shinto Ryu, two of the oldest ryuha in Japan), whereas post-Edo swordplay has lot more body-cuts, but then the katana is being worn about town and used in duels - much like the rapier and smallsword in Europe.

I think one should be able to make good, powerful cuts anywhere, but I think we also need to remember their tactical purpose.

Cheers,

Greg

[Michael Edelson]

[Michael Edelson]

[Greg Mele]

Mike,

Could you give me some of the body quotes? Not asking as a challenge, but so I have them to hand.

Basically, like you, I think you need set plays, fencing and cutting, because they are *all* artificial to some extent, and to *different* extents. One of the other things we cut is a loose hanging hemp rope. Rope is not resistant to swords, except that when loose it yields, like a small, moving target. Consequently, the skills required to cut it are edge placement and speed, force is irrelevant. That and the SwordFodder or Tatami gives us two different types of cutting skills to work on.

Anyway, my point in my post was that we need to look at weapon type, combat environment, and purpose of different blows to understand how, when and why to use which. Sort of like an axe kick or round-house kick - yeah, they can really drop somebody flat, but in a real fight, you are going to use them as the coup de gras, not your opening action, because of the long time and vulnerability to yourself they create.

Everything in its place.

Greg

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Mike & Greg,

Yes, Liechtenauer says to hit to the head and body. But, as both verse and gloss say, that's not because they make the best targets, per se, it's so you strike close enough to prevent your opponent from changing through past your point. A blow directed to the 'core' of the person changes the measure, ensuring you're fighting the man, and not his sword.

Here's the pertinent section from the Von Danzig:

"This is the Text and Gloss of Another Lesson

If you strike close to him, no Changer will come to your shield.
To the head, to the body, do not shun the Tag-Hit.
Fight with the entire body, what you powerfully want to do.

Gloss – Note, this means that when you come to him in the Zufechten, use the entire strength of your body for whatever you intend to execute, and strike while approaching to his head or body and keep your point before his face or chest. This way he cannot change through before your point."

This advice, just for clarity, applies to when you seize the initiative, not for responses, which sometimes use other targets, such as the Krumphau's counterattack to the hands. Also note that no mention appears regarding degrees of damage, efficacy or penetration of the blow, etc. It's all about controlling your opponent's options, not how bad you hurt him.

Cheers,

Christian

[Michael Edelson]

[Greg Mele]

[Greg Mele]

[Michael Edelson]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

I think the idea of keeping the point before the face and chest has two levels of meaning. Yes, if you bind, you own the center, but there's also the idea of "keeping it tight"; i.e., don't use wide swinging blows.

At any rate, what is surely is not is an admonition to achieve any level of penetration with your blow.

Cheers,

CHT

[Michael Edelson]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Mike,

I think it's pretty unconvincing to accuse someone of conjecture to be avoided when you're inventing scenarios of jack-clad bandits to justify your cutting.

If we take the text at face, which certainly doesn't say to strike past the guy, it says to strike so your "point is before his face or chest". We don't need a lot of conjecture to conclude that the point should be before the face or body, because it says that.

On the flip side, the usual argument put forward for striking blows through the opponent has been derived from a misreading of this passage:

"And understand this thus: when you stand with your left leg forward and strike from your right side, if you do not follow the stroke with a step forward of your right foot, then the strike is false and incorrect. When your right side stays behind, thus is the strike too short and cannot have its correct path to the other side before and above the left foot."

Some have read this as advocating a stroke past the centerline. First, you're not going to cut clean through a guy and end up on your left side. Second, they're reading the what *not* to do as what to do. If you don't step, your blow goes in front and above your left foot, instead of your right, as it should. So this is no advice for a huge sweeping blow - it's advice for the blow to end atop the *correct* foot, in this case, the right one, not the left.

Now, don't me wrong, I think there's a place for 'full blows', but I think they happen at close measure, not as an initial stroke to seize the initiative. Certainly, any time we see a Talhoffer decapitation, we're seeing a very committed, full blow. But also note these happen in the Krieg.

As a final note, let's stop with the "if you disagree with me, you're advocating dogma" accusations, which you've now done twice in this thread. No one's doing any such thing - they just happen to think you're wrong. Accusing people of silencing the opposition when your arguments don't convince them is an unreasonable way to debate.

Cheers,

Christian

[Jean Thibodeau]