| Author |
Message |
|
Joel Whitmore
Location: Simmesport, LA Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 342
|
 Posted: Mon 04 Oct, 2004 9:17 am Post subject: This is a very interesting discussion! |
 |
|
Very good discussion. I was wondering if the fencing manuels that survive were mainly concerned with duels rather than actual battlefield techniques. I know Liberi had chapters in his manuel on fighting on horseback and Tolhoffer had chapters on fighting in armor. Certainly these techniques would apply to the battlefield, buut were moany/most of these feetchboks concerned with single combat?
Joel Whitmore
|
|
    |
 |
|
R. Laine
|
| Posted: Mon 04 Oct, 2004 9:35 am Post subject: Re: This is a very interesting discussion! |
|
|
| Joel Whitmore wrote: | Certainly these techniques would apply to the battlefield, buut were moany/most of these feetchboks concerned with single combat?
Joel Whitmore |
I guess you could say that. There are some systems that were specifically designed for the battlefield (military sabre is one of these, surprisingly, and Silver also mentions that his system is applicable to larger battles, in addition to civilian self-defence), but most seem to primarily discuss single combat. However, even some of the single combat texts do have the occasional tip on how to fence against more than one opponent.
Rabbe
Last edited by R. Laine on Mon 04 Oct, 2004 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
| Posted: Mon 04 Oct, 2004 7:15 pm Post subject: Re: Thanks for replying Stephen |
|
|
| Joel Whitmore wrote: | | I am curious about the stoppes you mentioned. Does this apply to the longsword also? |
Dear Joel,
Longsword is one of the few weapons that I don't study (there are too many weapons to do justice to) but I've read all the books you mention, plus the two excellent new books, Christian Tobler's Fighting with the German Longsword and Guy Windsor's Swordsman's Companion. The only stop that I can recall is the Kron, where the stop is made with the cross, not the blade at all. Stops just don't seem to be the most effective way to use such a weapon. This is another point that should be emphasised. I stated that there were lots of different types of parry. In addition, not all types of parry were used with all weapons and in all styles. As I said earlier, you should do what the text you're working from tells you to do as these chaps knew a lot more about weapon use than we do. Sometimes, with some weapons this will be parries with the edge. Sometimes with other weapons it will be parries with the flat. In some styles and weapons, both might be used. In the specific case of the longsword, parries are used less than counterattacks, particularly in the German system. I know that Fiore Dei Liberi's Italian system used many parries made by striking with the edge (sometimes true, sometimes false edge) into the opponent's sword. You just have to do what the original masters said to do because they fought and saw other fight, while we don't.
Cheers
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
 |
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: Re: New ARMA article: "On Damaged Edge…" |
|
|
I recently ran acros a very interesting quote on Sword Forum International that justifies the resurrection of this thread.
| Guy Windsor wrote: | | something else training with sharps teaches you is the damage contact does to the edges; much of my opinion about how to parry with a longsword is designed to save your edge; hitting his flat doesn't damage your edge nearly so much |
It seems that Guy Windsor has recent reached the same conclusions about edge-on-edge damage that John Clements and ARMA have been advocating for well over ten years. Simple edge-on-edge tests with sharp swords can indeed be very enlightening!
It is my guess that only minor change to Guy's interpretations were required in order to eliminate the edge damage.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 10:23 am Post subject: Re: New ARMA article: "On Damaged Edge…" |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | I recently ran acros a very interesting quote on Sword Forum International that justifies the resurrection of this thread.
| Guy Windsor wrote: | | something else training with sharps teaches you is the damage contact does to the edges; much of my opinion about how to parry with a longsword is designed to save your edge; hitting his flat doesn't damage your edge nearly so much |
It seems that Guy Windsor has recent reached the same conclusions about edge-on-edge damage that John Clements and ARMA have been advocating for well over ten years. Simple edge-on-edge tests with sharp swords can indeed be very enlightening!
It is my guess that only minor change to Guy's interpretations were required in order to eliminate the edge damage.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW |
Ran,
I don't see how that changes the historical record, where sometimes masters say to use the edge, sometimes they say to use the flat, and it all depends on CONTEXT.
I agree with ARMA, Guy, and everyone else that says that slamming two edges together will likely result in edge damage. And I agree that the type of stage combat seen in movies like Highlander, where they bash the edges together over and over, is incorrect. But I simply cannot agree that ALL sword styles of ALL time periods and ALL situations only used the flat, because the historical texts simply don't ALWAYS use the flat, either..
Context, context, context.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Zeman
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, there are two aspects of this conversation that I have never heard anyone discuss or even mention.
1. If the flat was the only place you were supposed to receive the opponent's sword, why are the cruciform sword crosses protecting the hands along the edge? There is nothing to stop the sword from sliding down onto your hand when using the flat. Obviously every strike received on the flat does not slide down on the hands, but there is a high enough risk that it should be considered.
2. If you are basically saying that the only reason not to use the edge to receive an opponent's attack is to avoid edge damage, then how do you avoid the other guy from using his edge to defend against your attack? Maybe he doesn't care so much, or doesn't know any better, and despite all of your flat parrying your edge gets trashed anyway. So why bother.
Something else that drives me crazy is when everyone starts talking about Medieval longsword and how nobody ever used stopping parries with a longsword. Where do we get that idea? I study Fiore, and there are plenty of stopping parries in there. There are deflections, counter-attacks, voids, yielding parries, and all kinds of defensive actions, but hard stopping action is certainly there, basically doing exactly what John Clements says you should never do, which is stick your sword in the way of the other guy's strike. I know that most German tradition scholars find this kind of purely defensive action to be "bad", however it constitutes a big part of Fiore's system from the Incrosada (the bind, if you will).
And by the way, the Shakespeare quote in the article, where Falstaff says “I am a rogue, if I were not at half-sword with a dozen of them two hours together…my sword hacked like a hand-saw—ecce signum!” He means by half sword to be engaged at the sword at the middle of the blade, edge to edge, with another person. Possibly in defense, possibly in offense, however the whole point of his statement was to show how nicked his sword edge was by virtue of being in combat with another sword. It has nothing at all to do with "half-swording" as the German tradition intends it, where you hold the blade in the middle with the left hand. Please get your references correct if you are going to try and use historical literature to bolster your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nicholas Zeman wrote: | Well, there are two aspects of this conversation that I have never heard anyone discuss or even mention.
1. If the flat was the only place you were supposed to receive the opponent's sword, why are the cruciform sword crosses protecting the hands along the edge? There is nothing to stop the sword from sliding down onto your hand when using the flat. Obviously every strike received on the flat does not slide down on the hands, but there is a high enough risk that it should be considered. |
Huh, that's a good point, Nicholas. I'd never thought of that. 
| Quote: | | I know that most German tradition scholars find this kind of purely defensive action to be "bad", however it constitutes a big part of Fiore's system from the Incrosada (the bind, if you will). |
For the most part, yes, we Germanites find that silly.  Actually, there are a few techniques that require stopping the sword first before performing another action, though they are few and far between. For example, if the opponent strikes from below with the long edge, one way to defend against that is to strike a krumphau (crooked strike). In a perfect world one would do this to the opponent's hands, but since things don't always work that way, sometimes it must be done as a beat against the opponent's sword first (and depending on the angle of your opponent's attack, this often times is edge to edge, by the way). Of course, you don't stop there, you immediately follow up with a short-edge stroke to the head.
Another example would be if the opponent throws a zwerchau to the head, one of the defenses is to strike it with a zornhau(wrath strike), then winding immediately winding the tip around to thrust at the closest opening. (Incidently, that technique also will most likely be edge to edge.)
| Quote: |
And by the way, the Shakespeare quote in the article, where Falstaff says “I am a rogue, if I were not at half-sword with a dozen of them two hours together…my sword hacked like a hand-saw—ecce signum!” He means by half sword to be engaged at the sword at the middle of the blade, edge to edge, with another person. Possibly in defense, possibly in offense, however the whole point of his statement was to show how nicked his sword edge was by virtue of being in combat with another sword. It has nothing at all to do with "half-swording" as the German tradition intends it, where you hold the blade in the middle with the left hand. Please get your references correct if you are going to try and use historical literature to bolster your argument. |
And from what I recall, that isn't the only place where the term "half-sword" is misapplied in the article. There's at least one other reference to it in terms of the spadona, I believe, where half-sword is mentioned, and Clements assumes it means grasping the blade (despite the fact that if you read the entire section it is very clear that the text meant when two blades meet in the middle). I never brought it up because it seemed off-topic. Sadly, though, there are a number of factual inconsistencies within the article besides this one which make me question whether the quotations being used were just picked out by a tunnel-visioned search for any reference to parrying (i.e. someone did CTRL F and searched only for parrying references). Some of the comments in the article lead me to believe that many of the citations come from documents that were otherwise not read at all, unfortunately.
*edit* My mistake: The reference, and others, are from different articles on the ARMA site on edge parrying, not from this particular article.
I do want to make it clear: My stance is not one that is anti-ARMA or anti-John Clements (because sometimes it seems like arguments like these get misconstrued this way). My stance is that this article is being very narrow-sighted. I've said it many times already in this thread: We can't make blanket, definitive sweeping statements like this, especially when there is so much contrary HISTORICAL evidence. Including the very words of the masters who are being quoted in the article.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 2:20 pm Post subject: Re: New ARMA article: "On Damaged Edge…" |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | because the historical texts simply don't ALWAYS use the flat, either.. |
Bill
John Clements and ARMA have NEVER said to use only the flat. John's position has always been against slamming the edges together. In one context the flat is used, such as when performing a hanging parry. In another context the edge is used, such as Ringeck's Zornhau to Zornhau counter. In these contexts it is either edge-to-flat or flat-to-edge, but it is never edge-to-edge. Also, John has always acknowledged that some of the later sword traditions, such as saber, do make use of edge to edge parries.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nicholas Zeman wrote: | | 1. If the flat was the only place you were supposed to receive the opponent's sword, why are the cruciform sword crosses protecting the hands along the edge? There is nothing to stop the sword from sliding down onto your hand when using the flat. Obviously every strike received on the flat does not slide down on the hands, but there is a high enough risk that it should be considered. |
This has never been a problem following ARMA's interpretations. We do take a lot of finger abuse due to the hand being a nice target but to the best of my knowledge it is never related to a sword sliding down the flat. If a sword did sliding down the flat to hit someone's hand then I would say that that person failed to perform a technique properly.
| Nicholas Zeman wrote: |
2. If you are basically saying that the only reason not to use the edge to receive an opponent's attack is to avoid edge damage, then how do you avoid the other guy from using his edge to defend against your attack? Maybe he doesn't care so much, or doesn't know any better, and despite all of your flat parrying your edge gets trashed anyway. So why bother. |
Modern soldiers often have to crawl through mud in order to protect themselves in battle. In doing so their weapons often get full of mud. So why do they bother to clean taking care of their weapons? Because their life depend upon it, which is a very good reason! That is why all modern professional soldiers are taught to take care of their weapons.
| Nicholas Zeman wrote: |
Something else that drives me crazy is when everyone starts talking about Medieval longsword and how nobody ever used stopping parries with a longsword. Where do we get that idea? I study Fiore, and there are plenty of stopping parries in there. There are deflections, counter-attacks, voids, yielding parries, and all kinds of defensive actions, but hard stopping action is certainly there, basically doing exactly what John Clements says you should never do, which is stick your sword in the way of the other guy's strike. I know that most German tradition scholars find this kind of purely defensive action to be "bad", however it constitutes a big part of Fiore's system from the Incrosada (the bind, if you will). |
The stopping parries John Clements says not to do are those that we often see in stage fighting where one stick out their edge to statically receive a cut. The stopping parry is not a component of a larger technique, it is a stop and nothing else, thus it is never a deflection or part of a counter-attack. As you noted some techniques do include something of a stopping action. For example, as performed according to ARMA's interpretation, an Absetzen against a Zornhau involves popping the incoming cut with the flat of your blade and continueing on into a thrust. Note that in one smooth motion you blade stops the adversary blade but keeps moving. At no point is your blade static.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: New ARMA article: "On Damaged Edge…" |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | But I simply cannot agree that ALL sword styles of ALL time periods and ALL situations only used the flat, because the historical texts simply don't ALWAYS use the flat, either..
Context, context, context. |
Bill,
To be honest, I'm not really even sure why this is an issue. If you've read John's article, you'll know it says:
"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."
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
Another one that I see as an edge parry: "If you are in vom Tag (the roof guard, sword high, tip pointing up) and he strikes a Zwerchhau ("cross strike", the technique previously described) above you, immediately strike a Zornhau ("strike of wrath", diagonal downward strike) with strength against his sword and find an opening to strike with the point."
|
I'm not taking any position on this old edge parry vs flat parry debate, but I don't understand this example because if you go zornhau vs. zwerchau it seems to me the edge is hitting the flat... unless you are aiming at each others swords instead of at each other, and that is not how you are supposed to do a miesterhau...
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ran,
I understand what John is saying. And I in turn agree with the concept that what you see in typical stage combat, where the edges are constantly hit together over and over, is not correct. I have said as much. And I have even agreed with pretty much all of the cases where John presents
But to say that historical masters never advised using the edge against another edge is ignoring a number of cases, several of which have been brought up in this very thread, albeit a long time ago.
So to be clear: I agree with about 85% of what that article says. I just don't see why this who arguement needs to be said with such absoluteness.
What if I told you that a sword must use the blade to make any attacks, and it must be done this way 100% of the time? You'd probably tell me (and rightly so) that I was wrong. Maybe you'd show me an example of a pommel strike from the text. But then I might come back and say, "That's a silly notion. Why wouldn' t I use the blade? The very strike that Liechtenauer mentions is the zornhau, which must be done with the edge, so clearly the blade must be used." And you'd say, "Of course that's true. But here's an example of a mortschlag, done with the hilt." And I might say, "Why on earth would I do that? That's silly. Look at all of these examples where the blade is used without any mention of the hilt. Clearly that is the only way." And you might then show me ringen am schwert, and I again say that's silly, because look at all of the evidence for using the blade...
That's exactly how this conversation has been going. Historical evidence is used to show flat parries (or edge to flat parries), and that's great. Then evidence is shown where there'd be edge to edge, and these are countered with more examples of flat parries. Then evidence is shown of more edge to edge, and this is further countered with more examples of flat parries.
I can't help but think that somehow we're all missing the point.
| Craig Peters wrote: | | To be honest, I'm not really even sure why this is an issue. If you've read John's article, you'll know it says: (snip) |
As a matter of fact, I did read the article. I don't understand what that quote has to do with my post, though, I'm afraid.
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
I'm not taking any position on this old edge parry vs flat parry debate, |
Hi Jean,
To be clear, I'm not taking an edge or flat stance. I'm saying your mode of defense depends on the context.
| Quote: | | but I don't understand this example because if you go zornhau vs. zwerchau it seems to me the edge is hitting the flat... unless you are aiming at each others swords instead of at each other, and that is not how you are supposed to do a miesterhau... |
Who says you never strike against the sword? Certainly not Liechtenauer, or Ringeck, or the authors from the von Danzig manuscript, or any other master within the Liechtenauer tradition. Now, in most cases, sure, you need to go straight for the opponent, but this isn't always an option. Sometimes you need to strike the blade first, and in this case, that's exactly what the text says to do. "Strike a zornhau with strength against his sword..." Now, you aren't just hitting the sword. You are seamlessly moving into the mutieren, so it isn't a defense without offense. But the text explicitly says to strike the blade. This is far from unique, either. In fact, it's fairly common. Two quick examples:
"If you want to weaken a master, then while he strikes an oberhau from his right counter with a krumphau using crossed hands against his sword"
"If you are on your left side in the nebenhut and he strikes an oberhau, strike (angled against the opposing blade in such a way that the strike forces it to the side) from below with the short edge strongly against his sword."
(and by the way, I intentionally used examples where one might striking the flats, as I want it to be clear that I do in fact advocate flat parries and edge to flat parries, provided that 1) the historical masters said to do so, and 2) the tactical situation makes this possible)
(edited to fix HTML mistake)
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
Last edited by Bill Grandy on Sat 14 Apr, 2007 9:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As a matter of fact, I did read the article. I don't understand what that quote has to do with my post, though, I'm afraid. |
What do you mean? You wrote that "But I simply cannot agree that ALL sword styles of ALL time periods and ALL situations only used the flat, because the historical texts simply don't ALWAYS use the flat, either.. "
In response, I pointed out that John's article does not actually make that assertion, and in fact acknowledges that certain sword styles in certain periods did use the edge. My point is that you cannot have read the article that carefully if you're arguing against assertions and claims that were not made within it.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craig,
If that paragraph means that it's sometimes okay to parry with the edge, then I'm much more content with the point of the article. I don't interpret it's meaning that way, however, I'm happy to be wrong about that.
Either way, how does this change the fact that medieval masters also had instances of edge parrying?
And can we please discuss this without the dismissive tone? These debates are hard enough to do in an online format without having insinuations that I couldn't have read an article just because you disagree with me.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I can't help but think that somehow we're all missing the point. |
I don't think we are. The article indicates that for long swords impacts are taken on the ricasso, but in the form of stifling actions, which really are not the same thing as parries. It also indicates that later styles of fencing did use edge parries, even though we still find a significant amount of literature extolling the virtues of edge-to-flat parries.
That leaves us only with whether or not edge parries were made with the long sword. But on this subject we have evidence too. We know, for instance, that swords receive a lot of wear and tear naturally in battle, from impacting against armour, other weapons, shields, bucklers and the like. We also know that edge impacts between two swords causes a horrendous amount of damage when using sharps. This is fairly self evident, but it can be tested by bashing sharp knives together, or even hitting sharp swords together at partial speed. In terms of concrete evidence, my Sempach suffered a significant edge failure when I performed a forceful beat against another of my Albions; it's not clear to me whether I struck the edge or the flat (though I was aiming for the flat); whatever the case, the damage occurred.
Given all of the above, we have to wonder why medieval masters would have advocated ever using edge parries. They would seem to only be useful for destroying one's sword, precisely the means one has of defending one's self. CMy fellow ARMA members make an effort to avoid using edge parries, and I don't think anyone is accusing them of being poorer fencers for it. Using edge parries also does not fit with Liechtenauer's philosophy "Das yn die wyssen hassen/ Dye man sich preysen", "Those with wisdom loathe the one forced to defend".
So really, then, unless you still disagree that edge parries were not used for the long sword, I'm not sure why this discussion is still going on. If we agree that edge parries are not used for the long sword, and agree that later masters and manuals did advocate them, then we are stating nothing different than what was written in the article.
Translation from Christian Tobler's In Service of the Duke page 237.
Last edited by Craig Peters on Sat 14 Apr, 2007 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
And can we please discuss this without the dismissive tone? These debates are hard enough to do in an online format without having insinuations that I couldn't have read an article just because you disagree with me. |
Fair enough, my tone wasn't appropriate. I just did not understand why you were saying that all sword styles of all time periods and all situations only used the flat, when the article doesn't say anything of that nature. If it does not, as I mentioned, then why make that point?
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Apr, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | | Fair enough, my tone wasn't appropriate. I just did not understand why you were saying that all sword styles of all time periods and all situations only used the flat, when the article doesn't say anything of that nature. If it does not, as I mentioned, then why make that point? |
You're right. The article doesn't say that. I stated it because it too often goes hand in hand with the edge vs. flat debate... but since this thread is about the article specifically, you're right, I shouldn't have said it.
| Quote: | | The article indicates that for long swords impacts are taken on the ricasso, but in the form of stifling actions, which really are not the same thing as parries. |
I've given examples that are not "stiffling actions" that are done with the edge. But then again, perhaps we aren't discussing the same thing when we say "parry". I'm talking about any defensive action using the blade. Maybe I'm assuming something about the way John is defining a parry? I was assuming that the article included defensive beats against an attack, for example. The krumphau is stated to be used with the long edge against an unterhau, followed by an attack to the head with the short edge. Would this be considered a parry? I ask, because if actions such as that are not being considered "parries", then that changes the discussion quite a bit.
| Quote: | | That leaves us only with whether or not edge parries were made with the long sword. But on this subject we have evidence too. We know, for instance, that swords receive a lot of wear and tear naturally in battle, from impacting against armour, other weapons, shields, bucklers and the like. We also know that edge impacts between two swords causes a horrendous amount of damage when using sharps. This is fairly self evident, but it can be tested by bashing sharp knives together, or even hitting sharp swords together at partial speed. In terms of concrete evidence, my Sempach suffered a significant edge failure when I performed a forceful beat against another of my Albions; it's not clear to me whether I struck the edge or the flat (though I was aiming for the flat); whatever the case, the damage occurred. |
I'm not disagreeing here. I've already stated that, yes, edge on edge striking will cause damage to the sword.
| Quote: | | Given all of the above, we have to wonder why medieval masters would have advocated ever using edge parries. |
I wish someone could invent a time machine and ask them, personally. Joking aside, I don't think they specifically advocated edge parries, I think they advocated effecient martial actions that ultimately kept the user alive, and sometimes that involved using the edge against the edge. Simple as that. Case in point, a counter against the zwerchau from vom Danzig:
"Note, when he strikes with the Thwart from his right side to your left side above to the head, then parry with the long edge and keep the point before his chest. " It then goes to describe the opponent taking off to perform another zwerchau on the other side, and you performing your own underneath. The second portion of this will end up receiving your opponent's edge on your flat. But there's no deny the first part: Use your long edge to stop the oncoming zwerchau. I didn't write that, it's in vom Danzig.
| Quote: | | Using edge parries also does not fit with Liechtenauer's philosophy "Das yn die wyssen hassen/ Dye man sich preysen", "Those with wisdom loathe the one forced to defend". |
How so? It doesn't violate that rule any more than a flat parry would. For example, let's say I did an edge to edge parry with a zornhau against a zornhau as I strike my opponent, then did the same using the flat. (And I'll go ahead and say that I do advocate the flat in this scenario). Aside from the fact that one might be more likely to damage the sword, neither violates the idea of loathing the one forced to defend.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Apr, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bill
I want to start off by saying at this time that I am enjoying this discussion and that nothing I say is intended to insult or cause hard feelings of any kind. If the discussion appears heated at times just know that it is from the passion I have of there arts, not from animosity or contempt. I assume the same of you. I enjoyed my encounters with you and your students at the WMAW 2006 event and hope to repeat the experience at future events. My one regret from that event was not knowing at that time about Guy's position on this issue. I would have very much enjoyed a hands-on disucssion with Guy.
I must also point out that I speak only for myself. I do not speak for ARMA or any of its members.
| Bill Grandy wrote: | Historical evidence is used to show flat parries (or edge to flat parries), and that's great. Then evidence is shown where there'd be edge to edge, and these are countered with more examples of flat parries. Then evidence is shown of more edge to edge, and this is further countered with more examples of flat parries.
I can't help but think that somehow we're all missing the point. |
I think the reason I appear to be missing your point has to do with a number of differences between the interpretations of ARMA scholars and the interpretations of other scholars, such as yourself. A major difference that I observed at the WMAW event in October 2006 was in how the Vom Tag guard is held. At the event almost everyone held the Vom Tag guard with their sword in front of their chest and during an Oberhau leverage their hilt well below the level of their shoulder. My understanding is that this is based on a literal interpretaiton of Von Danzig image of Vom Tag. In ARMA we do not follow this interpretation because good research methodology requires that if one image from a given master is taken as literal then all of the images of that master must be take are literal (this is discussed in a thread on the ARMA forum: http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...;start=0). A literal interpretation of Von Danzig's image of Pflug would require one to dislocate their shoulder. A literal interpretation of Von Danzig's image of Ochs would require one to hold their sword over their head. It is an all or nothing kind of thing. In ARMA we hold the Vom Tag guard with our sword over our right shoulder or over our head and torque our hilts about shoulder level when cutting an Oberahu So what is the effects of the different interpretaitons? Earlier you provided lthe following quote.
| Quote: | | if the opponent throws a zwerchau to the head, one of the defenses is to strike it with a zornhau(wrath strike), then winding immediately winding the tip around to thrust at the closest opening. (Incidently, that technique also will most likely be edge to edge.) |
If you cut a Zornhau from Vom Tag in front of the chest to counter a Zwerchau then it will indeed result in an edge-on-edge impact. However, if you cut the Zornhau from Vom Tag with the sword over the shoulder while torquing the hilt about shoulder level then your blade will actually come down on top of the adversary's blade, knocking it down and catching his edge on the lower guard of your sword. Of course, even in an edge-to-flat impact it is possible for the edges to be the first parts of the blades to make contact with each other, but it is a very low angle and most of the power is directed into the flat.
Another example is the Zornhau to Zornhau counter. If both Zornhaus are thrown from Vom Tag in front of the chest then it will indeed result in an edge-on-edge impact. However, if both Zornhaus are thrown from Vom Tag over the shoulder then it will result in an edge-to-flat impact.
Before attending the WMAW event I, like most ARMA members, believed that edge-on-edge parries were something that people in other groups did occasionally. However, at the WMAW event I oberserved an enormous amout of edge-on-edge impacts. My own blunt swords received more edge damage during that one weekend of training than in my pervious seven years of much harder training with ARMA. I use to think that it was just a matter of saying, "See the edge damage. Don't do that". I now understand that the elimination of edge-on-edge parries will result only from a re-evalution of some currently accepted interpretaitons of some very basic techniques.
Respectfully,
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Apr, 2007 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
As someone totally unqualified to discuss the techniques in the above posts I can say that as a lover of swords or at least my swords I would prefer not doing edge to edge parries in general and if my survival in a fight was accomplished by using a technique that minimizes edge damage equally well to one that would do some edge damage.
All else being equal less edge to edge contact is preferable.
With period practice I would imagine avoiding edge to edge contact or at least minimizing it would be second nature if and a BIG IF it was the best way to fight and live for the next fight.
In the modern context with different interpretations more edge on edge contact might happen because of the lack of a tacit agreement to not use edge to edge parries.
Surviving being more a priority than avoiding sword damage the issue of preserving one's sword would at the very least come in second as a priority.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Apr, 2007 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | With period practice I would imagine avoiding edge to edge contact or at least minimizing it would be second nature if and a BIG IF it was the best way to fight and live for the next fight. |
Jean
You have touched upon a very important point. As I have said on a number of occassions, in actual sparring with intent and power edge-on-edge parries are not so much something we don't do as they are something that just do not happen. Following ARMA's interpretations of the historical techniques we don't have to think about not hitting our edges, so yes it can easily becomes second nature.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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