| Author |
Message |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Enough. The resuscitation of this thread has already crossed the line we (repeatedly) asked folks not to.
This is the last warning. Be civil and professional or you'll find your posting privileges revoked and this thread done away with.
When this thread started, it was worthy of the Spotlight Topic designation. All this sniping has sullied that.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
    |
 |
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey Hull
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: Flat-Use in Fechtbuecher |
|
|
Flat-Use in Fechtbuecher
The use of the blade-flat in German Medieval and Renaissance longsword fencing is something advocated by various Fechtmeister in their manuals.
By this is meant the meeting during versetzen or brechen of fighter and foe's swords flat-to-flat, flat-to-edge, or edge-to-flat, but not edge-to-edge.
Firstly, witness the German grandmaster Johannes Liechtenauer (1350-1420) advising such:
Liechtenauer (via Ringeck-1438)
(similarly repeated by Von Danzig-1452, Lew-1450 & Von Speyer-1491)
(Thanks to Arts d'Armes transcription)
(My translation - JH)
Here we are told a way to break through the ward of a foe:
(25v) Haw krump zù den flechen den maistern, wiltu sy schwechen.
(25v) Hew crumpler to the flats of masters, thus you will weaken them.
Both Ringeck and Von Danzig later explain such as an attack option from barrier-ward -- for example, as Von Danzig explains:
Liechtenauer (via Von Danzig-1452)
(Thanks to Arts d'Armes transcription)
(My translation - JH)
(51v) Die stuck treyb vß der schrankhùt also:
...Item, oder haw im krump zur flechen; vnd alß bald es klützt, so
(52r) such die nach mitt der kurtzen schnyden.
(51v) Thus drive the play out of barrier-ward:
...[Thus as aforesaid] or hew him crumpler to the flats; and as soon as it clashes, then
(52r) seek the next [opening] with your short-edge.
Which I have done successfully any number of times versus training partners.
*****
Secondly, witness Hans Talhoffer advising such.
Talhoffer (1459-Thott)
(My transcription & translation - JH)
(3r) how uff sin fleche
so tuostu in schwechen
wenn eß knuolt obnen
So nym ab Daz wil ich loben
(3r) Thus hew upon his flats,
So do you weaken him.
When it clashes high,
Then take off – that will I laud.
What seems described here is a fighter breaking a foe's strike or ward, doubtlessly at the flat, which brings them to a hard bind, wherefrom fighter takes off and strikes round to an opening of foe.
*****
Lastly, witness Joachim Meyer advising such.
Meyer-1570
(Thanks to Rasmussen-Schielhau transcription)
(My translation - JH)
...fang jhm sein Schwerdt aff deine klingen fleche...
...catch him his sword upon your blade-flat...
And furthermore, Meyer advises one to properly do hanging-ward:
...empfach damit seinen streich auf deiner Klingen fleche...
...withstand his strike upon your blade-flat...
Rather straightforward stuff there.
*****
If flat-use is a problem for someone, then such a person has a problem with physics; and/or you is not athletic & skilled enough to do it properly; plus he lacks respect for his own weaponry by putting it to unneeded risk of damage and failure, and sadly, lacks respect for the Fight-Masters.
Historical examples of flat-use are there for anyone to read and see, whether in the source texts, or as quote & translated and explained by the writings and demonstrations of various ARMA associates. Despite the numerous instructions to use flaech or flech meaning *flat* provided to us by historical masters such as Liechtenauer and Meyer, most notably the former's advice vis-a-vis Krumphau, we are treated to much naysaying against it.
Thus said, I should like to offer a seemingly overlooked masterly example: that of Talhoffer in his 1467 Roszfechten which constitutes use of flat, which he describes as epicher hand meaning *ebbing-hand*.
Men on horseback are fighting in this sequence (plates 251-260) with bastard-riding-swords wielded single-handedly. The terms epicher hand and der Epich are used to describe the turning of the wrist to make dynamic Versetzen of one blade against another, in order to do so properly, in this case flat-to-edge or edge-to-flat. This is reinforced by the dimensionally correct illustrations which show it this way three (03) times, twice from Pflug (more or less) and once from Hengen.
Talhoffer's text and pictures regarding ebbing-hand could not be more crystal-clear, authoritative, and definitive in support of flat-use in swordsmanship. Sadly, this alternative yet correlative example is often overlooked, if not downright ignored.
Note again that Talhoffer (1467) in his Messer part, where plate 226 shows clearly use of blade-flat by technique of gewenter hand or *wended-hand* during Versetzen -- see Rector's book for that. This is much like his epicher hand or *ebbing-hand*.
For those unfamiliar, Talhoffer was a true Fechtmeister, being the master-of-arms for the army of Prinz Koenigsegg. He wrote and edited as many as seven different fight-books over a period of 20 to 30 years in the 15th Cent AD. His tradition is in that of Liechtenauer.
Wended-hand and/or flat use seems corroborated repeatedly by Duerer (1512) in his fightbook's falchion part. Note his plates 05, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 (which portrays same conflict as Talhoffer's 226 from different angle), 27, 29, 42, 43, 49 and 50. Although we are unsure what Duerer called it, he does portray it similarly to Talhoffer.
For those unfamiliar, Duerer is one of the greatest artists ever who was undoubtedly acqauinted with coeval fencing in some manner. He wrote and illustrated the first book in German about artistic portrayal of accurate perspective based upon math and geometry, Underweysung der Messung. His unfinished Fechtbuch, which shares much in common with Codex Wallerstein (1450s), was personally commissioned by his Kaiser.
So in other words, these two men stand as what we call true historical authorities.
Combine the advice and illustrations of these real historical authorities with dedicated actual practice of what they advise, and you could find out for yourself the superiority of blade-flat use in Renaissance swordsmanship.
*****
Alright, to sum it up one last time of how ARMA regards correct displacing / parrying / forsetting / setting-aside and the use of the edge(s) of one's own sword vis-a-vis the edge(s) of the foe's sword, based upon fight-books, physics, integrity of weaponry, and most importantly, effectively defending one's being:
Flat to Edge
Edge to Flat
Flat to Flat
But NOT:
Edge to Edge
This is about as crystal clear and simple as I daresay anyone can make it. There are at least three articles by John Clements at this very website which thoroughly address and advocate this, plus the collective experience of the ARMA membership to profess and prove this. Plus one may prove it to himself, if he dare.
Here are some helpful articles:
The Physical Reality of Forceful Edge Impacts
http://www.thearma.org/essays/impacts.htm
How to Teach an Understanding of Parrying
http://www.thearma.org/essays/parrying.htm
Myth of Edge-on-Edge Parrying in Medieval Swordplay
http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm
On Damaged Edge
http://www.thearma.org/essays/damagededge.htm
Earnestly,
JH
Knightly Dueling - the Fighting Arts of German Chivalry
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually Jeffrey, the evidence you cite simply reinforces the point that you *don't* always strike to the flat. Otherwise, why would such specific instructions be necessary for these specific techniques?
BTW, in your second example, the Talhoffer verses are just slightly re-spun versions of Liechtenauer's advice in the Krumphau example you cite; in this case, you strike to his flat, the angle of the Krumphau faciliates this, in this case.
If striking to the flat was a universally acknowledged thing to do all the time, there would be no need for Liechtenauer or his disciples to point it out in specific examples, each of which has specific tactical reasons for doing so. As a number of posters have pointed out in this thread, sometimes you strike edge to edge, sometimes edge to flat, sometimes the flat receiving the edge.
All the best,
Christian
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
Last edited by Christian Henry Tobler on Wed 16 May, 2007 3:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
 |
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 1:17 pm Post subject: Re: Simple *Blanking* Thing |
|
|
Hi all,
I don't get a chance to post here all that often, but I heard that my article was brought up a number of times in favor of the topic that won't die, so I popped over and slogged through all ten pages of this thread. It's really saddening that we still find ourselves dealing with this material. For those not intimately familiar with what the actual European masters wrote (as opposed to all of us saying what they said), maybe I can add a little grist for the mill
Although it is a little dated, my article in SPADA does cover the basic use of parries in pre-rapier fence fairly thoroughly. As I wrote there:
| Quote: | In one simple set of instructions, Meyer neatly displays the variety of defensive options taught with the longsword: deflecting parry with the flat, a flat parry and bind, or a deflective parry made by cutting into the on-coming attack:
However, if he strikes from above against your right, then take his blow on your flat and step out towards his right, or (when the swords have clashed together), remain with your blade on his, and wind the false edge in toward his head; turn the sword quickly out of the wind and come into the Longpoint, so that you send his following attack away from you with the true edge... |
What we see are the following actions (in order of commonality):
1) Deflecting an attack by striking into it with the true edge, receiving his blow on your forte.
2) Deflecting an attack by striking into it with the false edge, percussively hitting his blow and "passing" it with your debole.
3) Using the forte, near the cross, to step straight into an attack and jam it - what the English call a "stoppe".
4) Using the flat, nearly always in a hanging parry, to receive his cut, so that it slides off (a German technique called: Running Off) while you make a riposte.
Note that the flat parry occurs last. Also note that what constitutes "edge or flat" is what the parrying sword does, not where the attacking sword hits. Finally, please note that the only, hard, edge-to-edge "block" is category three, and this is only done near the hilt, on a blunt part of the weapon. At no time are the masters, nor any of us promoting the above hierarchy, advocating "banging edges together": that is a strawman.
The big thing that I note in the article is that when you *must* use part of a weapon to parry, it is specifically called for. For example, Marozzo once, and only once, asks for a flat-parry and he says, "here you will parry (parrata) with the flat, in the fashion of the sword in armour (spada en arme)". Looking at the technique, it *seems* he is switching from a standard grip with his arming sword to what the German masters would call "half-swording".
Likewise, there are several times in the 15th c Codex Wallerstein, that parries with the messer's (falchion) flat is called for:
No 65, Plate 57
Then, you fight someone with the falchion. If he strikes at you, deflect with your falchion to the side with your flat and on your crosspiece, and go quickly forward with your left foot, and hit him with the pommel in his arm as it is depicted here, so that you strike him in his head. [i/]
No 69, Plate 61
[i]Next one strikes downwards at your head, so deflect with your flat and on your crosspiece, and push his falchion to the side, so that he has to strike, and when he wants to strike, find the openings and chop his arm off, as it is depicted here.
Translations by Dr. Grzegorz Zabinski
Here are two examples of the hanging flat parry from Meyer:
“Running Off”
From whichever side you bind the opponent on his sword, when the blades meet then reverse your hands and let it run-off your flat with the false edge down; while you pull your hilt up high for a blow; and do this for both sides.
“Pressing the Hands”
For example, if an opponent strikes down with a hard blow, then go under his blow with the Crown, or else a higher parry, or displace him with the Hanging-point [a hanging guard], and catch his sword on the flat of your blade, thus coming to him from below his sword.
Joachim Meyer, 18v and 21v, translations by Jorg Bellinghausen and Stefan Dieke, respectively.
However, what is far more common are just strikes with the edge:
For more usefulness I will gladly here classify blows and parries executed in one stroke, and solely teach you how you should execute these blows for parrying, which may also take place in two ways. Firstly, you may set aside your opponent’s blow with a stroke; secondly when you press in upon him with a blow, having taken the forward part of his weapon.
The other way to parry is when you parry your opponent with a stroke that hits him at the same time, which the ancients especially praise as suitable.
Meyer, 15v, translation by Jorg Bellinghausen
And from the other side of the Alps, here is Antonio Manciolino, on sword and buckler:
Those who learn how to parry the opponent’s blows with the false edge of the sword will become good fencers, since there can be no better or stronger parry than those performed in this manner.
[From the porta di ferro stretta]. When the opponent attacks you with a mandritto, parry it with a falso [dritto], and answer with a mandritto to his face; in the same tempo, pass forward with the right foot, which will make it easier for you to hit your opponent.
[From the porta di ferro stretta]. As the opponent turns his wrist to attack you with a stramazzone, throw a falso towards his left, which will parry his blow. Then deliver him a blow to the face with your true edge.
Translation by Tom Leoni.
Marozzo on the spadone (a 5' two-handed sword):
You are in porta di ferro larga, i.e. right-foot forward, with the sword pointing down and to the left]. If the opponent attacks your head, pull your right foot near your left and parry the blow with the true edge, in guardia di faccia. You will then pass smartly forward with your left foot towards his right side, and will deliver him a riverso fendente, ending in coda lunga e alta.
And with sword and buckler, use of a static guard, idential to Fiore's posta frontale, German kron, Silver's forehand ward, sabre high 4th, etc:
[From the porta di ferro alta, i.e. right-foot forward, sword at chest-height, pointing at the opponent, thumb at two o’clock]. If your opponent attacks your head, as he should, I want you to join your sword and buckler in front of you in guardia di testa, with the arms well-extended. In this position, you will parry your opponent’s blow and respond at once with a mandritto tondo to the legs.
Translations by Tom Leoni.
Vadi, on the longsword:
covering with the good manreverso,
and follow quickly with deritto.
| 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. |
Jeffrey, "in olden days" is only a little more concrete than "once upon a time", so that's a hard one to refute. If by "olden days" you mean Migration and Early Medieval culture, than yes, swords were expensive and difficult to produce. If you mean the period when the actual corpus of European martial arts texts survive, then you are sadly mistaken. By the 14th century, sword blades were being mass-produced in multiple centers throughout Europe, packed in barrels and shipped to cutlerer for fitting. Under Giangaleazzo, Duke of Milan (the dominant Italian leader during the lifetime of dei Liberi), Milan was ordering "Rhenish" blades in lots (at least one purchase order called for 200 blades). It's perhaps not quite as clinical and crass as stamped sabre blades from the 19th century, but it's hardly Wayland Smith, the Volsunga Saga or even ....Conan's dad. 
While the symbolic significance of the weapon holds into the modern day, the sword by this time was perhaps difficult to produce relative to a knife or a spear, but was quite capable of not only being affordably produced, but mass produced. And it was a tool, similar in importance to a modern officer's sidearm. It was perhaps not viewed as "profanely" as it had been by the Romans, who saw no romance in the sword, but it was also not considered "magical", nor was it an item for fetishistic worship, nor did it have the deep reverence of the Japanese. And while I'm sorry that you're "sickened to read comments by certain fencers who should know better", I'm saddened to hear that someone as devoted to these arts as you apparently are is propagating mythology.
| 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.
|
That is a projection: no master has ever said that, period. Rather, Aa cadre of folks have decided that this is true, merely so that the "flat parry" mythology can be maintained. What you have done is take the idea that a master has said to parry with your edge, and has not said what to strike (with the notable exception of the strike with the krumphau to the flat of the sword - ONE example in the corpus of fencing literature), so you have de facto decided to apply your own conclusion. That is simply abominable research, and is meant to promote an agenda and protect dogma, not to reveal any sort of truth.
It is also easily refuted. First and foremost because a "parry" is defined by what the defending sword does, not what it strikes. Thus even if I use my edge to hit his flat, I am making an edge parry. Secondly, it is easily refuted by the master's own words. First, we've seen the masters define parries as being synonymous with blows, made with either edge. Now let's see if anyone mentions parrying edge-to-edge. Here's a quote from Viggiani, an author who takes the time to describe the mechanics of many actions, something very few others considered worthy of being recorded. Viggiani addresses sword orientation, edge-presentation and the issue of forming some kind of true cross. (The two characters in the dialog are Rodomonte - the fencing master, named for a famed condottiero (mercenary soldier) - and the Count - the student):
RODOMONTE: What parry would you use against this [mandritto] fendente?
COUNT: […] When your mandritto falls, I would lift my sword against yours, as if forming a mandritto of my own. I would make sure that the point of my sword does not dip, but that it stays higher than my hilt, while my arm remains well extended. In this manner, our two swords meet cross-wise, true-edge on true-edge.
ROD.: This is the common parry, taught by all Masters and used by most fencers.
So, here is a master in the most famous and influential Italian school of fence, one begun in c.1415 and surviving well into the 17th c, and he tells us that the common parry is to meet a cut, with the same cut, so that the "swords meet cross-wise, true-edge on true-edge".
He nicely concords here with Vadi:
Make sure that your sword
parries with fendente so that he hits you not ...
...
To like it better, when you parry, parry with fendente,
carefully push your sword a little away
from you, pressing down that of your partner.
You also get a good deal
by parrying well all of the strokes.
When you parry the riverso, keep forward
the right foot and parry as said,
when parrying the diritto
then you will have the left foot forward.
And you also need to mind
when you strike with riverso fendente,
and a careful eye to prevent
the mandritto coming from below.[i]
So what is the "better than common parry" that Viggiani is going to teach? It's a rising blow from the left, also made with the edge:
[i]…hold your wrist in such a fashion while you draw it forth that you do not make a turning; and do it so that your hand rises high, and to the rear on your right side, so that the point of your sword is aimed at my chest, and downwards somewhat toward the ground, and stop it there, with the true edge of the sword facing the sky, and the false toward the ground, taking care in the selfsame tempo that the rovescio travels, that you make with your body a little turn in such a way that your left shoulder is found somewhat more forward than your right, and that your left arm follow the right through the forward side, so that it is found toward the right side; and make additionally a slight turn of your left leg on the point of your foot through the draw, and the heel should be somewhat lifted from the ground; and together with this make your right leg lie extended, with the body somewhat erect: you see how I do it?
Translation by Jherek Swanger
This parry is identical to the universal defense for the sword in one hand taught by dei Liberi:
Getty Ms., Carta 45V (page 43v) Lower Right
This carry of the sword he calls posta de coda longa (position of the long tail) and it is very good against the lance and against every hand weapon... And keep it firmly in mind that the thrusts and the riversi blows ought to be beaten aside to the outside. That is to say obliquely and not upwards. And the blows from fendenti should be beaten aside similarly to the outside, lifting the enemy’s sword a little.
Also this particular guard of coda longa is good when one comes against you with the sword to man riversa as this opponent is coming towards me. And understand that this guard is against all blows from the dritta side and from the riversa side, and against anyone be he right or left handed. Here after begin the plays of the long tail that always beat aside in the way I explained before in the first guard of coda longa.
Translation mine.
It is also *identical* to the rising parry (also used as a counterattack to the hand, as Viggiani notes), used by Manciolino, Marozzo and dall'Aggochie, as well as the German masters Talhoffer (1459 and 1467), Paulus Kal, Peter Falkner and Hans Leuchuchner. This parry is made with the edge, and this is an edge parry. Does it have to parry the opponent's edge? No, depending on the angle of his cut, it can hit the flat. BUT, Viggiani is also quite clear that it will often hit the edge (indeed that gives a true cross):
ROD.: […] the two swords will clash true-edge on true edge, and since your forte will meet my debole, my sword may actually break
Note that he also does state that you may damage the *attacking* sword's blade, even break it! He is quite certain that his student's weapon - the parrying sword, will be just fine, because it is receiving the blow on the forte.
So as can be seen, we have masters specifically stating the following:
1) Active parries are identical to cuts. Indeed they ARE cuts.
2) There are certain guards that are used as static parries, where you interpose the forte of your sword, near the cross.
3) The common parry is to meet a blow with the same blow, wherein they will meet true edge to true edge[b]
4) When I parry with the true edge, I do so with the [b]forte of the sword, which is thicker, duller and able to resist force.
5) If I parry with my forte against your debole, your blade - the attacker's - may break.
Note that no one says as word about the guy parrying have a problem, nor is anyone particularly concerned about what I hit on his sword - they say that the edge is what will commonly be struck, but they aren't terribly worried about it. Why? Because I'm going to parry and immediately strike again.
| Quote: | | This is about as crystal clear and simple as I daresay anyone can make it. There are at least three articles by John Clements at this very website which thoroughly address and advocate this, plus the collective experience of the ARMA membership to profess and prove this. Plus one may prove it to himself, if he dare. |
That attitude is the enemy of decent scholarship. There is simply no way we can take one passage in the Krumphau, squint at artwork, slam one modern sword into a second, static modern sword, and use "practical experience" to refute what has been clearly written down - and fairly clearly judged irrelevant - by the men who did this for real. Neither myself, Christian, Hugh, John Clements or anyone else has that frame of experience. It's one thing to try and answer unanswered data through practical experimentation, but when it refutes what real swordsmen of the period said, then our experiments are disproven.
No one is advocating slamming swords into each other, like a bad 1950s movie, but we are stating that the masters make it quite clear what part of the blade parries, what it usually strikes in the process, and when to violate those basic rules. And the idea that you always receive a blow on your flat and always strike into his flat is simply unsupportable.
In the end, although I differ now with some of the analysis, I stand by the conclusions of my old article:
| Quote: | Which means that the entire parrying debate has been “much ado about nothing.” The staunch defenders of either camp are simply both wrong , their arguments based largely on what they think they know, rather than a detailed study of what the master’s actually wrote.
If you would study, practice and teach late medieval swordsmanship, then you must use your edge and your flat. The when, why and how that flat and edge are used must be based on an understanding of the underlying defensive principles and biomechanics taught explicitly and implicitly by the medieval masters themselves. Finally, as Kormac’s Saga illustrates, when your life is on the line, you do what you must. As with all aspects of martial arts, there are no absolutes. |
I hope this helped!
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
Last edited by Greg Mele on Wed 16 May, 2007 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On an unrelated note:
| 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. |
I see you are just as respectful here, Jeffrey, as you are on SFI. Generally, people are called by their first name, or by their surname with the appropriate title - Mr, Mrs, Doctor, Professor, etc. - it's rude to refer to them only by their last name, and especially to speak about them in third person when they are on the same thread,
Your comment here is also heresay. It is one thing for me to say, for example, that until 2001 and or so, Mr. Clements taught all parries as receiving blows on his flat, just as he writes in Rennaisance Swordsmanship - I knew John then, and I heard him say that with his own mouth, in a room full of people (first in Chicago, then in Houston, then in Livermore, CA). If he's changed his interpretation, good for him! But at the time that we were all in regular communication, *you* were not even a member of ARMA - then HACA. Christian and John met exactly once, at the 2001 Livermore symposium, and after that event most ARMA members have chosen not to attend non-ARMA WMA events in North America. (I do understand that Randal went to last year's WMAW.) So I'd like to know where all of these opportunities to cross swords with ARMA scholars that he's been dodging have occured?
The issue of edge and flat, while a bugaboo, is a legitimate discussion. Ad hominums, serve no purpose, except to obfuscate the discussion.
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vincent,
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Randall Pleasant wrote: |
The class is listed as "Basic Cutting". You are right that I don't know what drill was being covered. However, when the pictures I linked are taken along with all of the other pictures from that class there is little doubt that the pictures do show cutting rather than some type of winding action.
|
If it is indeed a class about basic cutting, it's not all that surprising to see edge contact. It could be just an exercise where both partners strike with the same attack at the same time. You can do a succession of alternative attacks on the right and on the left. The strong contact can actually help because it gives a clear rythm.
I mean, we do exactly that at the beginning of each kenjutsu lesson, so it is traditionnal at least in eastern schools... It's useful in order to develop a basic sense of distance, control of the weapon, body position and movement. It's good for stamina, warms the muscles up, and the errors tend to stand out after a few dozens of repeated attacks at speed. It's also actually fun for beginners |
That's pretty much exactly what was going on. This class used a variety of different pedagogical tools, including mirrored cuts - the partners become each other's pell - then opposite cuts - Oberhau vs Unterhau, and then finally, one person uses the cut to take the centerline.
Randal, if you want to hold a line open to cease the center, that's generally done with your edge - if its against his flat you'll have superior leverage, but what's key is that it is *your* edge.
Greg
Last edited by Greg Mele on Wed 16 May, 2007 2:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey Hull
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: Logical Fallacy |
|
|
Actually, Christian, those are positive imperative instructions whereby given fight-masters tell the fighter what to do. Those provide no proof of the negative assumption that you make. You provide no proof of anybody telling the fighter what not to do. Thus, your argument is mistaken by virtue of your logical fallacy.
JH
Knightly Dueling - the Fighting Arts of German Chivalry
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey Hull
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 5:20 pm Post subject: Re: Logical Fallacy |
|
|
Jeffrey,
| Jeffrey Hull wrote: | | Actually, Christian, those are positive imperative instructions whereby given fight-masters tell the fighter what to do. Those provide no proof of the negative assumption that you make. You provide no proof of anybody telling the fighter what not to do. Thus, your argument is mistaken by virtue of your logical fallacy. |
While arguments of rhetorical semantics are always fascinating  that's not quite how logical arguments work. It *is* of course, an excellent way to dissemble.
You've built a series of fallacies. The first is that a "flat parry" means anything (apparently) that isn't edge-to-edge. That's a fallacy of terminology, since a "parry" be definition is the action of the defending weapon. Thus, any action made with the edge is an edge parry, any action with the flat (not ON the flat) would be a flat parry. We can disagree all we want about the necessities of edge and flat, but we can't change the technical language of the art, which predates us by six centuries, in multiple languages.
There is also a fallacy on this thread, that any contact of the sword's edge meeting the sword's edge = sword banging in hard, chopping strikes. But, while if a = b and b = c, therefore a must = c, the contrary is not true.
You all seem to be defending two additional fallacious arguments:
ARMA says parry on the flat or striking the flat.
Others say parry with the edge and sometimes on the edge.
Therefore:
Others refute striking the flat or parrying with the flat.
The second argument is:
ARMA says parrying edge to edge = hard, bashing of swords together.
Others say parry with the edge.
Therefore others parry by bashing their swords together.
No one in the WMA community has ever suggested just slamming swords together edge to edge. Nor have they suggested sticking the middle of the blade out in a stationary block. They've suggested deflecting cuts with cuts. And a long time ago I *proved* that the masters periodically specifically target striking the flat and parrying with the flat. So what we are debating is that you are supposed to specifically target the flat when parrying, or we must specifically parry on the flat at all times. And textually that has been disproven.
But most importantly, since we are going to talk about the importance of parrying is the implication that if one of the swords is badly gouged, something has gone wrong. Actually, what matter is what happened to the PARRYING sword. If it made a "stop" on its blunt forte, as the masters describe, it should be close to nothing. If a cut is used to deflect the attack, it should be negligible, but the attacking sword can be damaged. That's not just a matter of "practicing with blunt swords" or modern experimentation, it's the words of legitimate swordsmen of the period:
[…] the two swords will clash true-edge on true edge, and since your forte will meet my debole, my sword may actually break
Viggiani.
The video clip is interesting, but what does it really show? What's the make of the swords being victimized? How does standing it up in a vice in any way simulate having a sword *swung* at you? If John is supposed to be simulating a cut, why are his shoulders so tight and the sword canted back in his hand (so that his hand leads the blade most of the way to the target) the way you swing a stick, rather than an edged weapon? But most importantly, let's not look at the stationary sword, let's look at the sword John is wielding. But then, there's still a problem, because he just slammed it into a stationary target, not deflecting another cut. That doesn't remotely simulate what the masters suggest doing.
I and others have provided you with repeated textual evidence from at least three countries (Italy, Germany and Spain), of what masters *do* say to do, and what they specifically say are the common ways to parry. They are, as you put it, positive imperative instructions on what to do and what was done. And it's very clear what they *say* to do:
1. parry with your edge, and sometimes your flat.
2. parry by striking both his edge and his flat.
3. If you strike his debole with your forte, you can damage his weapon.
4. It is also very clear that the majority of the actions require using *your* edge to strike his sword. Within the language of fencing, that's an edge-parry. If you want to call it a parry against his flat, ok, but it's not a flat parry.
We can debate until the end of time if a blow that hits edge and flat is a parry (with the edge) into the flat or the edge (even though the masters themselves would probably think us twits for doing so). But we can't be intellectually honest and argue any of those four points. Doing so isn't just dogmatic, it requires us to twist and turn data to fit a preconceived agenda; an agenda who's counterposition I specificalyl wrote that SPADA article to lay to rest. Many, many of the "all edge, all the time" people looked at that and said, "well, ok, there it is in plain text." Why folks from the other camp can't do that baffles me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dustin R. Reagan
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: Viggiani - Please respond! |
|
|
Greetings all,
First off:
I am not a member of any WMA organization, I do not have a bone to pick in this debate, I have never posted on any forum concerning this debate. I have been a relatively neutral observer on this issue...until now.
After reading through this current debate, I have not once seen an ARMA member address Viggiani's instructions concerning edge-on-edge parries. Many quotes from the Masters have been posted, all of which, in my opinion, leave at least some wiggle room concerning interpretation. However, the Viggiani quote seems, to me at least, *very* explicit on how to parry, even going so far as to say that all Masters & most fencers use this method (from a previous post by Mr. Mele):
| Quote: |
RODOMONTE: What parry would you use against this [mandritto] fendente?
COUNT: […] When your mandritto falls, I would lift my sword against yours, as if forming a mandritto of my own. I would make sure that the point of my sword does not dip, but that it stays higher than my hilt, while my arm remains well extended. In this manner, our two swords meet cross-wise, true-edge on true-edge.
ROD.: This is the common parry, taught by all Masters and used by most fencers.
|
So, I may have missed a response to this quote...If so I apologize in advance (also, if so, can you point me to the response??).
If not, I am very interested in hearing an ARMA member's response to this quote!
I thank you for your response in advance!
Dustin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: Viggiani - Please respond! |
|
|
Dustin,
Just to clarify a point:
| Dustin R. Reagan wrote: | Greetings all,
After reading through this current debate, I have not once seen an ARMA member address Viggiani's instructions concerning edge-on-edge parries. Many quotes from the Masters have been posted, all of which, in my opinion, leave at least some wiggle room concerning interpretation. However, the Viggiani quote seems, to me at least, *very* explicit on how to parry, even going so far as to say that all Masters & most fencers use this method (from a previous post by Mr. Mele):
|
Viggiani isn't alone, but it was what I had to hand and didn't need to translate on the fly - Marozzo, Manciolino and the other Bolognese masters specifically teach this. The nice thing is the unambiguous comment about "true edge to true edge". These masters also say there are two principle crossings at the "half-sword' (that is, way weapons can bind): true edge to true edge and false edge to false edge. When we read their advice on parrying, we see that's what arises from their advice on true edge parries in the first instance, and how to deflect descending cuts with the false edge in the second. It's a fairly clear, on-going didactial model.
Likewise, his "universal" parry is a parry edge-to-edge (his words, not mine, I find how much edge and how much flat is relative to the angle of the attack you are parrying) that is taught as early as Fiore dei Liberi: 1409, and is found in several German texts of the 15th century, so this is not a new-fangled idea in the 1550s. As to the type of weapon used, Viggiani describes a sword that is double edged with a sharp point and a complex hilt, capable of severing a hand and thrusting through the gaps in armour. In his illustrations he shows everything from a transitional "rapier" to an early basket-hilted broadsword.
Cheers,
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: Logical Fallacy |
|
|
| Jeffrey Hull wrote: | | Actually, Christian, those are positive imperative instructions whereby given fight-masters tell the fighter what to do. Those provide no proof of the negative assumption that you make. You provide no proof of anybody telling the fighter what not to do. Thus, your argument is mistaken by virtue of your logical fallacy. |
No Jeffrey, they're not - they're specific statements by Liechtenauer and others associated with specific techniques. Why wait to advise the student to hit the flat until the Krumphau section of the treatise? Because you don't do that with the Zornhau. Only here (and a few other instances) does this become important. In fact, it's unimportant for the rest of the Krumphau techniques for that matter.
All the best,
Christian
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
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 16 May, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: Logical Fallacy |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
No Jeffrey, they're not - they're specific statements by Liechtenauer and others associated with specific techniques. Why wait to advise the student to hit the flat until the Krumphau section of the treatise? Because you don't do that with the Zornhau. Only here (and a few other instances) does this become important. In fact, it's unimportant for the rest of the Krumphau techniques for that matter.
|
There's more to it than that. You specifically target the flat here, because of the mechanical weakness of the flat to resist force, it breaks his wrists and drives his blade down. It's important, because this is specifically why the flat hanging parries are called for - they create a soft barrier, that deflects the attack rather than oppose it, thus the term "running off". Oh, and hey look, the masters specifically ask for the flat here, too!
|
|
|
|
|
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: Thu 17 May, 2007 9:47 am Post subject: Re: Viggiani - Please respond! |
|
|
Greg
Long time no see!
| Greg Mele wrote: | | The nice thing is the unambiguous comment about "true edge to true edge". |
Viggiani quote is unambiguous. It is our interpretations that are ambiguous and lead to questions.
But before I comment on the technique from Viggiani let me once again note that the issue being discussed is only concerned with high speed head-on impacts of sharp edges. So if the blades are not moving at high speed then no issue. If the edges are meeting at a very low angle then no issue. I know you know this from our discussions from 4+ years ago and from other posts on this thread but I just want to make it clear to those new to this thread and to this issue.
You provided the following quote from Viggiani :
| Quote: | RODOMONTE: What parry would you use against this [mandritto] fendente?
COUNT: […] When your mandritto falls, I would lift my sword against yours, as if forming a mandritto of my own. I would make sure that the point of my sword does not dip, but that it stays higher than my hilt, while my arm remains well extended. In this manner, our two swords meet cross-wise, true-edge on true-edge.
ROD.: This is the common parry, taught by all Masters and used by most fencers. |
The action described above sounds a lot like a stifling action we do with the longsword. For example, as a sparring partner makes a cut with a longsword I will extend my arms up, turn my blade out a little to one side so as to make a "V" with my blade and guard, resulting in my point being much hight than my hilt. As I turn my sword and extend my arms I also step towards my sparring partner in order to catch his on coming cut up high before it builds up speed and power and followed up with either a cut or grappling. The stifling action I just described is outside of the issue being discussed since it does not involve high blade speed and the edges are meeting at a low angle. Is your interpretation of Viggiani's quoted technique also a stifling action? If so, it is outside of the issue being discussed.
All the best,
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Last edited by Randall Pleasant on Thu 17 May, 2007 11:27 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jason G. Smith
|
| Posted: Thu 17 May, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've been reading this thread, and have finally decided to put in my $.02, for what it's worth.
What I'm hearing essentially on both sides of the matter is the same thing, simply expressed differently. One side says - "no edge on edge contact" whilst the other side says "edge on edge contact is unavoidable." We just need to define what is meant by edge contact.
I think both sides in this matter agree that a 90 degree contact at high speed is not what we want from a parry, but rather a contact angle that allows the blade to slide down towards the hilt or be otherwise displaced. If the 90 degree contact is what someone defines as "edge parry" then they're correct - you don't want that, in an ideal world. That being said, I will do it if it saves my neck.
If however you're of the opinion that all parries are "edge parries" then you would also be correct - two fighters cutting fendente or oberhau and attacking the opponent will meet edge on edge, albeit at a very slight angle, allowing for the blades to slide off one another.
Now, purposefully attacking your opponent's flat with your edge in a fendente to fendente encounter is likely to result in you getting whacked as he executes a snapping or cuts around after having sensed your sideways pressure, and you have removed the threat of you blade offline in your attempt to displace to the side. Keep blade pressure towards your opponent, and you limit his options, as he has to defend.
Now all of you kiss and make up. You're all right, to a degree. Ah, the joys of electronic communication - difficult to convey tone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Thu 17 May, 2007 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greg
Sorry it is taking me so long to reply to some of you comments. Work, kids, life, etc., all want my time. 
| Greg Mele wrote: | Vincent,
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Randall Pleasant wrote: |
The class is listed as "Basic Cutting". You are right that I don't know what drill was being covered. However, when the pictures I linked are taken along with all of the other pictures from that class there is little doubt that the pictures do show cutting rather than some type of winding action.
|
If it is indeed a class about basic cutting, it's not all that surprising to see edge contact. It could be just an exercise where both partners strike with the same attack at the same time. You can do a succession of alternative attacks on the right and on the left. The strong contact can actually help because it gives a clear rythm.
I mean, we do exactly that at the beginning of each kenjutsu lesson, so it is traditionnal at least in eastern schools... It's useful in order to develop a basic sense of distance, control of the weapon, body position and movement. It's good for stamina, warms the muscles up, and the errors tend to stand out after a few dozens of repeated attacks at speed. It's also actually fun for beginners |
That's pretty much exactly what was going on. This class used a variety of different pedagogical tools, including mirrored cuts - the partners become each other's pell - then opposite cuts - Oberhau vs Unterhau, and then finally, one person uses the cut to take the centerline. |
Thanks for clearing that up. However, I must say that I don't care for such drills since beginning students (regardless of what you might tell them) could get the idea the drill represents a valid response to a cut.
| Greg Mele wrote: |
Randal, if you want to hold a line open to cease the center, that's generally done with your edge - if its against his flat you'll have superior leverage, but what's key is that it is *your* edge. |
Agree, we have no problem with pushing and rubbing our edges when winding.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Thu 17 May, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: Viggiani - Please respond! |
|
|
Hi Randall,
Long time indeed! Hope you've been well.
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | Greg
Viggiani quote is unambiguous. It is our interpretations that are ambiguous and lead to questions.
...
The action described above sounds a lot like a stifling action we do with the longsword. ... The stifling action I just described is outside of the issue being discussed since it does not involve high blade speed and the edges are meeting at a low angle. Is your interpretation of Viggiani's quoted technique also a stifling action? If so, it is outside of the issue being discussed. |
No, absolutely not. It's a cut, and again, there is nothing ambiguous. As Viggiani says,
| Quote: | | ROD: The parries are nothing more than cuts |
Indeed, Viggiani is even more express in his comments, for the Comte next asks him specifically about the guardia di testa, a guard used as a static parry that has two forms - a position nearly identical to Silver's True Gardant (for protecting the left side of the head), and his "high forehand ward" on the right. This guard is used precisely for the "stifling" you describe. Viggiani is express that he does not use or care for that guard, because it is easily deceived.
But there's a great deal more. Each of the masters in this tradition - with the possible exception of Marozzo who does not discuss theory at length - are quite clear on how this his done. Cuts and parries are the same thing and are made the same way. Indeed, when in a high guard, you don't parry by trying to aim for his sword, you parry by attacking, and the line of the counterattack closes the line of his attack. (Sound familiar? It should, it's boilerplate advice from Liechtenauer and Vadi!) In a low guard, you parry first by cutting up into his attack with your false edge - or with Viggiani's "universal parry", which is a rising cut with the true edge. And assume he does not die instantly, you come to the "half-sword" - which usually occurs one of two ways: true edge vs. true edge or false edge vs. false edge.
Again, it is not ambiguous, there's no real room for "difference of interpretation". You simply cut into his cut and move on. Whether the blades meet in a "true cross" of 90 degrees is entirely reliant upon the two cuts being made. With the rising false edge parries, this *never* happens, my edge comes up from below and "passes* your sword, hitting the edge and flat obliquely. It must; false edge parries do not have the mechanical strength to oppose with power.
Conversely, the rising true edge parry will *usually* strike his edge, and will often pick up any descending blow at close to a "true cross". This matters not one whit to the defender, however, because:
a) his sword is in motion, bisecting the plane of the attacker's cut and passing through it - he's going to percussively deflect the attack, not try to just stop it with force.
b) his sword will parry with its forte - thicker and blunter - vs. the debole. At least two masters - Viggiani and dall'Aggochie, are fairly clear that the ATTACKER's sword may be badly damaged, but the defender's will be fine.
Finally, the "common parry" using blows from above brings the swords together at a variety of angles - if you cut with a vertical cut and cut diagonally or horizontally, I will almost always hit your flat, if we both cut diagonally, then I will hit the sword's edge and flat at an oblique level; how much it is one or the other is largely relative to that moment in time. But again, it will hit the EDGE, and the masters are clear on that, just as they are clear that this is to expected. Even Viggiani, who discusses the "common parry" to specifically show why the rising parry is superior, could clearly give a fig about the swords meeting edge to edge - his ideal parry does so much more definitively.
| Quote: |
But before I comment on the technique from Viggiani let me once again note that the issue being discussed is only concerned with high speed head-on impacts of sharp edges. So if the blades are not moving at high speed then no issue. If the edges are meeting at a very low angle then no issue. I know you know this from our discussions from 4+ years ago and from other posts on this thread but I just want to make it clear to those new to this thread and to this issue. |
Yup, I recall our conversations, and the ones with the architects of this position - John Clements and Hank Reinhardt - for five years before that. ! It's part of why I was motivated to post. Not to convince you, but to answer for all of those trying to sort this out for themselves.
Simply put, this argument has become a "strawman" - a "point of difference" that ARMA claims to have with the community, with its director creating multiple photo essays and video clips to show the foolishness of what "everyone else does". But it's disingenuous, not least of which because, as community knowledge has grown over the last decade, John keeps ammending his definition of "flat parry" to include more and more things, while certainly *not* acknowledging that fact. Case in point:
| Quote: | | The action described above sounds a lot like a stifling action we do with the longsword. For example, as a sparring partner makes a cut with a longsword I will extend my arms up, turn my blade out a little to one side so as to make a "V" with my blade and guard, resulting in my point being much hight than my hilt. As I turn my sword and extend my arms I also step towards my sparring partner in order to catch his on coming cut up high before it builds up speed and power and followed up with either a cut or grappling. The stifling action I just described is outside of the issue being discussed since it does not involve high blade speed and the edges are meeting at a low angle. Is your interpretation of Viggiani's quoted technique also a stifling action? If so, it is outside of the issue being discussed. |
I'm glad you now do this, but the correct fencing term for that is a *parry*, made b y stepping into the attack (one of the two ways to deal with a cut, as specifically taught by 16th c masters such as di Grassi, and demonstrated by Fiore, almost 2 centuries earlier), and parrying on your forte. If we want to distinguish, then the correct English term for it in the 15h - 18th centuries was also a "stop/stoppe". Of course, it is the most direct, forceful impact of blade-to-blade of any of the parries I'm going to discuss - all of the others have a deflective component.
But more importantly, it is no different than what 18th - 19th c broadsword, sabre and backsword fencers taught:
These defenses, or parries, are so very similar to the parries of the foil, that I shall adhere in my lessons to the names given in foil fencing...
To Stop Cut 1
Quarte: Turn the hand to quarte, carrying it a little to the left, raising the point slightly, and receive the cut on the forte as near to the shell as possible.
To Stop Cut 2
Tierce: Turn the hand to tierce, raising the point slightly, and carry the hilt a little to the right, edge to the right front, and thus receive the cut on the forte.
Capt. Alfred Hutton, Cold Steel, 1889, pp. 34 - 36. Hutton’s work is particularly interesting, since it relied heavily on English backsword treatises of the 18th century, in which this method of parrying cuts by blocking with the forte, was already established.
The strange thing is, since the old HACA website went live, and John published Renaissance Swordsmanship he has specifically, and at length argued that the parrying methods of early modern swordplay was not and is not comparable or compatible with earlier styles of combat. But there it is. I think it is also clear what kind of parry later masters thought of it as being, since, much like the "Comte" in Viggiani, when our 19th c friend writes:
Parries are done with the cutting edge of the blade.
And this method, although often sloppily practiced, and without lateral movement, survives at least conceptually in modern sport fencing:
In saber, the attack must be blocked with the forte of the blade, and one should avoid what I call fishing for the opponent’s blade. Instead the parrying blade is brought to its position in my protective cage only when the attack is about to arrive on target...
Jo Schaff, "Fencing", 1982
Now, again, they aren't stepping into the attack, because of the peculiarities of modern fencing, but the blade work is inherited from an era when they were, and we can follow that line right back to the 14th c.
To be clear, I'm in no way condeming *anyone* for adopting this method with their historical fencing - the "stop" , exactly as you have explained it, is mentioned in the 15th century English texts, it is expressly taught in Silver, is used in the form of Kron/Frontale by the Liechtenauer and dei Liberi masters, and is likewise used with the Bolognese "guardia di testa". It's not necessarily the *preferred* method of parrying in the Middle Ages, as it often was in later centuries, but it was *a* method. I'm just glad that ARMA has amended its position in the last four or five years.
Now the other big parry you've discusses is striking the flat with your edge. That's always been a part of ARMA doctrine, I realize, but it is also a part of the doctrine of nearly *every other serious HES researcher*. The flat is mechanically weak, if I can cut into it, I gain an advantage. But it is also clear that the masters only "hunt" the flat in certain actions - indeed the Krumphau play we all quote so often occurs only if you are too slow to counterattack his arms - it is the back-up plan.
But again, this is irrelevant - because the part of the sword you are using is the edge, and a "parry" is defined by the defending weapon.
Finally, we come to the more static flat parries, such as I assume some of your posted photos show - parries in Pflug, for example. HACA/ARMA, at least via the person of its Director, was teaching this as early as '96, and from this thread it seems clear that it still is. This is a true "flat parry", because the defending sword is parring with its flat.
This was one of the things I specifically set out to PROVE in my article. However, it is clear that flat parries appear only as soft parries, usually hanging parries, using the weakness of the position to allow the attacker's weapon to pass. For the same reason, a static parry with the flat is a no-go - the position is mechanically weak. This is easily shown, but it is also made clear by the masters, who recommend that:
As you parry (on whatever side), always keep your arms well-extended. By doing so, you will not only push the opponent’s attacks away from your person, but you will also be stronger and quicker in the counterattack.
Manciolino, Book 1, Chapter 1.
And if you follow his advice, you'll see those same extended arms illustrated by Marozzo in porta di ferro stretta and coda lunga e stretta, the Bolognese equiavlent of Pflug, Silver's "broad ward", or backsword "inside and outside". And, as the Italians write, it is where a half cut from above ends, it's where the parry occurs, etc. And if you mimic the position, that can *only* be on the edge. To take it on the flat you either break your wrist, or you bring your arms up against the body, as John is doing in those photos. But the broken wrist is mechanically unsound, the other option violates the specific, unambiguous words of at least three of the pre-1600 traditions.
I've written a lot, and I want to remain clear, so I'll try and wrap up with a summary. I said that your/ARMA's argument is a strawman, and it is for three reasons. The first is because you are insisting upon "flat parries", and the host of ARMA essays imply that most folks don't use them. But if we list the three principles actions you are acknowledging as good defenses(attacker listed first):
edge vs. flat (deflective)
edge vs. flat (static)
flat vs. edge
edge vs. edge stops (what you are calling stiffles)
WE see that two of the three are edge parries. That's not Greg being pedantic or playing with words, that's what they are in the technical vocabulary of fencing. Why, because a parry is defined by the defending sword. If you are going to use the word "parry" then it must be used correctly!
The second part of the strawman comes in because most of the people offering the "contary position" both on this thread and in the larger HES instructor community actually use the following:
edge vs. flat (deflective)
flat vs. edge
edge vs. edge stops
edge vs. edge deflective/percussive
ie: We use flat parries as well, just not static flat parries, for all of the reasons I've listed above. So ARMA's parrying "dogma", as you, Jeffrey and John's articles and videos define it, is based on not doing one type of parry, which is repeatedly documented in the texts, and adding one parry that we cannot clearly document anywhere, and often runs contrary to other explicit advice.
The third part of the strawman argument comes from the more recent idea that:
| Quote: |
But before I comment on the technique from Viggiani let me once again note that the issue being discussed is only concerned with high speed head-on impacts of sharp edges. So if the blades are not moving at high speed then no issue. If the edges are meeting at a very low angle then no issue. I know you know this from our discussions from 4+ years ago and from other posts on this thread but I just want to make it clear to those new to this thread and to this issue. |
Great...and now we have essays, long email discussions, and supposed video evidence demonstrating the problem with this sort of parry. The problem is, who exactly is doing this? By the sure amount of digitial and literal ink spilled, and the frothing need to disprove the amorphous "them", you'd think that this is what every non-ARMA HES instructor taught. But it ain't. There may well be reenactors, old school fight choreographers and kids bashing around their backyards doing this, but that has little to nothing to do with what any of the major HES researchers are advocating. And frankly, after all of these years, still listening to this idea be pushed and touted, all aimed at the faceless "them", that apparently means everyone not in your organization or friendly with its Director, is just old.
But it is also, intentionally so or not, deceitful. It's deceitful because it makes claims that distorts what the rest of us do, but it also obfuscates and twists the language of fencing to protect a theory whose origin was Hank Reinhardt, a man who openly and repeatedly has dismissed the old masters and their manuals, not the actual manuals. It couldn't be, as they were unreadable to the author who then popularized these ideas.
We have all made mistakes of various degrees in this endeavor. God help me, I still have video of myself teaching Fiore's low guards as lowline parries - something I now know he specifically *tells* us not to do. It's time to quit searching to prove what we want to see, and acknowledge what is there. And that is:
1. The masters use both flat to edge and edge to edge defenses, with the first and foremost preference being to parry by *striking*, with no concern about the edge.
2. No serious swordsmen is smashing their swords together in repeated, hard, 90 degree blocks, with the business end of their blades.
3. ARMA, like everyone else, uses edge parries.
4. ARMA, like many, uses deflective parries on their flat.
5. ARMA, unlike nearly anyone else, also makes static parries with the flat.
And then let's get over it and move on, instead of constantly trying to prove that all of the "unbelievers" are doing it wrong.
Best,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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