| Author |
Message |
|
Nicholas Zeman
|
 Posted: Mon 23 Apr, 2007 12:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Thanks Christian, I stand corrected (or appended at least) and I was not aware of the Paulus Kal plate depicting such a low line parry. I notice that it was sword and buckler, and not longsword. This low line parry is not unheard of, of course, in many other weapon systems, and is used quite frequently in JSA.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Apr, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
I didn't try to paint John as a latecomer. |
Sorry I mis-understood your statement.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
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. |
There are really only two ways to judge a modern swordsman: by what he knows and by how well he can apply what he knows. Regardless of its worth hard sparring is one of the few valid ways of measuring a modern swordsmen. Thus, senior rank in ARMA does require a full hour of very hard sparring against other members of all skill levels. Until there is a better mouse trap.... 
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | In any case, this says nothing whatever for the validity of your theory |
I didn't bring up validity, you did. I said my statement was not made in regard to validity, rather my statements were made in relations to another person says ARMA is irrelevant. I farther added that instead of being irrelevant ARMA is producing some of the best modern swordsmen. Of course it is my oppinion. But is not my oppinion about ARMA's quality just a valid as the oppinion that ARMA is irrelevant?
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | 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. |
It does not speak of inculcation within ARMA anymore than the fact that students of these other insturctors and of yourself quickly learn that it is OK to perform a hard head-on edge-on-edge parry speak of inculcation within your and their orgainizations. Something that is self-evident to one person is not to another.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | 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. |
It does not underscores fossilization within ARMA anymore than it underscores fossilization within your group or any other group that hold to the edge-on-edge doctrine.
I do agree with you that doctrine should be anathema to anyone doing serious research.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | 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. |
I too never had any illusions about convincing you or anyone else. All I did you point out that independantly of ARMA it appears that Guy Windsor came to some conclusions similar to those of ARMA. I don't think Guy's conclusions reflect either doctrine or religion. Likewise I don't think your positon on this issue reflects either doctrine or religion. And of couse, the positon on ARMA on this issue does not reflect either doctrine or religion. Yes, we do all quote evidence but in the end all we have are interpretations. Nothing more than interpretations.
And all the best to you in your training too,
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Apr, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | In the technique in question, you strike into Schranckhut, over his sword. From there you then strike up into his head. |
I'm confused by the "over his sword" part.  How do you Krump into Schranckhut over his sword? "Over his sword" seems to suggests that your blade will be on the outside of the adversary's blade? If so, how does this stop the cut? Sorry if I am mis-reading this. When we perform this technique we Krump into Schranckhut so that our blade in inbetween his blade and our bode.
Respectfully,
Ran Pleasant
|
|
|
|
|
|
Travis Canaday
Location: Overland Park, Kansas Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Apr, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | In the technique in question, you strike into Schranckhut, over his sword. From there you then strike up into his head. |
I'm confused by the "over his sword" part. How do you Krump into Schranckhut over his sword? "Over his sword" seems to suggests that your blade will be on the outside of the adversary's blade? If so, how does this stop the cut? Sorry if I am mis-reading this. When we perform this technique we Krump into Schranckhut so that our blade in inbetween his blade and our bode.
Respectfully,
Ran Pleasant |
I am not Christian, but I understand what he is describing. Ideally you hit the guy on his hands with a krump, but if not, you hit his sword down/away ("over his sword"). Then you strike back up to his head; probably with the short edge.
Am I wrong?
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Apr, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Randall,
I didn't mean to leave you hanging on the Schranckhut...Travis Canaday has it pretty much nailed.
Here's the transcription from Ringeck:
Krump wer wol setzet mitt schrytten, er vil hew letzet.
Glosa.
Daß ist, wie du mitt dem krump haw die obern häw absetzen solt. Daß stuck tryb also: wann er dir von siner rechten sytten oben ein hawet zu° der blosß, so schryt mitt dem rechten fu°ß vff syn lincke sytten über sin schwert mit dem ort vff die erden jn die schranckhüte. Das tryb zu° bayden sytten. Och magstu jn vß dem absetzen vff das haupt schlachen
And the translation:
Who parries well crooked, with stepping he hinders many a stroke
Gloss
This is how you should set aside strokes from above with the Crooked Stroke. Do this thus: When he strikes from above to you from his right side to the opening, then step with the right foot to his left side, [and go] over his sword with the point to the earth into the Barrier Guard. This works on both sides. Also, you can, from the setting aside, strike up to the head.
In other words, you beat his sword down with a Krumphau so your sword ends up in left Schranckhut with his sword under yours. You then strike up after having parried his blow down.
Re: Fossilization. You miss the point. I did subscribe - publicly, in fact (go back and review the old HACA archives, if you can) - years ago to John's flat parry idea. After reading about two dozen manuscripts, and comparing notes with other researchers, I can't subscribe to it anymore.
BTW, I should have noted that anyone interested in a full and scientific breakdown of this topic should read Greg Mele's excellent article in SPADA, Vol. I, Much Ado About Nothing, or, the Cutting Edge of Flat Parries.
Cheers All,
CHT
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
  |
|
|
Risto Rautiainen
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Apr, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | All I did you point out that independantly of ARMA it appears that Guy Windsor came to some conclusions similar to those of ARMA. I don't think Guy's conclusions reflect either doctrine or religion. |
Just to set the record straight. If you mean by ARMA conclusions that edge-on edge contact is avoided to the maximum, then you are wrong. Here at SHMS, we do at times deliberate edge-on-edge parries or deflections or what ever you want to call them. Not 90 degree parries as they are weak, but still easily recognizable as edge to edge parries. Although he said that some longsword techniques were done in a certain way to protect the sword, you can see that some techniques really weren't done that way.
Risto Rautiainen
School of European Swordmanship, Lappeenranta
www.swordschool.com
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Apr, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If you mean by ARMA conclusions that edge-on edge contact is avoided to the maximum... |
I don't consider that to be a position held by ARMA.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Apr, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nicholas Zeman wrote: | | 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 brought this up and not Ran. I brought up Iron Door in reference to your question:
| Quote: | | 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? |
This was my reply:
| Greg Coffman wrote: | | 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. |
To which you replied:
| Nicholas Zeman wrote: | | ...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. |
To which I clarified:
| Greg Coffman wrote: | 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... |
I am trying to understand the confusion here. You asked what would be the best technique for a hard parry or block. The best technique would not be a block at all, but if you were going to do a hard block, I think the guards would work well. As several people have pointed out, this is not their primary purpose. Fine, I agree with that. However, hard blocks should not be the primary defense response either. No, if I assume iron door, someone is not going to strike at my legs. The guard protects that opening but invites attack elsewhere. That is because iron door effectively covers my legs. If someone struck at my legs while I was in another guard, I could go into iron door to protect my legs which would accomplish a "hard stop parry" as you are inquiring. I am not saying that any guard constitutes a parry nor that the primary purpose of any guard is to perform a parry. However, if you are going to sit there and take a blow, do it in a guard.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Apr, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear readers
This thread started as a notice about a new article by John Clements on this subject. I would encourage those interested in a full and scientific breakdown of this topic to read the article and other articles on the ARMA site on the subject.
On Damaged Edge: Historical Evidence, Practical Experience by John Clements.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/damagededge.htm
The Physical Reality of Forceful Edge-to-Edge Impacts by Kevin Cashen
http://www.thearma.org/essays/impacts.htm
The Myth of Edge-On-Edge Parrying in Medieval Swordplay by John Clements
http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm
Edges of Knowledge: Parrying With A Cutting Sword by John Clements
http://www.thearma.org/essays/parry.htm
How to Teach an Understanding of Parrying - Part I by John Clements
http://www.thearma.org/essays/parrying.htm
How to Teach an Understanding of Parrying - Part II by John Clements
http://www.thearma.org/essays/parrying2.htm
How to Teach an Understanding of Parrying - Part III by John Clements
http://www.thearma.org/essays/parrying3.htm
An image is worth a throusand words. Therefore, I ask readers to consider the following images from the ARMA web site. Note that in the images you are not seeing small nicks, rather you are seeing very deep gouges. One cannot fill a hole by taking away more material, thus even if such a gouge is filed out smooth there will still be a hole in the edge of the blade. Ask yourself how you would feel if that happened to the edge of you new Albion?
Respectfully,
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Apr, 2007 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Christian
I must point out that there is only one sword in the pictures. I did not realize that the same sword was shown in both pictures when I wrote the post. Also, the sword in the images is not a "poor" sword. It is a was a nice sword, but nothing more than a tool. The blade was nothing more than metal. The sword does not have feeling, nor did it feel any pain. Let us not feel pity for it.
If I remember right, the context in which the gouges were made in the sword was a simple experiment in which one sword was held out and a hard realistic cut was made into it with another sword. The impact produced in this experiment is not unsimilar to what one might expect to have occurred in a hard head-on edge-on-edge parry made in combat. With the proper safety equipment the experiment is easy to reproduce.
Perform the above experiment with two sharp swords (not blunts) and you will see the damage. We must keep in mind that you having never seen this type of damage in no way indicates that this type of damage does not happen, it only suggest that you have not conducted such an experiment. The results of the experiment suggest that if one engaged in realistic sparring with sharp swords and peformed hard edge-on-edge parrys that they would encounter major edge damage. This appears to have been Guy Windsor experience.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Apr, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
I must point out that there is only one sword in the pictures. I did not realize that the same sword was shown in both pictures when I wrote the post. Also, the sword in the images is not a "poor" sword. It is a was a nice sword, but nothing more than a tool. The blade was nothing more than metal. The sword does not have feeling, nor did it feel any pain. Let us not feel pity for it. |
Someone didn't read Nathan's post about sarcastic tone above. It's unfortunate when someone trespasses on his host's hospitality by flaunting said host's rules.
| Quote: | | If I remember right, the context in which the gouges were made in the sword was a simple experiment in which one sword was held out and a hard realistic cut was made into it with another sword. The impact produced in this experiment is not unsimilar to what one might expect to have occurred in a hard head-on edge-on-edge parry made in combat. With the proper safety equipment the experiment is easy to reproduce. |
That doesn't tell me much, nor does it sound like a particularly useful experiment. Was the strong of the sword used to parry the weak? Vice-versa? Mid-blade vs. mid-blade? What brand of swords were used? How hard are the blades?
| Quote: | | Perform the above experiment with two sharp swords (not blunts) and you will see the damage. We must keep in mind that you having never seen this type of damage in no way indicates that this type of damage does not happen, it only suggest that you have not conducted such an experiment. The results of the experiment suggest that if one engaged in realistic sparring with sharp swords and peformed hard edge-on-edge parrys that they would encounter major edge damage. This appears to have been Guy Windsor experience. |
Please don't be condescending. Of course I've already struck edged swords against each other. I've said as much before. Odds are I did that a good decade before you became interested in this field, in fact. I called this into question because this looks for all the world like someone simply held out a blade while the other guy slammed into it as hard as he could with the other sword - hardly a representation of what happens in an actual combat. If you're swinging that hard, you aren't fighting with sufficient control to recover after a missed blow.
I've never put so deep a gouge into a sword in having edged meet. That may be because you're swinging for all you're worth, or these are very soft swords (late-vintage Del Tins, perhaps?). Mike Edelson cited experiments above where he didn't see this kind of damage either.
Even so, I wouldn't be worried about even this gouge is my enemy were felled while I lived to show the sword and brag about it to my friends. As you say...it's just a tool.
Once again, you've cited personal experience with no specific data, backed by general commentary , to make your point. When that doesn't work, you insinuate that I am a liar: I said earlier, and repeatedly, that I have done these kinds of tests. Calling my character into question by suggesting that this is somehow untrue is disreputable behavior in the extreme.
We're done here.
CHT
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Apr, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Christian
Nothing in my last post was intended as an insult. Likewise, nothing in this post is intended as an insult.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Someone didn't read Nathan's post about sarcastic tone above. It's unfortunate when someone trespasses on his host's hospitality by flaunting said host's rules. |
I not only read Nathan's post I also contacted him directly to make sure that I understood his rules and limits. To the best of my understanding of my discussion with Nathan I have not broken his rules and have not trespasses upon his hospitality. In the past Nathan has been quick to notify me when I did cross over the line, I am sure he will do so now if I have cross over the line.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
| Quote: | | If I remember right, the context in which the gouges were made in the sword was a simple experiment in which one sword was held out and a hard realistic cut was made into it with another sword. The impact produced in this experiment is not unsimilar to what one might expect to have occurred in a hard head-on edge-on-edge parry made in combat. With the proper safety equipment the experiment is easy to reproduce. |
That doesn't tell me much, nor does it sound like a particularly useful experiment. Was the strong of the sword used to parry the weak? Vice-versa? Mid-blade vs. mid-blade? What brand of swords were used? How hard are the blades? |
Since such a simple experiment can easily validate or invalidate ARMA's position on the edge-on-edge issue I don't understand why the test is not useful. In any case, we found the test most useful. The gouges shown in the pictures are about four or five inches from the point. However, the location does not really matter. If any part of the blade has a narrow edge then it will easily suffer similar damage.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
| Quote: | | Perform the above experiment with two sharp swords (not blunts) and you will see the damage. We must keep in mind that you having never seen this type of damage in no way indicates that this type of damage does not happen, it only suggest that you have not conducted such an experiment. The results of the experiment suggest that if one engaged in realistic sparring with sharp swords and peformed hard edge-on-edge parrys that they would encounter major edge damage. This appears to have been Guy Windsor experience. |
Please don't be condescending. Of course I've already struck edged swords against each other. I've said as much before. Odds are I did that a good decade before you became interested in this field, in fact. I called this into question because this looks for all the world like someone simply held out a blade while the other guy slammed into it as hard as he could with the other sword - hardly a representation of what happens in an actual combat. If you're swinging that hard, you aren't fighting with sufficient control to recover after a missed blow. |
No attempt was made to be condescending. You said you have never seen that type of damage while we do see that type of damage in this type of test, therefore is it then not logical for me to assume that you had not conducted such a test? Again, no insult was implied. The test is completely valid since the same laws of physics govern the impact during the test as it would in a combat situation. I do not know the power level in cutting at which you and others lose control, but I can assure you that ARMA members are able to cut with significant power and still maintain control of our body and our weapon.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | I wouldn't be worried about even this gouge is my enemy were felled while I lived to show the sword and brag about it to my friends. As you say...it's just a tool. |
Do modern soliders sometime have to drag their weapons through mud during battle? Are these modern soliders taught that they don't have to care about the condition of their weapons or are they taught that they must care extremely good care of their weapons?
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Once again, you've cited personal experience with no specific data, backed by general commentary , to make your point. |
We have both cited personal experience .
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | When that doesn't work, you insinuate that I am a liar: I said earlier, and repeatedly, that I have done these kinds of tests. Calling my character into question by suggesting that this is somehow untrue is disreputable behavior in the extreme. |
At no point have I assume or imply that you lied. At most I simply overlooked the sentence in the mist of this extremely long thread where you said you had conducted such tests. Sorry for the mistake. With the exception of extreme issues, I have never considered a person's point of view on an issue as a reflection of their character. At no point either before or during this thread have I called your character into question. I have greatly enjoyed your books, your class, and these discussions. Thank you.
All the best,
Randall Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Apr, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | Christian
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
| Quote: | | If I remember right, the context in which the gouges were made in the sword was a simple experiment in which one sword was held out and a hard realistic cut was made into it with another sword. The impact produced in this experiment is not unsimilar to what one might expect to have occurred in a hard head-on edge-on-edge parry made in combat. With the proper safety equipment the experiment is easy to reproduce. |
That doesn't tell me much, nor does it sound like a particularly useful experiment. Was the strong of the sword used to parry the weak? Vice-versa? Mid-blade vs. mid-blade? What brand of swords were used? How hard are the blades? |
Randall Pleasant
ARMA DFW |
As a swordmaker, I've seen this kind of damage before. The points that Christian raises are important.........
Please bear with me......
Lets not worry about brand of swords, lets just discuss type for a second.......
If this is a real fine edged, light longsword, and thin at the tip, this kind of damage could be real bad, real quick. However, if its in the strong {the nick that is}, this is where the blade is widest, and thickest, and its likelyhood of snapping isn't high. Most blades that snap after deep gouges {usually enough gouges that the sword looks like a sawblade}, its at mid blade or in the last third of the blade towards the tip.
Now, if this is a heavier sword, say a warsword, that's fairly wide and thick at the tip, then the likelyhood of one deep nick, even at the tip, being immediately fatal isn't high.
Another thing is, the edge geometry. The finer longswords might have a real acute edge, and a thin crossection. Consequently, when the hard 90 degree edge on edge happens, the damage can be severe. If the edge is more robust, the blade thicker at the point of contact, this damage would likely not be immediately fatal. The blade should be able to deal with several such licks.........
Edge geometry, blade geometry, all important, the place of contact, also important........
But more important is how the blow landed.
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Apr, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Randall et al,
As Christian pointed out, I have conducted these experiments.
The photos you posted tell me two things:
1. A sword was held out and someone struck it as hard as he/she could, and most likely struck foible to foible. I, however, have seen this kind of damage before (by doing the same thing with cheap swords).
2. The sword in the pictures is too thin to represent the forte of a historically accurate longsword (and probably the foible too). I can't, of course be certain of this, but seeing that kind of damage almost screams "cheap sword".
I have seen this type of damage when either two very bad replicas as smashed togher, or when a decent sword is used to damage a really poor sword. In a sword of correct historical thickness, especially near the forte, the steel gets quite thick, quite fast.
Can this kind of damage occur, especially with the inconsistent hardness of medieval swords? Certainly it can (at least I think so). Is it likely to occur? Even a little bit? I seriously doubt it. This test has as much validity to edge to edge contact as Toshishiro Obata's helmet cutting does to a sword's ability to defeat plate armor (a test I used to support quite vehemently before I learned more about armor by conducting my own experiments and reading the efforts of others).
Do that test with a high quality sword like an Albion, Atrim or Arms and Armor, and do it under realistic conditions (two swordsman cutting into each other's oberhaus), and I'm confident the results will be quite different. I can't afford to use those swords, nor would I have the heart, but I have done it with Windlass swords, as mentioned before, exactly as I just described it, and the damage was minor...nothing even close to what you showed.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Allen
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Apr, 2007 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
Do that test with a high quality sword like an Albion, Atrim or Arms and Armor, and do it under realistic conditions (two swordsman cutting into each other's oberhaus), and I'm confident the results will be quite different. I can't afford to use those swords, nor would I have the heart, but I have done it with Windlass swords, as mentioned before, exactly as I just described it, and the damage was minor...nothing even close to what you showed. |
Ok, I really didn't want to get involved in this whole thing, but I think we all might still be arguing past eachother here.
I get the impression that Randall et. al. have not been arguing that edge contact never occurs or is to be entirely avoided.
What they HAVE been saying is that directly perpendicular stopping actions where the two blades meet entirely head-on are unlikely at best in the system being discussed.
In the example Mr. Edelson provides--oberhau vs. oberhau--this type of contact is not normally the case. If I'm swinging an oberhau with the intention of actually trying to hit my opponent, I'm going to swing so my edge is directed at my enemy (so if it does hit, it will cut him). My opponent is likely doing the same. When the sword blades collide, the edges very well may come into contact, but that contact is oblique. They contact on the sides of the edges, or one edge will hit the side of the other edge.
In part, I guess, it depends on where we define the flat of the sword ending and the edge beginning. I think Randall and the ARMA have been defining this contact as "edge-on-flat" since it occurs on the "flat" side of the edge (that's how I personally would describe it), while others may be defining this as "edge-on-edge" since the edges are technically contacting (I can understand this line of reasoning as well).
Without grabbing the nearest practice partner and wasters, the only situation I can think of where an oberhau-oberhau collision would end up in a perpendicular edge-on impact ala' the type of collision Randall et. al have been saying to avoid and the photographs of the damaged sword are meant to illustrate would be if both swordsmen decided to rotate their cut horizontally so that their edges are purposfully aimed at and intended to strike eachother head-on as opposed to being aimed at their opponent's body. In other words, where both swordsmen are forcing the head-on collision. I do not see any tactical advantage to this situation, as all that has been accomplished is that now both combatants have immobile swords with no edge pointed in a direction to immediately try and wound the other guy. The only times I've ever seen anything like that happen is when the opponents are "fighting the opponent's weapon" instead of "fighting the opponent," which I'm sure we all can agree is not something you want to do to survive a fight.
Any obliqueness to the edge contact (meaning one or both edge is lying on the flat side of the other) will of course mitigate or eliminate the chance for damage. That's basic physics. It spreads the force out over a wider area (whereas in a perpendicular head-on collision which the ARMA article was originally written to address, theforce is all focused on the tiny tiny bit of surface area where the swords are contacting) and the force transfers at least partially through the short, flexible axis of the sword and not directly along the most inflexible axis of both blades, further dissipating the force.
Just some of my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey Hull
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 12:22 am Post subject: Simple *Blanking* Thing |
|
|
Yes, I have read here the usual contradictions to proper edge-usage and flat-usage in parrying with the longsword. It angers me that some in the so-called "WMA Community" flaunt their apparently willful abuse of swords as if such were disposable items. Swords in olden days were basically treated like holy objects for these reasons: the hard skilled labour and "magic" that it took to make them, and the resulting expense, and the fact that the sword was the swordsman's "friend", because it helped him protect his life. So it makes me sick to read the comments by certain fencers who should know better.
Also -- when fight-masters do say to utilise the edge to parry, then we should take it to mean one's edge versus the foe's flat. That simple *blanking* thing is just totally ignored by the usual crowd of fools. They cannot seem to understand that edge-use-only is mono-optional, whilst flat-use is actually tri-optional, vis-a-vis one's foe, thus: flat-to-flat, flat-to-edge, edge-to-flat.
Lastly, I recall Tobler stated that it was unprovable whether or not ARMA makes for excellent swordsmen. His argument for that amounted to some sort of bizarre, weak pre-emptive refusal to ever spar any of our scholars to find out one way or the other. I suppose he thinks such is clever nonsequitor that goes by unnoticed.
It is not.
JH
Knightly Dueling - the Fighting Arts of German Chivalry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 2:10 am Post subject: Re: Simple *Blanking* Thing |
|
|
| Jeffrey Hull wrote: | | Yes, I have read here the usual contradictions to proper edge-usage and flat-usage in parrying with the longsword. It angers me that some in the so-called "WMA Community" flaunt their apparently willful abuse of swords as if such were disposable items. Swords in olden days were basically treated like holy objects for these reasons: the hard skilled labour and "magic" that it took to make them, and the resulting expense, and the fact that the sword was the swordsman's "friend", because it helped him protect his life. So it makes me sick to read the comments by certain fencers who should know better. |
Prove it. We (and specifically I) gave clear evidence from primary-source material refuting this. The burden of proof is clearly yours then to attack that evidence and *then* present your own to the contrary.
| Quote: | | Also -- when fight-masters do say to utilise the edge to parry, then we should take it to mean one's edge versus the foe's flat. That simple *blanking* thing is just totally ignored by the usual crowd of fools. They cannot seem to understand that edge-use-only is mono-optional, whilst flat-use is actually tri-optional, vis-a-vis one's foe, thus: flat-to-flat, flat-to-edge, edge-to-flat. |
Wow... Did you actually *read* any of the evidence on this thread??!!  But at least the "crowd of fools" relied upon clear evidence to support their arguments, whereas the ARMA folks... Well, sorry, but JC isn't a valid primary source.
| Quote: | Lastly, I recall Tobler stated that it was unprovable whether or not ARMA makes for excellent swordsmen. His argument for that amounted to some sort of bizarre, weak pre-emptive refusal to ever spar any of our scholars to find out one way or the other. I suppose he thinks such is clever nonsequitor that goes by unnoticed.
It is not. |
LOL! Was that serious??!! 
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: |
John Clements has not participated in this discussion on this forum. |
I hope this will not appear to our moderators to be over the line they recently drew, but I do wish to ask the following question.
Greg, can you tell me if Clements has participated in any discussion of his views on any neutral forum whatsoever in the last three years? By neutral, I refer to any forum which is not run by ARMA or an ARMA sub-group.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Stockwell
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 3:58 am Post subject: Re: Simple *Blanking* Thing |
|
|
| Jeffrey Hull wrote: | Yes, I have read here the usual contradictions to proper edge-usage and flat-usage in parrying with the longsword. It angers me that some in the so-called "WMA Community" flaunt their apparently willful abuse of swords as if such were disposable items. Swords in olden days were basically treated like holy objects for these reasons: the hard skilled labour and "magic" that it took to make them, and the resulting expense, and the fact that the sword was the swordsman's "friend", because it helped him protect his life. So it makes me sick to read the comments by certain fencers who should know better.
|
You are speaking of the experiments shown here by other ARMA members? Shocking isn't it. 
Some swords today are disposable items. They are mass produced by cheap labor and not highly finished. I imagine there were similar weapons in days of yore. I see nothing wrong with using swords like this to understand the physical consequences of sword-to-sword contact.
I've taken a Windlass sabre and hit the edge full force with a short sword I made myself. I was expecting the sabre to have a crappy heat treat, and so my custom sword should cut right through it. Hmm. I did put a big gouge in the sabre, but the sabre bit my sword as well. Thin edge -- in retrospect, not so surprising. The thing that impressed me in the end was that I could swing the short sword into the sabre, edge to edge, full strength, and both weapons survived and would be fully servicable. Yes they have substantial notches, but they did not break. I continue to use the short sword as a beater, and it still hasn't broken despite biting into other metal objects, plywood, stumps, etc.
The sword is your friend, yes, but it is also a soldier. If you have to sacrifice the edge to save your life, do it.
Walter
www.stockwellknives.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic