[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hello Randall,

The interpretation is not entirely based on the images from von Danzig. The *text* is specific in saying that the sword is *on* the right shoulder. The folks from Ochs, as well as Stefan Dieke, pointed out the distinction in the text to me. The text says:

Do it like this: stand with your left foot forward and hold your sword on your right shoulder or with outstretched arms up over your head, and stand thus in the guard.

Incidentally, when translated perfectly literally, that's what Ringeck says too. My bad!! That means that the two families of texts describing that version of vom Tag both agree it's on the shoulder. Not 'at', but 'on'.

The reason for this becomes very obvious when practiced. This position eliminates any possibility of rearing back and telegraphing the stroke. Any such backward movement is an empty tempo for your opponent to exploit. A similar idea seems to be intended in Paulus Kal's over the head variant of vom Tag: the sword is held vertically, so the most instinctual movement will be to drop it forward, rather than initially rearing back when held in a more backward inclined position.

Regarding the drawing of Pflug, this too is quite purposeful. Late Medieval artwork often exaggerates body positioning to stress a point. The idea being conveyed is one of the sword being strongly 'pre-loaded' at the hip so that, again, any movement to thrust will include only the intended movement, with no instinctive pulling back to charge the thrust.

I can't agree with your analysis about the orientation of edges and the on the shoulder positioning of vom Tag; in fact, the opposite is quite true: the shouldered position tends to yield a much more 'oblique' encounter with the edges, rather than a 90 degree impact (which isn't likely in either variant).

The best advice I can give is to try to do, as much as is humanly possible, to do the posture in von Danzig as precisely as one can; those drawings contain a wealth of kinesthetic information regarding body position, weighting, focus and targeting. One could give an entire seminar on just those drawings quite easily.

In any case I think this whole issue is largely a straw man, and a pretty tired out one to boot. It's also much obfuscated by the use of the word parry - there are no parries in German medieval treatises in the modern movie sense of the word. Some techniques from the German corpus yield edge to edge contact, some edge to flat, with the majority involving oblique contacts that are neither and both. The masters are silent on all of this, largely because the idea of worrying about nicking your edge in a life and death encounter is akin to worrying about scratching your car's paint after surviving a near-fatal crash. I've performed all the primary techniques - none of which create theatrical-style 90 degree impacts - with blunts and with sharps, and I remain unfazed by this being something anyone should seriously be worried about. I too bouted with steel swords at WMAW, and with Brian Price and Guy Windsor at that (who's a marvelous combatant, and most excellent gentleman, to face) and my swords look just fine.

All the best,

Christian

PS. I heard you were at WMAW...you should have introduced yourself! I don't know your face, so I didn't know who to look for.

[Bill Grandy]

[Nicholas Zeman]

Well I can certainly agree that if you bash two sharp edges together it will damage both swords. I don't think anyone can really dispute that, especially if they do a few tests. And I agree that standing there, sticking the sword in the way of an incoming cut, and then just standing there some more is not really the best mode of defense and is not advocated by anyone.

But simply placing the sword in the way of the incoming weapon's arc is a common and effective way of keeping it from cutting the intended target, which is you. What you do after this action is what makes it effective in a tactical sense. The classic parry-riposte action is found in every single Western fencing system I have ever studied. In some systems, like the Lichtenauer tradition or the Italian rapier, it is discouraged for specific reasons. But in many other systems the classic parry riposte is used quite liberally without any condemnation, such as Fiore. Fiore especially illustrates a static parry when entering into the Stretto, there really is no other way to safely do it. To say that defensive parry actions are never used in Longsword is just plain silly, as is saying that the edge was never used in a defensive manner (and I don't think that John Clements or his articles are saying that at all).


The question really is, why would you want to use the edge or the flat of the sword to make any defensive action? If you had a magic sword that could never be damaged would you use the edge or the flat to make defensive actions with it? Are we learning techniques and actions based on what might damage the sword, or what might be the best tactical option for us to make? Can we specifically work out techniques around what is best for our sword's edge, or what is best for keeping us alive? Are there systems that ever even mention damaging the sword (Viggiani is one that comes to mind)?

I can't remember a single historical manuscript other than Viggiani that even mentions damaging the sword at all. And he mentions that his universal parry could possibly break the opponent's sword, and this is contacting edge to edge, middle to debole. No early text really says anything about doing something a specific way to avoid notching your edge. Now, this may have been just common knowledge, but it seems strange that people have to be told this now but it was not in need of discussing at the time in question. Maybe nobody cared if their swords got dinged up at all, they just went and got it fixed or bought a new one. There is enough historical evidence that swords broke and were damaged to think that maybe they were more disposable than they are today. There is also the intended use of the weapons, in combat, against axes, spears, shield rims, helmets, mail, plates, and who knows what else. I can't really accept that the one thing you were worried about with all these other more likely damaging elements around was the edge of another sword.

But I am not privy to any information anyone else who has studied European Sword Arts is not, and I'm no authority on the subject. I certainly would never say that the edge was always used when making defensive actions all the time, just like I would never say the opposite. but I can say that I strongly disagree with anyone making the argument that certain things should be done a certain way based solely on the criteria that it might damage the edge of the sword otherwise. If I can be shown why in terms of tempo or leverage it will provide an advantage to me I might take a look at it and consider such actions. I have not trained with or really seen any of the ARMA methods in this regard, and I have nothing against taking a look at exactly how they preform actions with the flat of the sword in a defensive manner. If anyone wants to post some examples, I would love to see it.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Michael Edelson]

These questions are not intended to start trouble or to cast accusations. I am extremely interested in the answers:

1. How many people on the "use the flat" side of this debate are martial arts practicioners (as in physial practicioners, not only researchers)?

2. How many people on the "use the edge (or just use whatever)" side are practicioners?

3. How many people on the "flat" side are members of ARMA? (I ask this because I personally have never seen a member of ARMA publicly disagree with John Clements...not saying it doesn't happen, I've just never seen it).

I think the answers to these questions can tell us something. Maybe a poll of some sort is in order?

[Nicholas Zeman]

I'm not familiar with Thibault, although I have talked to a few people that study his work. One thing that surprises me about his statement, as posted above, is that plenty of Masters before him advocate stopping parries doing exactly what he says not to do, which is to take the attack on the strong of the blade in a stopping parry action (Silver to name one).

In Suio Ryu, the koryu which I am a scholar, we actually do use the shinogi, or flat of the blade to make defense against a cut, sometimes in a stopping parry, sometimes in a deflection. However I was taught never to use the edge, but only the shinogi. One thing that is key here, is that the hand position is specifically shifted to make the parry, instead of the fingers aligning with the edge they align with the flat on the hilt. This is to make the parry as biomechanically strong as possible. However, we do have several "Zornhau" type parries, that literally cut into the attacking blade edge to edge. Generally due to the angle and timing the flat of the attacking blade is met with the edge of the defending blade. So I don't think that using the flat of a blade is ineffective at all, in fact it seems the preference in many JSA systems. I don't think that using the edge in the same manner is all that detrimental either, especially when you are talking about using the forte.

[Craig Peters]

[Craig Peters]

Bill,

Also, how would a long edge parry against his the edge of his Zwerch allow you to successfully execute the technique that von Danzig is describing?

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Bill Grandy]

[Bill Grandy]

[Bill Grandy]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Greg Coffman]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Bill Grandy]

[Bill Grandy]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Nicholas Zeman]

I assume since you guys are pretty dedicated Lichtenauer scholars that the spinning moves were just for fun!

[Jean Henri Chandler]