[Michael Edelson]

Can we please let this rest? Our disagreements on this and other issues are well known. There is no need to repeat this argument every time I post a cutting video.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Mike,

I just did. I only clarified for you why I was asking about rope cutting.

Cheers,

Christian

[Michael Edelson]

[Greg Mele]

Hey there, guys,

I'm responding *specifically* to Mike's reply to my post, and then his explanation in the post after that that he doesn't believe you really strike into Langeort/posta longa with half-cuts, and what that is based on. Not really interested in drawing out the rest of this debate.

[Michael Edelson]

[Patrick De Block]

Michael,

At the risk of veering to much off-topic, could you explain/ elaborate on the concept of controlling/keeping the center in Toyama Ryu and how it relates to half and full cuts? Or make this into a new thread?

Thank you,

Patrick

[Michael Edelson]

[Greg Mele]

Mike,

[Jean Henri Chandler]

Very nice cutting form Michael, it looks effortless, if I hadn't cut tatami mats myself before I'd think it was easy.

J

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hey Jean,

The best cutting sword I've used is the Albion Knecht.

The best cutting weapon is Ed Toton's custom Arms & Armor Glaive (it's in their custom gallery, btw).

We should also remember that modern reproductions of swords may, or may not, reflect the cutting ability of historic ones. As a for instance, the A&A Durer cuts much better than the Albion Munich, even though they both ostensibly recreate the same type.

Cheers,

Christian

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Jean,

It's true - jack construction is all over the map. In fact, this is really a generic term for a large class of cloth defenses.

Some are vertically quilted, some rectangularly, and the number of layers and variations of accessory armours (mail, jack chains, plackarts, etc.) worn with them is astonishing.

However, my point was only this: nowhere in Blossfechten teachings does it say we better be able to cut through them. Maybe we should, and maybe we shouldn't, but lacking corroborative data, it's conjecture. And certainly, there's no evidence saying you need to cleave through a jack-armoured man - all the way through - such that you're able to deliver a second cut from the lower extremity on the opposite side. That would indeed be a super feat with any longsword. [But, maybe Ed's aforementioned glaive might do it!]

Cheers,

Christian

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Greg,

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Jean,

I'm not sure how much of this long thread you've read, but we're not far from agreement. I'm going to sum up, in list format. Please forgive the rather calculated nature of the list, but I'm off to bed in moments and just wanted to 'get it out there' for you.

Here we go:

1. I don't oppose cutting. In fact, we use it here as a 'sanity check': is your edge alignment good, can you generate power, etc?

2. We don't know what was worn in 15th c. unarmoured judicial duels. Our only clue, that I'm aware of, is the opening sequence in Codex Wallerstein, showing two champions before a pavilion and audience. They are wearing only civilian doublets. But that's the only data point - aside from Fiore having fought five duels in only a gambeson and light gloves. [If you know of others, I'm keen to know of them.]

3. My quibble is in how cutting exercises are performed; i.e., do they represent tactical realities? Mike's video shows excellent cutting form, arguably the cleanest I've seen from him. But I don't believe it translates into tactical reality. Jacks and doublets aside, in what situation would you use a full blow to cleave *all the way through* a target (a man) such that you could (or would need to) do a follow-on full blow from below? And that's the nature of my point: it's cool to cut like this, but if that sort of exercise becomes too big a part of your 'training reality', it skews your ideas of how a real encounter would work. That in turn skews your interpretation of technique, and so on. In particular, I have problems where we have lots of data, and not just from Liechtenauer, where we're told to modulate our attack to own the center, but then work hard at achieving full blows that don't reflect that tactical advice.

3a. I'd like to point out that the above does not represent 'sacred doctrine' but actually, for me at least, rather a reversal of it: it's one of the reasons I want to replace "Fighting with the German Longsword", where I stress full blows much more than I now believe they should be. The groundbreaking work of Thomas Stoeppler convinced me this was much over-interpreted on my part.

4. Regarding the assumption of threat from a mortally wounded man: d'accord! This is one reason I feel that William Carew has been right in chiding the community on not practicing exiting the fight correctly. Even if you lop a limb off, you can still be hurt, so you'd best have a "full threat termination" strategy or an exit strategy. I believe the lesson of the former is in Talhoffer: strike a half-cut to enter the fight and disorder him, then in close measure, kill him. The Thott Codex's decapitation stroke, clearly done in the Krieg, I believe viscerally attests this.

So, in short, yes: I think we should cut. That's one of the pitfalls for folks coming out of stick fighting arts, for instance - the reality of an edge, and control of the alignment of said edge, isn't part of their former training paradigm. I therefore think everyone should do some test-cutting, and, equally important, test thrusting. The debate lies in how this should be done and whether a cutting exercise moves from the realm of tactical reality to one of "how cool can this thing cut?" And, I like the latter too, but I think it's a test of the sword, and not the man.

Cheers,

Christian

PS. I guess the numbered format didn't help me write a shorter post after all!

[Cory Winslow]

Hey Guys,

I just wanted to make clear my *current* views on cutting.

There are only a handful of places in the main early Liechtenauer sources that explicitly describe cutting to the opponent first in the zufechten. The main ones are:

1. Gemaine Ler - Basic advice on cutting and following with the Zeckrur
2. Vier Versetzen - Using four special cuts to break the four guards
3. Zwei Hangen - Using Sprechfenster in the Zufechten

The first and third of these tell us to cut near to the head or body so that the point remains in front of the face or chest in order to get the opponent to parry, and thus open himself up for attack. He could do other things like use Zornort, but then we can just counter it.

The second tells us to cut to certain parts of the body with the Krump, Zwerch, Schiel, and Scheitel in certain ways that will leave us safe.

So we are advised in the first stage of the fight to either cut with an oberhau or unterhau so that the point menaces the face, or to attack him with one of the four cuts to defeat him when he stands in one of the four guards.

However, this doesn't mean that we never cut aiming to cleave the opponent. If there is any situation in which I am close enough to him that I can hit him with my edge and I feel that I am safe in doing so, then I would do the same as the man in that 1459 Thott Talhoffer Codex plate. So I personally think that cutting is a very important part of sword training, as long as we know what it is we are training for.

-Cory

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Cory,

Yup. That's pretty much where I am, which I think translates to: half-cuts from the Zufechten (with maybe offline cuts like Krumphau to the hands being a quasi exception); full blows if you can afford them to finish the fight. The latter definitely accords with that gruesome image in the '59 Talhoffer where the halberdier is dispatched.

Cheers,

Christian

[Greg Mele]

Cory,

I'd say that we are basically in agreement, and again, what is being cut off are usually limbs (hands) and heads, not through a torso.

Also, much like my comparison to things like axe kicks, it's a coup de gras or blow that is made because it can be done safely - usually to counter an attack, not break measure and attack first.

Jean Henri,

The Brescia is not a Type XV; it's usually considered a variant of a Type XVI, which is a much better cutting sword, because it has more blade pass in the last third of the sword. You can find several discussions regarding this weapon with Peter Johnson, as I recall, on this forum. A Type XV is something like the Talhoffer or the A&A Black Prince. A different weapon.

As regards sabres - again, it depends on how curved and how thin the blade is. Too curved, like a Tulwar, and you get a lot of slice, but less penetration. Of course, not all swords are *made* the same, either. Many military sabres of the 19th c were notoriously dull and had poor edge geometry - although the Sikhs found they performed quite well after resharpening them.

As to sabres, messers, falchions, etc being maximized for cutting, well, does personal discussion with the late Ewart Oakeshott, David Edge and most recently, discussion with the curator of edged weapons at the Royal Armouries count? Not being glib, but this isn't a particularly radical position about the continuum of blade curvature, and has also been known among knife makers as general knowledge. Bowie knives cut a lot better than an Arkansas Toothpick for a reason. It is just physics at work.

Too curved and you get a lot of slice, but little percussion, straight and you get more percussion and less slice; too narrow and tapered (like a rapier) and the blade won't cut well. Katanas are good at what they do because they sit right between that continuum and are two-handed, as well. They are maximized for cutting, much as a Tulwar is maximized for slicing and a smallsword is maximized for the thrust.

I've also been able to handle the two-handed Swiss saber in the Wallace Collection and two Renaissance era falchions, and it is quite clear just by wielding the weapon what it is meant to do. I've had the chance to cut with two antique 18th c sabres, and you need to compare them to other single-handed swords. The 1796 sabre, very broad but very curved, did not cut as well as the infantry sabre, but then it was meant to *slice* through a target as a horseman rode past. Both were superior in the cut to a one-handed Type XV, like my A&A Urbino. Remember that I also mentioned how broad the blade was. There's a reason that 18th - 19th c broadswords are, well, broad, and not tapered like a Type XV - no armour, which means you are again emphasizing the cut.

Now, as regards to replicas, the Brescia cuts very well, but frankly, it was a piker compared to the Albion Knecht, which the folks at Albion were nice enough to let us cut with at WMAW 2007. And again, that is a gently curved, two-handed blade. For one-handed swords, the Reeve outperformed the Type XIV and the Soldat messer outperformed them both. And while that messer is more of a falchion, it is again the broad belly, gradual curve and single edge (thus with a thicker spine behind it) that made it cut so well.

[Glen A Cleeton]

Pardon the interruption but some areas did have pretty strict guidelines for some armour and there is actually a fair amount of armour regulation overall in England.

Precious few if any of these textile armors were being made to a rigid pattern

I mention this in passing, as it has been some simple snippets of English regulation but there was a linen armourers guild.

http://www.takver.com/history/benefit/ctormys.htm
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/Sbook.html

I'd extract specifics for you but others may enjoy exploring in tandem to their works of European swordsmanship. there is a great amount of source material that may often be overlooked in general overviews of economy and the trades. The design of and construction of all armours is not a field I study a great deal but I do run into (specifically in England but apparent abroad as well) these notes.

Edward III was a patron of linen armour guild and (as I read it) more or less bought his ticket in but there surely must have been more than passing interest in him regarding the "how tos" and "whys".

Anyway, just a note

Cheers

GC