[Nicholas Zeman]

Just as an aside... Iron Gate is not a leg parry. It is never illustrated as such, or mentioned in that regard by Fiore (I don't know about other Masters). The only action prescribed by Fiore against a leg strike is the high cut to the head with a slip/void of the leg.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

...and Schranckhut is generally used to offer an opening, not create cover.

CHT

[Greg Coffman]

I never said these were parries. I said they were guards and as such they close off a line of attack. They do this because if you strike to that opening, you won't get to the person because the sword effectively covers the opening. So if you stand in your guard and recieve a blow to the opening which that guard covers, that would equate to a "hard stop parry," not that this is the best thing to do. I am just answering the question.

Fiore is not the only one who mentions iron door and offering a opening is not the only use of schranckhut. Offering an opening is a description that might be applicable to many of the wards. Actually, I think of schranckhut as much more defensive minded.

[Stephen Hand]

I didn't want to get into this pointless argument again as arguing with people who have a fixed position and will not deviate from it is tiresome and rather pointless. However, as my name has been brought up several times I will make one post for the benefit of those whose mind is open on the subject.

I will begin by picking up on a few comments made earlier in the thread.

Randall Pleasant made the comment

"John Clements and ARMA have NEVER said to use only the flat." (April 15th) and Craig followed that up with the following quote from John Clements article,

"We might ask what about all those 18th and 19th century fencing styles that specifically instructed to 'parry with the edge'? How later texts on swordplay using broadsword, saber, cutlass, or spadroon taught using the edge to receive cuts is a largely misunderstood and misinterpreted area of fencing history. These works are explicit—and specific—in that this is to be performed only using the lower quarter of the blade above the hilt (the forte or strong). They do not instruct to use the entire length or the sharp portion of the blade to block with. This receiving of cuts with the forte in broadsword and sabre texts is actually consistent with earlier 16th century cut-and-thrust swordplay where closing and binding against the opponent’s own forte was standard. The manner in which these later styles differed in their parrying from earlier methods has been discussed elsewhere."

In John’s book Renaissance Swordsmanship, specifically on page 82 when discussing the 16th century spada (which he calls the cut and thrust sword) John wrote,

“It is vital to realise that parries with a sword are made with the flat of the blade and not the edge, as is commonly mistaken (this is typical of modern saber fencing and common in stage combat). Edges need to be kept sharp and free of nicks or gouges. They are too weak to be intentionally placed in the path of oncoming stikes. Doing so will likely break them far sooner. Parrying with the stronger flat side requires only a slight turn of the wrist. In fact this is the very reason swords are made to flex.”

John Clements clearly said to use only the flat and does not differentiate between sword types. What he says in his article deviates considerably from his earlier statement but contains two major problems. Firstly parrying with the forte has been “largely misunderstood and misinterpreted” by whom? Not by me or by anyone else of my aquaintance who interprets later texts and habitually uses such parries. Not by anyone from a modern sport fencing background where parries with the forte are explicitly taught. The fact that John specifically argued against the edge parries taught in saber fencing but later used them as an example of acceptable edge parries indicates a significant shift of ground.

Now I’m not at all against shifts of ground. On the contrary, anyone interpreting old fencing texts will make mistakes and will need to change their position on some things. I applaud anyone who comes out and says “look I used to say xyz but on further reflection/reading other sources/bouting I have decided that abc is more likely to be true”. That is the natural way in which our understanding of these arts will progress. It’s the way of all scholarship.

What I don’t like is the revisionist history that I see emanating from ARMA, the claims that their position has never changed, that they started right and have remained right all along. This is clearly not the case, even if you think their current position is right. John Clements clearly stated that parries with swords are made with the flat. Not some swords – just “swords”. He stated this in a section of his book on 16th century swords, a weapon that predominantly uses edge parries (more on which later). The dictates of good scholarship are that when you change your mind you state it clearly and openly – “I previously said x, now I think y for the following reasons…”. Pretending that you said y all along and that you never said x is extremely poor scholarship, though in fairness it is Randall making these claims, not John Clements himself.

The second major problem with the statement from Clements’ article is where he states that in 16th century “cut and thrust swordplay”, “closing and binding against the opponent’s own forte was standard.” This is not the case. In a passage in which he is the attacker, Viggiani specifically states “the two swords will clash true-edge on true edge, and since your forte will meet my debole [the Italian word for foible], my sword may actually break” Angelo Viggiani, Lo Schermo, Venetia 1575, page 82, translation by Tom Leoni. Note that it is the attacking sword that may break, not the sword actually doing the parrying. This is obviously not a problem for the defender who is defending the foible of his opponent’s blade with his own forte, true edge to true edge. Viggiani also states that this is the way all masters teach parrying. I have seen this passage used to show that edge to edge parries are bad, because a sword might break. I find this position bizarre. If I parry with my edge I might break my opponent’s sword, disarm him and almost certainly win the fight. And this is supposed to be a problem for me because…?

On April 16th Craig Peters wrote, “Neither a stifling action nor a Krump constitute a parry.” This is another frankly astounding statement that I am amazed that nobody has picked up on. To my knowledge the earliest English language use of the term parry is in Pallas Armata (1639). On page 6 we read “To parere, is to decline, to put by, and to turne off a thrust or blow.” Basically any purely defensive action where you use the sword to prevent the other person’s sword from hitting you is a parry (offensive actions that close the line are of course attacks with opposition and are not parries). Both a stifling action and a krumphau (to the sword – a krumphau to the hands is obviously a counterattack) certainly match Pallas Armata’s definition of a parry and indeed any definition of parry that has been made over the centuries. Every time this tired discussion comes up I see the same basic misunderstandings from ARMA members, counterattacks described as parries and parries, such as the krumphau to the sword, described as…what? What is a krumphau to the sword if not a parry?

Moving on to the comments made about my work,

[Randall Moffett]

Apart from all the boiling blood this actually has brought up some interesting aspects of this theme. I came across one or two new sources I am not very familair with that I plan to look into once I have some time and can find a copy. So in that way it has been helpful. It also has brought up some very good arguements for and against.

I am reading through a newly translated MS from the British Library a friend of mine just did for his MA of a english medieval sword fighting manual, seemingly from what I can tell from the student's point of view. So far it is very interesting and would be of interest to some here I think. I believe he is trying to get it published right now so if interested let me know and I will pass the info along.

I am still not totally sure some of the debate here is terminology but it has been interesting to read through it. The way I have interpreted some (not all mind you) the term edge is the area where the flat tapers into the edge, or the place were the edge begins after the flat terminates. It seems to some flat denotes this area and others it is the edge. Either way, interesting read.



RPM

[Greg Coffman]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Randall,

I've revised that interpretation, as I show in the subsequent "Fighting with the German Longsword". My point above was that you don't lie in Schranckhut to await the absetzen. In the technique in question, you strike into Schranckhut, over his sword. From there you then strike up into his head.

CHT

[Randall Pleasant]

Stephen

I want to thank you for the warmth you bring to these friendly discussion.

[Nathan Robinson]

Gentlemen-

You will all regain your composure and act like gentlemen once again. There will be no more sarcasm, snide remarks, or any other such nonsense. Failure to heed this warning will result in the me having some fun with the administrative features of this site.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hello Randall,

The statement that John Clements began studying in 1980 is very misleading. In fact, it's quite clear that even by the time of the writing of Medieval Swordsmanship in the late 1990's, he had never read a medieval fighting treatise. This should hardly be surprising given not one Italian or German source from the late medieval period had been translated at that juncture; Mark Rector's Talhoffer book was the first. Bits of Ringeck were available via Jorg Bellinghausen, but no complete work. Certainly, throughout the 80's, no manuscript was available to the English-speaking world, and certainly, at that point, John could not read German or Italian.

In short, no one, save perhaps for Steve Hick or Matt Galas, should be claiming to have been seriously working with medieval fighting treatises in the early 1980's. I've fought with longswords since 1979 (and was test-cutting with other swords in the mid-70s), but that hardly has anything to do with serious study of WMA.

You also mention that the interpretations you espouse may have further validity because of the size of ARMA's membership. That's a problematic assertion, for if everyone follows the same flawed pedagogy and/or research practices, then it simply means there's a lot of people doing it wrong. Numbers don't create validity, nor is it accurate to imply that all ARMA members agree with the ideas about parrying that John has posited.

Lastly, I also feel it's about time we stop implying that everyone in LARPing, or the SCA, is somehow too clueless to count. While I have few connections with the LARP world, there are a number of SCA members who approach this material very seriously now - some of them (Brian Price, for instance) even run WMA events.

All the best,

Christian

[Hugh Knight]

[quote="Randall Pleasant"]

[Hugh Knight]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hello Randall,

I didn't try to paint John as a latecomer. Far from it, as he was one of the earlier exponents of the WMA revival and certainly the earliest to publish successful books on the subject. However, those books were written largely in ignorance of the actual contents of the source material, as has been pointed out at various points in this debate. I'd also like to point out that I'm grateful to John for his creation of the old HACA forum, where I 'met' many important friends and colleagues: Jorg, Greg Mele, Stefan Dieke, Stephen Hand, Steve Hick, Matt Galas, Terry Brown, etc. etc. John did a lot early on to foster the revitalization of these arts.

As for ARMA producing some of the best swordsmen, and that being clear, no - that's not clear at all; it's strictly an opinion, and the criteria for such pronouncements is so subjective that it's a statement that can be neither proven nor disproven. And given that such criteria involve such ephemera as bouting with simulated weapons with no real hazard to life and limb, any such criteria is worth little. In any case, this says nothing whatever for the validity of your theory; for instance, lots of otherwise demonstrably great 18th c. thinkers were greviously wrong in their defense of slavery. Being a good swordsman says little about any specific theory. I can illustrate this further by saying that I feel Maestro Martinez is one of the greatest living swordsmen, but I disagree with just about everything he says regarding the medieval period.

For my own part, I'm content to leave my own or my school's renown in the hands of others, where adherence to the chivalric code demands it be left.

Your statement regarding new ARMA members quickly learning about edge parries speaks more to inculcation than exploration, as this conclusion is not reached by the overwhelming majority of non-ARMA instructors, their students, and solitary practitioners in the rest of the community. I'm afraid that such comments only underscore what Mr. Hand has said above about the apparent fossilization of ARMA doctrine; the whole idea of doctrine in this business should be anathema to anyone doing serious research. Lastly for this point, I have spoken to more senior ARMA members who don't get what all the edge issue is all about.

Regarding the SCA and its fighters, I have never fought with that group, so my observations are those of an outsider. However I know of few members of that organization who do not acknowledge that their martial art (which it most certainly is, albeit one devised in the late 1960's) is ahistorical. I am however pleased to read you acknowledge the WMA accomplishments of several of their luminaries.

I'll be exiting this thread at this point. I never had any illusions about convincing you on this matter, as this has appeared to be a nearly religous conviction for a number of years now. I did feel obliged to use historic sources to show those new to the debate the preponderance of evidence against such a simple and one-sided reading of the techniques of the treatises. That even the explicit and unambiguous advice of the Bolognese (read: Italian medieval) masters leaves you undeterred in your conviction about parrying with medieval swords is, I'm afraid, all too telling.

All the best to you in your training,

Christian

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Ah yes Hugh, you're right. I forgot about Le Jeu!

Still, not too many (and here the SCA guys were first!) were working with medieval poleaxe sources in the 90's. When this got rolling, it was all about the longsword.

Now that I think about it, I think Le Jeu was my first treatise too...David Counts, who used to post on the old Arador board, sent it to me along with some Churburg book excerpts back in the mid-90's.

Cheers,

CHT

[Nicholas Zeman]

It seems we are having the same discussion, in a different place, all over again.... But I like this discussion, as it brings all kinds of questions, research, and information to the surface.

Of course, none of us will ever win it, and I hate seeing the discussion center around ARMA and John Clements vs everyone else, since there is so much more to the discussion than that. There is so much we just don't know about swordsmanship in the 12th-16th Century, and discussions like this can both elevate our understanding or devolve it, depending on our conduct. I have no axe to grind with anyone in these discussions, so I have tried to keep it as academic as possible.


One thing Randall brought up that I totally disagree with, however, is the idea that Iron Gate or Boar's Tooth or any guard with a longsword that is held low has anything to do with being a leg parry. It is true that this position protects the leg by virtue of the blade, however I don't see why you would attack the leg if it is protected already. And if you have the sword held in any other position the thing every Medieval and many Renaissance manuscripts say to do is to void the leg and attack the obvious open target, which is the head. I don't think the primary purpose of Iron Gate or Alber is to make the leg parry. Fiore, which is my primary area of study, gives you all kinds of things to do from Porta di Ferro, none of which involve parrying a cut to the leg. Most of the actions from this guard involve making a strong rebat or deflection from below, a much stronger defense than you might make from Posta Breva or Pflug.

I don't see this low parry being made until saber and spadroon systems (although I am not so familiar with anything past the early 17th Century). And even in modern saber fencing there is a possibility of voiding and striking to the exposed high target when the low cut or thrust is made. As far as I know there is not a single plate, image, or description in any longsword system of making a parry to a leg cut anywhere. If there is such evidence, please enlighten me.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hey Nicholas,

Real quick...there is at least one example: Paulus Kal shows a low parry protecting the leg in his sword and buckler section, but that's likely because with a single-handed sword, you can change up targets easily while already in close measure; ie., there might be insufficient time here to void and countercut high.

CHT