Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Where does the 'no edge parrying' myth come from? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
T. Kew




Location: London, UK
Joined: 21 Apr 2012

Posts: 256

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 3:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Pleasant wrote:
When your adversary performs an over-cut to the other side of your blade he is cutting downward, thus in the rebind an edge-on-edge impact is not involved.


My adversary's cut is not specified. She may cut down with a krumphaw that would bind strongly onto my blade (and thus my edge) or with a zwerhaw, or a simple oberhaw, or many other options. Some of these lead to strong edge to edge impacts, some do not, and the text makes no distinction between them for my response. Against all cuts round, the instruction is to turn the long edge into the cut and bind while thrusting or slicing to the head/face.

The key theme I want to reinforce from Ringeck here is that the goal is to obtain a superior position. Here, that requires binding strongly with the edge against her cut. We are absolutely not instructed to bind more weakly with the flat, if her cut is such that it will deliver the edge against our edge.

Randall Pleasant wrote:
Quote:
Viggiani has a lovely discussion around 81v. For example: "pay heed that in this delivering of the rovescio, the swords meet each other true edge to true edge, but that the forte of your sword will have met the debole of mine, whereby mine could be easily broken by virtue of the disadvantage of such a meeting, and also because of the fall of the cut; and you will also be more secure, being shielded by the forte of your sword." (Viggiani trans. Swanger, 82v),


Some interpretations of this play do involve edge-into-edge impact. Other interpretations of the play do not involve an edge-into-edge hack.

Ran Pleasant
Instructor of I.33 Sword & Buckler
Accademia del Leone


There are always a bunch of ways to interpret any technique.

However, not all interpretations are equal. When considering various interpretations, the first and most important question to ask is "Does this interpretation fit with the statements made explicitly in the text?". Then we can ask further questions, such as "Does this demonstrate coherency with the rest of the system?" or "Does this work against a resisting opponent?" or "Does this create an appropriate situation for the further options that are listed?" or whatever.

If an interpretation does not fit with the explicit statements of the text, then it is wrong. It may be a great technique, it may even be a better technique than the written one. But it is demonstrably not a correct interpretation of the technique which has been given.

Looking at this play from Viggiani, we can establish certain key features of the technique (I'm assuming interested readers can find the translation themselves):
  • The attacker strikes a mandritto blow, descending from a high guard.
  • The defender strikes a rovescio, rising from a low guard on their left with the point retracted.
  • This rovescio is made with the true edge leading.
  • The two blades meet true edge to true edge.
  • The attacker's debole meets the defender's forte.
  • The attacker's blade is displaced to pass the defender on the right.

We can use these listed features to consider whether an interpretation is correct. Noting that the text explicitly lists the two blades meeting true edge to true edge, we can be certain that any interpretation which does not have this feature is not a correct interpretation of this technique.

Particularly interesting here, although obviously harder to test directly, is the following fragment: "whereby mine [the attacker's sword] could be easily broken". This implies that edge damage was an expected consequence of this parry, even to the potential level of breaking one of the two swords involved, which reinforces that the blades must meet edge to edge, with considerable force.

In short: to interpret this play in line with the text of the manual, we must have the two swords meet edge to edge, with force. It may be possible to make an effective play without this bind/parry/block, but it cannot be the technique we are given.

HEMA fencer and coach, New Cross Historical Fencing
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Beeching





Joined: 22 Jan 2014
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 270

PostPosted: Mon 02 May, 2016 3:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

T. Kew wrote:

This has been round and round again.

There are buckets of techniques which explicitly instruct binding onto the sword with the long edge, turning the long edge into the cut, parrying with the true edge, and so on. The clearest example which springs immediately to mind from my primary system (Ringeck) is in the plays from Sprechfenster (emphasis mine):

Ringeck, trans. Trosclair. wrote:

Gloss. Note, this called the speaking-window: when he binds you on the sword with cuts or with parrying, so remain strong from extended arms with the long edge upon the sword, with the point in front of the face, and stand freely and seek out his thing (whatever he will execute against you).

[103] Item. If he strikes-around from the sword with an over-cut to the other side, so bind-after with the long edge against his cut with strength, above into the head.


The critical thing we see here is a lack of concern about whether you will be binding the edge or flat of the enemy sword. Another example of this would be the plays from the sweeps: you set up all of these techniques by sweeping up with your short edge against the enemy cut. If you hit them on the flat and displace them, great. But if they turn their edge towards you and bind strongly, you don't go "aah, my poor sword edge", you wind from that position.


I think the last bolded statement, at some level, goes to address why there is such a misconception about this topic, for why it is so right or so wrong. All Ringeck's instruction indicates is which side, and potentially from which direction, with which to engage your weapon against the opponent's. You have no control of the opponent's blade and how he or she uses their sword! But, if they (and yourself) are a good combatant, they will be trying to cut you and not your weapon - by virtue of that fact, edge bashing should be mitigated and you will tend to cut into the flat of the blade. And, if you cut into the flat, you will still have a hard time avoiding a bind, because the edges will still touch in any realistic scenario.

That said, I think Mr. Pleasant has quite perfectly stated what parrying with the flat should mean. Even better, to remove all confusion, let's just throw out the word "parry," which seems to be synonymous with "empty voider." Good swordsmanship involves fighting the other swordsman, and not his sword. Get rid of sword bashing, and you have no need to discuss "parrying with the flat" in almost every case.
View user's profile Send private message
Karl G




Location: Australia
Joined: 25 Apr 2016

Posts: 66

PostPosted: Tue 03 May, 2016 1:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think modern collection and test cutting has a lot to do with it. A market around ever harder swords and reasons not to damage them. I assume the medieval blade was of generally lower or variable hardness and would probably handle more abuse and similarly cause less upset when nicks occur. Though designed for flesh as we always hear, it would need to do against armour, other blades, seasoned wooden staves, langets etc even human bone at collision velocities( both parties or limbs moving towards each other, greatly increasing impact). No picnic.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Thu 05 May, 2016 10:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

T. Kew wrote:

Looking at this play from Viggiani, we can establish certain key features of the technique (I'm assuming interested readers can find the translation themselves):
  • The attacker strikes a mandritto blow, descending from a high guard.
  • The defender strikes a rovescio, rising from a low guard on their left with the point retracted.
  • This rovescio is made with the true edge leading.
  • The two blades meet true edge to true edge.
  • The attacker's debole meets the defender's forte.
  • The attacker's blade is displaced to pass the defender on the right.

We can use these listed features to consider whether an interpretation is correct. Noting that the text explicitly lists the two blades meeting true edge to true edge, we can be certain that any interpretation which does not have this feature is not a correct interpretation of this technique.

Particularly interesting here, although obviously harder to test directly, is the following fragment: "whereby mine [the attacker's sword] could be easily broken". This implies that edge damage was an expected consequence of this parry, even to the potential level of breaking one of the two swords involved, which reinforces that the blades must meet edge to edge, with considerable force.

In short: to interpret this play in line with the text of the manual, we must have the two swords meet edge to edge, with force. It may be possible to make an effective play without this bind/parry/block, but it cannot be the technique we are given.


There is nothing above that implies major blade damage or breakage was an expected outcome of the action. As I noted earlier and as you note above, the edges of the blades do indeed come together, making first contact between the blades. However, the majority of the force of the defending blade will be focused into the flat of the attacking blade. This low left to high right impact is what causes the attacker's blade to be displaced to the defender's right side.

The above parry is clearly an Edge-to-Flat displacement, not an Edge-to-Edge block. A similar displacement is seen in Fiore's sword in one hand and in I.33 in the top image of Plate 6v. No edge hacking required.

Ran Pleasant
Instructor of I.33 Sword & Buckler
Accademia del Leone
View user's profile Send private message
T. Kew




Location: London, UK
Joined: 21 Apr 2012

Posts: 256

PostPosted: Thu 05 May, 2016 2:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Perhaps it would be useful if I simply quoted the play from Viggiani in a little more detail, for ease of reference.

Viggiani, Lo Schermo, trans. Swanger wrote:

It behooves you (to deliver your enemy some desired blow) that (being in that guardia stretta, difensiva with your right foot forward) you turn the point of your sword toward your left side, diagonally, so that the point faces that same side, and the pommel is on your right, as if you wanted to lay hand to the sword, and from here uniting all the strength of your body together, do the same rovescio tondo with those same turns of the hand and the feet of which I have told you, and in the same manner; but pay heed that in this delivering of the rovescio, the swords meet each other true edge to true edge,
but that the forte of your sword will have met the debole of mine, whereby mine could be easily broken by virtue of the disadvantage of such a meeting, and also because of the fall of the cut; and you will also be more secure, being shielded by the forte of your sword.

(Emphasis from Swanger's translation)

I've taken the liberty of adding my own emphasis to the quotes I've enclosed below.

Randall Pleasant wrote:


There is nothing above that implies major blade damage or breakage was an expected outcome of the action.


I disagree:

Viggiani, Lo Schermo, trans. Swanger wrote:

...whereby mine [my sword] could be easily broken...


Randall Pleasant wrote:
As I noted earlier and as you note above, the edges of the blades do indeed come together, making first contact between the blades. However, the majority of the force of the defending blade will be focused into the flat of the attacking blade. This low left to high right impact is what causes the attacker's blade to be displaced to the defender's right side.


Viggiani, Lo Schermo, trans. Swanger wrote:

...pay heed that in this delivering of the rovescio, the swords meet each other true edge to true edge, but that the forte of your sword [defender] will have met the debole of mine [attacker]...


Riddle me this: how can the defender cut with the true edge of her forte, into the true edge of the attacker's debole, while striking his flat?

If the parry was to be made with the edge against the flat providing the primary displacement, then the offender's sword would land on the defender's quillons, not the forte of her true edge.

A little further on, we similarly read:

Viggiani, Lo Schermo, trans. Swanger wrote:

...you will also be more secure, being shielded by the forte of your sword.


Again, riddle me this: how can the defender be shielded by her forte if she has her edge on the attacker's flat?

Randall Pleasant wrote:
The above parry is clearly an Edge-to-Flat displacement, not an Edge-to-Edge block. A similar displacement is seen in Fiore's sword in one hand and in I.33 in the top image of Plate 6v. No edge hacking required.

Ran Pleasant
Instructor of I.33 Sword & Buckler
Accademia del Leone


Viggiani, Lo Schermo, trans. Swanger wrote:

...the swords meet each other true edge to true edge...




In conclusion, if you wish to contend that parrying edge to edge is a bad idea, or that it doesn't appear in I.33 or Liechtenauer or whatever, then go on. But your claim that "If you properly follow the instructions of the historical master you will never need to hack your blades Edge-on-Edge" is an absolute one, and so the existence of a single counterexample disproves it.

HEMA fencer and coach, New Cross Historical Fencing


Last edited by T. Kew on Fri 06 May, 2016 12:34 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Thu 05 May, 2016 10:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As someone who used to practice Stephen Hand's interpretation of George Silver's system, I've long found the aversion to edge-on-edge parries curious. I have trouble imaging a credible version of Silver's system for single sword that doesn't make extensive use of edge-on-edge parries. Now, I did only spar with Lance's RSWs, never with steel, so perhaps that's distorting my perspective, but guardant fight as I experienced it was all about a hard edge-to-edge stops followed by quick ripostes.
View user's profile Send private message
Alexander Hinman




Location: washington, dc
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Reading list: 50 books

Posts: 180

PostPosted: Fri 06 May, 2016 8:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think we have an over-inflated sense of how valuable swords were in the Middle Ages, and how seriously combatants might protect their pristine edges. In El Victorial, Don Pero Niņo's sword is, after a particularly hard fight, described as being toothed like a saw, with the hilt bent, as a point of pride. Indeed, he sends this blade off to the woman whom he was wooing at the time. While I doubt he went out of his way to bang up the edge of his sword, it is clear that the "toothing" was an expected consequence of hard fighting. It should be noted that the author here was himself a man-at-arms, so while he may rely on chivalric tropes to some degree he was also deeply familiar with the realities of battle.
View user's profile Send private message
Travis Canaday




Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri 06 May, 2016 11:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alexander Hinman wrote:
I think we have an over-inflated sense of how valuable swords were in the Middle Ages, and how seriously combatants might protect their pristine edges.


I completely agree. This is a modern anachronism. Sure there were ceremonial or heirloom swords, but the vast majority were seen as tools for a purpose that could be repaired or replaced. It reminds me of the way most modern shields are way over built compared to their historical lighter/more fragile counterparts. We see these things as expensive and we want them to last a long time. While historical people expected wear and tear and replacement.

Travis
View user's profile Send private message
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Sat 07 May, 2016 2:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alexander Hinman wrote:
... Indeed, he sends this blade off to the woman whom he was wooing at the time. ...


I have to ask, was the wooing successful?
View user's profile Send private message
Alexander Hinman




Location: washington, dc
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Reading list: 50 books

Posts: 180

PostPosted: Sat 07 May, 2016 1:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nat Lamb wrote:

I have to ask, was the wooing successful?


Not exactly. She gave him 2 years to come get her but his military obligations meant he didn't get there in time.
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Sat 07 May, 2016 6:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alexander Hinman wrote:
I think we have an over-inflated sense of how valuable swords were in the Middle Ages, and how seriously combatants might protect their pristine edges. In El Victorial, Don Pero Niņo's sword is, after a particularly hard fight, described as being toothed like a saw, with the hilt bent, as a point of pride. Indeed, he sends this blade off to the woman whom he was wooing at the time. While I doubt he went out of his way to bang up the edge of his sword, it is clear that the "toothing" was an expected consequence of hard fighting. It should be noted that the author here was himself a man-at-arms, so while he may rely on chivalric tropes to some degree he was also deeply familiar with the realities of battle.

What time period is El Victoria placed? Because around the end of the late Middle ages, the armor industry in Northwestern Europe had gotten so prolific than even people than weren't rich could afford armor which was essentially cut proof. For a noble fighting another noble is this period, utilization of the edge was essentially pointless. In the time periods where the edge of a blade was most useful, in war, large shields would be the main defensive implement. there also make several factors that make technique is battlefields situation different than dueling, mainly lack of space.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Sat 07 May, 2016 10:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

El Victorial was finished in 1448 or so. Much of the fighting it describes happened around 1400. Pero Niņo supposedly used cuts against armor. Of course, he was also extraordinary strong according to the text.
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Griffin




Location: The Welsh Marches, in the hills above Newtown, Powys.
Joined: 28 Dec 2006

Posts: 802

PostPosted: Sun 08 May, 2016 2:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
We see these things as expensive and we want them to last a long time. While historical people expected wear and tear and replacement.


Correct. What we could do with is a table of sword costs relating to other everyday items to put things into perspective. I wouldn't want to nick the blades of any of my swords, other than the ones I use very regularly for 'work'. of course But in a fight, the object is defeat the opponent, not save the blade. Blades are replaceable, your body isn't. Nobody enters the fray with the cry 'I'd better win, this sword cost me 6 months of my student loan!'.

Currently working on projects ranging from Elizabethan pageants to a WW1 Tank, Victorian fairgrounds 1066 events and more. Oh and we joust loads!.. We run over 250 events for English Heritage each year plus many others for Historic Royal Palaces, Historic Scotland, the National Trust and more. If you live in the UK and are interested in working for us just drop us a line with a cv.
View user's profile Send private message
Sam Arwas




Location: Australia
Joined: 02 Dec 2015

Posts: 92

PostPosted: Mon 09 May, 2016 4:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Here's an article for consideration http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008...n-djurham/
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Mon 09 May, 2016 6:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam Arwas wrote:
Here's an article for consideration http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008...n-djurham/

Wow, I'm surprised the thing didn't break in half which looks like blocks and edge parries that far up the blade. Interesting, I wonder which edge he did the actions with, the long edge or the short edge?
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Where does the 'no edge parrying' myth come from?
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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