Posts: 704 Location: Oxford, CT
Fri 20 Apr, 2007 7:05 pm
Hello Craig,
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| So it seems to me that tournaments offered several possible incentives, not the least of which might have been financial, which would make hazarding one's equipment more than a reasonable trade-off. |
So, you really feel that the prestige of a tournament win would be greater incentive to sacrifice one's edge than the preservation of one's life? Really? I think my stopping a blow with my edge aligned to maximize my strength and stability against an opponent so I can then thrust through his head before he kills me is plenty of incentive, and I'd happily grind out the nicks later.
BTW, Hugh touches on a good point - there are indeed non-biblical illustrations that back up his point of such depictions being a general-purpose display of strength and effectiveness. The Maness Codex springs to mind, in particular, a source Hugh is also well acquainted with.
All the best,
Christian
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Fri 20 Apr, 2007 11:20 pm
| Nicholas Zeman wrote: |
| ...you cannot present the flat of your sword to an attack and then say you are using the true edge to parry with. |
Nicholas
Yes you can! :lol: It is very simple once you stop thinking in terms of head-on edge-to-edge action. To show how this is easily done let us assume a context in which you have a Cut & Thrust sword and are in a Pflug like guard and your adversary has a longsword and is in Vom Tag. In this situation your legs might look like really nice targets to your adversary. The adversary makes a passing step off line to you left and cuts at your leading leg. You cut down on your left side with your true edge, which not only makes contact with his true edge at a very very low angle but keeps slidding down his edge as you complete your cut. Thoughtout the finial part of his cut the adversary's true edge is in fact impacting your flat. The adversary's sword comes to a stop (I think Silver would say, it lays spent). On the other hand, at the end of your cut you just bring it up over the left shoulder from where you can make a quick follow up cut.
Make sense?
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Fri 20 Apr, 2007 11:26 pm
| Craig Peters wrote: |
And yes, I have little doubt that swords were probably damaged in tournaments. However, there were other things involved with tournaments to consider as well. They could raise an individual's social prestige, which in and of itself could be invaluable. In the earlier tournaments, they provided training for battles, and this may have been true for some of the later ones as well, and thus were an important opportunity to practice one's skills. But, most importantly, one could earn money at tournaments. Unless things radically changed in the later Middle Ages, that could also mean winning things like harnesses and horses, both of which are also extremely valuable.
So it seems to me that tournaments offered several possible incentives, not the least of which might have been financial, which would make hazarding one's equipment more than a reasonable trade-off. |
But Craig, in warfare and in judicial combat all of those incentives would come into play as well... with the added factor of a greater fear for your life; I'd notch a sword in those circumstances. You're arguing against yourself.
Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Fri 20 Apr, 2007 11:39 pm
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| You don't need to patronize me Hugh; I'm well aware of the fact that harnischfechten calls for halb schwert techniques. The difference however is that we have clear cut images and text indicating how to grip the blade and stab- as far as the edge parries go, we have some pretty tenuous claims based upon what's written in the fechtbuecher and a bunch of interpretations which make use of them. |
No patronizing was intended, Craig. I was merely pointing out that your argument was inherently flawed as well as factually flawed. Please beleive me, I meant no ad hominem tone whatsoever. I wasn't using the Halbschwert comment as a slap to indicate you don't know about it but rather to point to something we both know to be true that most people would be sure was false.
And you're mistaken about tenuous comments about edge parries, as I pointed out: Please read p. 77 of Hand's English Swordsmanship and you'll see I'm correct. In fact, after showing several primary sources that unequivically argue in favor of edge blocks he goes on to show that in his experience blocks and parries with the flat are more likely to cause catastrophic blade failures than edge parries. I'd rather have a nicked edge than a broken blade, wouldn't you?
| Quote: |
| I'm not saying that my postulates are fact. And it's true that the syllogism might not hold. My point however is that it certainly is possible for medieval people to have fought in that manner, even if they may not have. |
In fact, you did state that your postulates were fact. And your point about how medieval people fought is set aside by primary-source accounts that clearly state how they did fight.
| Quote: |
| I just gave away mine? On the contrary, you've given away yours. I never claimed that Pero knew he was going to destroy his sword in battle, nor would he have known that with certainty either. It's a case of using it in battle and afterwards discovering that the weapon is not worth salvaging. But let's step back and look at your argument. Your claim here implies that if someone knows they're going to damage a tool, they might as well damage it to the maximum extent possible. That's more than a little silly to me. |
Sorry, but that doesn't follow, Craig. Pero didn't go into battle knowing his sword would be trashed and therefore decide to ruin it, he went into battle performing one set of actions he, as an experienced soldier, would have known had a high likliehood of damaging his sword. If that's the case, then he wouldn't accept that while trying to prevent damage from another kind action. It's not about maximum extent, the argument is that if it's going to happen anyway there's no point in doing silly, awkward actions to prevent that same kind of damage from another a kind of action.
Posts: 704 Location: Oxford, CT
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 9:20 am
The problem here Criag is that while Randall asserts that an edge to flat encounter is inherently tactically better, in general, the rest of the HES community (including Hugh, I'm assuming) outside of ARMA practitioners, finds this contention untenable, and in stark contrast with both historic sources and practical experience. I happen to be one of those that finds this contention downright baffling, for it confounds what evidence we have and my own training's experiences.
Harkening back to my earlier example of how this argument sometimes looks from the outside, it's as if someone says "given that the shadows in the photos of men on the moon don't make sense, you can see how my contention the missions were faked holds water." The problem would be that I don't agree there *are* any problems with the shadows in the photos, so the rest of the statement is immaterial.
In short, you can hardly blame Hugh for not agreeing with a conclusion predicated on prior contentions he in turn does not agree with. You can't establish your arguement with someone by citing bases for it that are not agreed upon in the first place.
All the best,
Christian
Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 9:23 am
| Craig Peters wrote: |
No, I'm not. All I've pointed out is that there were benefits to tournaments which could recompense damage accrued to a blade. That still doesn't mean that there's any reason to cause the maximum damage possible to one's equipment by edge hacking, and that one would cavalierly throw away one's sword because one could afford to buy another one. Again, no one hazards their equipment unnecessarily just for money. My point is that if some damage was done to a sword during a tournament (and not through edge hacking) it would be a reasonable trade off for the other benefits.
I don't know why you feel the "my life is on the line so I'll use my edges to protect me" is such a valid argument. It only makes sense if one is not confident enough that they can protect themselves succesfully making use of the flat. As I've stated ad nauseum, using your edge damages it, potentially leading to a catastrophic edge failure or an inability for the sword to bite when cutting, both of which hinder your ability to protect yourself. As Randall also pointed out, edge-to-edge contact between blades almost always allows less offensive options to either person when compared with an edge-to-flat deflection. |
I'm not using the "my life is on the line so I'll use my edges to protect me" argument. I'm using the "my edge is going to get hacked up anyway from other things, so why do the awkward things ARMA suggests to try to protect it" argument and the "if Craig admits that the remunerative advantages of a tournament justify wasting swords then surely a battle, which has both remunerative and life-saving rewards also justifies it" arguments; they're much more potent and have the virtue of being unassailable.
I'll also quote Stephen Hand, who says that blocking with the flat is very likely to lead to a broken sword whereas blocking with the edge will only lead to a nicked edge *and* who demonstrates that medieval sword masters wrote specific instructions to block with the edge. I'll also refer again to the Pero Neno quote to show that edges *did* get hacked up when fighting.
So let's re-cap:
1.) There's no primary-source evidence to suggest an avoidance of edge-on-edge parries
2.) The best interpretations of German plays indeed show some (e.g., the counter to the Zwerchau and the Talhoffer plate Craig posted) edge-on-edge contact
3.) At least two medieval authors specifically instruct us to block edge on edge--and not just sliding parries, but hard, 90-degree "stops" of the sort we see in Hollywood movies (see Hand's book p. 77)
4.) Primary source material written by real witnesses shows that swords got chopped up in fighting, which means that if they're going to get chopped up anyway there's no *point* to trying to protect the edge with weird, awkward a-historical movements
5.) An experienced sword instructor who has seen sword blocking with the flat reports that doing so is likely to lead to catastrophic failure of the blade which is far worse than a few nicks.
I'd say my work here is finished.
Last edited by Hugh Knight on Sat 21 Apr, 2007 9:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 9:34 am
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| But I don't understand why you'd lump edge-to-edge damage in the catagory of normal wear and tear. Modern tests consistently have revealed how horrendously destructive edge impacts are to swords unless they are primarily edge-to-flat contact which results in oblique edge contact. Even if you were practicing with a blade and only made one edge-to-edge impact in your practice session, you'd still degrade your sword far more rapidly than someone who does not. The sword that Peter examines in his article has evidence of minor wear and tear, not large gouges from edge impacts. |
I'd say the evidence suggests that Pero's sword had severe damage to it since, as you so graciously pointed out, he got rid of it afterward. So *either* normal usage (meaning trying to avoid edge contact) is more severe than you admit--in which case there's little point in accepting it while avoiding edge contact damage--*or* we have to assume an experienced soldier ruined his sword with edge contacts in order for that amount of damage to have happened. So you must admit that either your postulate that edge damage from target impact and edge damage from other edges is very different is false *or* you must admit that an experienced, highly skilled real medieval knight used edge-on-edge blocks. Either one of those (and likely both are true) completely defeats your argument.
| Quote: |
| And even if this comes down to "Well you might think that edge-to-flat type impacts constitute normal wear and tear, while I think that edge-to-flat impacts with some edge-to-edge impacts constitute normal wear and tear" that still fails to take into account that one type of damage is much more severe and problematic than the other. Take two pairs of the same Albion Next Gen swords, i.e. four of the same sword. For one pair, practice using only edge-to-flat style parries with incidental oblique edge contact. With the other pair, through in the occaisional edge parry as well. After each practice session, take out the swords and do test cutting with them. The pair which avoided edge contact as much as possible will not only last longer but they will cut better too. This therefore brings us back to points I've raised before- swords are not cheap, they're difficult to make, and material items are much less common in the Middle Ages, so if we have one method that preserves swords longer than another, why wouldn't people have used it? |
You haven't demonstrated those claims to be true.
Craig: Go Read Silver. Please.
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 2:38 pm
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
| And, indeed, no depiction of Pflug shows the wielder's right wrist so contorted as JC is forced to make his in order to present the flat. It's a pretty hard and fast rule that in any swordplay, you want that wrist straight and strong. A more natural position for left Pflug, with the long edge presented up and slightly outward, keeps the wrist straight. It also presents the edge more less towards a blow directed at the lower left opening. |
Christian
Looking back through the pictures of John working out of Pflug I did not see one action that would require John to have contorted either wrist. These are simple actions that we drill and use in sparring all the time. Never in drilling or sparring do we have to contort our wrists. Given the speed of the training partner's sword, John is shown parrying some very powerful cuts with no problems.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 704 Location: Oxford, CT
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 4:06 pm
Hi Randall,
But John's wrist *is* bent in the photo where he's in Pflug. And that's not how that position is ever illustrated.
I'm not saying you'll instantly have an injury (heck, I used to hold it that way), it's just that any time the leading wrist has to bend, you have weaker resistance against the incoming blow.
The von Danzig gloss specifies this position as long edge up, not the way John is framing the guard. That's a fairly old photo, I think, so it's hardly surprising; I was holding that way back in the day too...
All the best,
Christian
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 4:06 pm
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
| Please read p. 77 of Hand's English Swordsmanship and you'll see I'm correct. In fact, after showing several primary sources that unequivically argue in favor of edge blocks he goes on to show that in his experience blocks and parries with the flat are more likely to cause catastrophic blade failures than edge parries. I'd rather have a nicked edge than a broken blade, wouldn't you? |
Hugh
Yes, Stephen Hand does cite John Taylor giving specific instructions to make a hard stopping block with the edge. However, as has been said sooooooooo many times before ARMA clearly acknowledges that later swords arts, such as the saber arts, did make use of edge-to-edge blocks. That is outside of this issue.
To be best of my knowledge not a single perosn in ARMA has ever experience a steel sword breaking due to being hit on the flat. As you can see in the ARMA pictures I posted we do hit is a lot of power. Yet, not one sword has ever broken when used to parry with the flat.
In regard to the pictures on page 77 of Stephen's book.
Picture B shows a flat parry that is basically a single hand version of von Danzig's left Pflug! :!: I have performed this type of parry many times with no problems. It is not weak because you don't just receive the adversary's cut, you actually pop your strong against his weak. I do perform the parry a little different from what is shown in the picture. In order to better protect my hand I would lower my hilt so as to take the impact a couple of inches further up my blade. I would also keep my point lower so that it is right at the adversary's chest. When you perform the parry shown in Picture B with the point lower you are basically performing a single hand version of Ringeck's Absetzen.
Picture C shows a very basic flat parry that we use all the time with single hand swords. You do little more than just slap the cut away. In I.33 it states that when you are in Under Arm and facing an adversary in Half-Shield you should not cut to his upper opening because you cannot reach it. Why does it say that? It is not that you can't physically reach his upper opening. It is because the person standing in Half-Shield will just slap it away with his flat and then pop you in the face with his true edge. Simple, easy, and effective.
In conclusion, I must say that at least for me Stephen fails to make a case.
All the best,
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 704 Location: Oxford, CT
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 4:20 pm
Hi Randall,
It's not outside the issue, because the Bolognese masters are explicit regarding this, and theirs is a medieval art. We don't have Dardi's manuscripts, but we have those of his inheritors, who are using medieval arming swords only sometimes with more complex hilts. Viggiani's simple system employs his 'universal parry' which certainly uses the edge.
All the best,
Christian
Posts: 739 Location: San Bernardino, CA
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 4:46 pm
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
| It's not outside the issue, because the Bolognese masters are explicit regarding this, and theirs is a medieval art. We don't have Dardi's manuscripts, but we have those of his inheritors, who are using medieval arming swords only sometimes with more complex hilts. Viggiani's simple system employs his 'universal parry' which certainly uses the edge. |
You beat me to it, and, as usual, said it better than I could have.
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 5:32 pm
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
Hi Randall,
But John's wrist *is* bent in the photo where he's in Pflug. And that's not how that position is ever illustrated.
I'm not saying you'll instantly have an injury (heck, I used to hold it that way), it's just that any time the leading wrist has to bend, you have weaker resistance against the incoming blow.
The von Danzig gloss specifies this position as long edge up, not the way John is framing the guard. That's a fairly old photo, I think, so it's hardly surprising; I was holding that way back in the day too... |
Christian
There are two ways to do it. One way is by rotating the long edge up as instructed by von Danzig. The other way, which John is doing in the picture and which we use all the time, is to allow your grip to rotate around the hilt. The von Danzig longedge up way really didn't change much for us. The only real difference is the thumb being on the flat and as you know well the thumb really doesn't make that make thing stronger. As can clearly be seen in the pictures John is setting aside very hard blows.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 5:36 pm
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
Hi Randall,
It's not outside the issue, because the Bolognese masters are explicit regarding this, and theirs is a medieval art. We don't have Dardi's manuscripts, but we have those of his inheritors, who are using medieval arming swords only sometimes with more complex hilts. Viggiani's simple system employs his 'universal parry' which certainly uses the edge.
|
Christian
I can't comment on Viggiani since I have not work with his material. However, other ARMA scholars who are working with his material say that they have found nothing that requires a hard direct edge-on-edge stop.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 57
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 7:52 pm
Actually Viggiani specifically mentions true edge to true edge collisions, I can't find the quote right now but it is repeated in Stephen Hand's section on this discussion.
On another note, Randall mentioned turning the sword in the hands so that the flat aligns with the knuckles, making this position biomechanically a strong way to parry with the flat of the sword. This is completely supported by my own studies in Suio Ryu, where we are instructed when making a static parrying action to turn the flat out with our knuckles (they never actually explain why you're supposed to do this, but it makes sense to me after participating in these edge vs flat discussions). If you desire to make a hard stop this way then it would be better than trying to turn the wrist when the knuckles are aligned with the edge. So I am certain that it's a possibility this was done in some European schools, since it seems to be the best way of using the flat in a hard stopping action (otherwise there really isn't much leverage to the stop).
The big problem I have with this concept, especially in later swords, is that the knuckle bow ceases to be useful for hand protection when you do this. A misdirected cut could land on the hand. The quillons on a cruciform sword will also offer some protection to a hand when the knuckles line up with the edge. Turning the hand so that the knuckles align with the flat will remove that protection (a tsuba is round, so there isn't so much of an issue with the katana being used this way). There are also JSA schools that use edge on edge without damage concern. So perhaps there were schools in Europe that did it one way, schools that did it another way.
I think the primary point of contention in this argument is that defensive actions were tailored around the concept of preserving the edge. We can all argue the specifics or pull out plates from manuscripts, or quotes supporting our theory, but our research and knowledge has reached the point today where we are all saying that both flat, edge, quillons, and even the off-hand were used to defend oneself against another weapon when appropriate. ARMA members are not saying that edge to edge contact didn't happen, or was even frowned upon, I think (correct me if I am wrong), but that concern for the integrity of your sword's edge was a factor in developing defensive techniques in Western Swordsmanship. The other side of the argument is that you did not factor this in to technique, you did what was tactically the best thing to do for the circumstances without worrying about edge damage. Which goes back to a question I had a long time back in this thread, if you had a magic sword with an indestructible edge, what would be the best technique for making a hard, stopping parrying action?
Posts: 254 Location: Lubbock, TX
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 8:54 pm
Generally, I consider a hard stop parrying action to not be a very good technique or at least not as good as several other options. I believe in counter cutting which may involve a hard stop of the opponents blade but still results in striking, thrusting, or setting up a strike or thrust to the opponent. In other words, hit and defend in the same movement. There are some firm blocks however. In fact, the longsword guards that put the blade in front of the body all close off a line of attack. Iron door and alber protect the legs. Pflug protects the middle. Ochs protects the upper. Any of these three can easily transition to become any of the other. Pflug and Ochs are the lower and upper hangings, respectively. Shrankhut and hangenort also protect openings. In my mind, the "technique" that allows hard stops are the guards.
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