Displacing: Edges and Flats

[Jeffrey Hull]

Hello:

Alright, some guests at our forum seem to need reminding 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.

If certain guests and/or anyone else insists upon misreading, misportraying and/or misunderstanding this, then it is his/her own bloody fault.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Hull

[Craig Peters]

Also worth adding:

For those who insist that Renaissance sword fighting style "x" uses edge parries or Renaissance master "x" advocates them, read this article: http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm

[Chris Thompson]

But I don't care how ARMA regards it. I care how the historical sources regard it.

[Mike Cartier]

So what you are advocating Chris is that if someone swings a longsword at me I should stop it with my edge in a hard stopping motion? This is at odds with German masters who admonish us to not statically parry.

And before you say that we advocate perserving our edges even at the expense of our defense of our bodies, we have never ever said any such thing. The most desired action is to not meet edge to edge that is all, it will happen but we try to avoid it. Grasping at edge to edge descriptions from a small sword or rapier manual or from longsword techniques which advocate use of the strong hardly supports your point. My strong is not my edge, i do not cut with my strong so it does not have any significant edge. Furthermore when parrying with my strong I should not be meeting anything in a static hard stopping manner but deflecting the energy.

Meyer says time and again not to statically parry and his guards are built to use the flat in defense despite the use of the special swords they had in the Fechtschulen environment. So frankly i find our view in line with the historical sources i am working from.

I appreciate your discourse on this subject but lets not let it become thorn in our sides when it need not be.

[Chris Thompson]

>So what you are advocating Chris is that if someone swings a longsword at me I should stop it with my edge in a hard stopping motion? This is at odds with German masters who admonish us to not statically parry>

No, I realize that. The German style doesn't statically parry, or tries to avoid it anyway. There are some really interesting theories on the Highland two-hander that suggest the Highlanders *did* parry and riposte even with that weapon, but I can't go into details because it's not my own research but someone else's. In any case, it would be done in a particular way that is suited to the Highland two-hander specifically and not the German longsword.

>Grasping at edge to edge descriptions from a small sword or rapier manual>

Some of the quotes I've posted are from broadsword manuals, and they state explicitly that the parry should be a hard stop on the fort of the blade. I realize that's broadsword and not longsword.

>My strong is not my edge, i do not cut with my strong so it
does not have any significant edge>

Broadsword parries are done on the strong as well, but in common usage that is considered part of the edge, so perhaps we're getting mixed up on terms here. We cut with the feeble and parry with the fort.

>Furthermore when parrying with my strong I should not be meeting anything in a static hard stopping manner but deflecting the energy>

That's fine, and yes I agree that this is historically accurate for the German style. But in the Highland style, parries are in fact static blocks, hard stops on the fort. They're actually called "stops" in some of the sources. Why do we do it that way instead of using deflections? Well, every martial art is built around a combative theory with a certain set of assumptions. One of the assumptions of German longsword theory seems to be that stops are to be avoided, but the Highland theory is that a stop combined with a slip is an extremely difficult defense to penetrate- and therefore preferable for us.

>I appreciate your discourse on this subject but lets not let it become thorn in our sides when it need not be>

I realize I've been expressing myself a bit aggressively here, but I've been getting frustrated with ARMA over the past few months. I know that static blocks are avoided in your style, and I know that you try to avoid edge-to-edge contact in your displacements. That's fine, that's your interpretation of the German sources you're using. But there have been several incidents over the past year where ARMA members on other forums have told newbies they should *never* parry on the edge of a cutting sword, no matter what the style- and that's just not historically accurate advice to give. There have also been several incidents where ARMA members have admitted that edge parries on the fort are correct for 18th-century broadsword, but then they've dismissed that style as "decadent" or "baroque" or what have you- which in my opinion is just nonsense. Or more recently, where ARMA members insisted the parry-riposte was not a Renaissance technique, even when shown a direct quote from Silver proving that it was.
If I've been coming off as hostile, it's not because I hate ARMA or want to cause trouble on your forum. I just don't understand why so many ARMA folks can't accept that there are other styles than the German longsword style, that those styles do things differently from what you're used to, and that that doesn't mean they're invalid. There seems to be an attitude that "every style in the world other than German longsword is rubbish, and every interpretation of German longsword other than our own is rubbish." If it seems like I'm lashing out at you, it's in frustration over this attitude. I'd prefer for ARMA folks to simply say what they do and why they do it, rather than telling people that the hard stop edge parry is not a historically valid method in any style- which is simply untrue.

[Gene Tausk]

Oh, good. An edge-on-edge debate. Gee, this is original. To paraphrase something Jake said on another thread, I guess we all need our edge-on-edge fix.

This thread will be monitored VERY closely.

I suggest before any more posts are made on this extremely tired subject that would-be-posters re-read our ARMA forum rules. These rules will be strictly enforced, including banning people from our forum who create problems.

Nothing like hearing these same rehashed arguments again and again...good thing we are not wasting paper otherwise this would be a crime against trees.

Jeffrey, this response is not directed at you, but I needed to get this warning on this thread.

Maybe when we are done with this fascinating discussion, we can move onto something even more exciting...like debating who is "superior," the Japanese ninja or the Viking beserker.


---------------->>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk
SFS
Director - Houston Southside ARMA Study Group
Forum Moderator

[Stacy Clifford]

This one's still civil, Gene, let it be for now.

I don't dispute that some teachers in different parts of the world or different times may have taught edge against edge parries. I don't study those styles, but certainly there is evidence that somebody did it that way. What I do dispute is that edge against edge is equally as efficient or desirable as the edge to flat methods more popular in earlier centuries in Europe (not just Germany either). Overall, based on my years of personal experience and experimentation, I believe edge against edge is an inferior way to defend a cut when all variables are considered. That does not mean there are not historical, cultural or technological reasons that the common practice changed, but making a direct value judgement, I find one to be better than the other in the majority of circumstances. That being said, my interpretation of a piece of text is probably going to err toward the most efficient motion I can devise which does not violate the criteria of the text.

Regarding masters who are frequently at the center of this dispute, such as Silver and DiGrassi, in most of the passages repeatedly cited as evidence of edge on edge parrying, the difference between us is clearly over how many different ways the same sentence can be interpreted. If you only see it one way and we see two possibilities or three that could be valid, then we are likely to disagree. It's very hard to describe in words three different actions that all might match a rather obtuse sentence written in ye olde Englishe. Some of these things aren't going to make sense unless we can show each other directly why we think our alternate interpretation is valid. Even then we may disagree, and if that happens then the dispute must be considered unresolvable because the teacher who wrote the words is dead and can give no further explanation.

We make our cases the best we can in words on this forum. If that fails, the next step is pictures, video, or meeting in person. Action speaks louder than words anyway. This site exists to present our words, pictures and videos and give us a way to communicate and gather. We would love to see others present their arguments in the same manner and heartily encourage it. To Chris, Rabbe, and others who get frustrated with us when your words don't have the desired effect, give us something to look at that demonstrates why you think it's not inferior, or doesn't cause that much damage, or whatever. If you want pictures and visual proof of something we say, ask and ye shall receive. Only then can we really say full effort was made and agree to disagree.

[Chris Thompson]

It's my personal opinion that edge parries and parry-riposte were not late developments in British swordplay, but were simply the British style for as far back in time as we have evidence. I've presented the reasons why I think that. But I agree that two different people can read the same text and come to different conclusions, and I have no problem with that. If you feel that the edge parry is inferior, that is an opinion to which you are entitled. I disagree, but again that is just an opinion.
As for the issue of damage, I'm not quite sure what the situation is there- was there relatively little edge damage because the parries were taken on the fort? (Indeed, surviving Highland broadswords do show nicks along the edge.)
Or was this not seen as an issue because the only people who could afford swords at all were members of the warrior elite and could presumably afford to replace a damaged sword every now and then? (The popular image of all Highland clansmen as carrying broadswords is incorrect.)Many dirks are made from old broadsword blades, so maybe if a blade took too much damage it was simply cut down into a dirk and replaced.

[Mike Cartier]

"But my overall impression here has been that ARMA people believe all other swordsmen are fools"

Ahh yes well perhaps if we change our ARMA creed from "everyone else is an idiot" we can overcome this perception <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Francisco Uribe]

This is a debate about ARMA members putting out false info on public forums (such as "all edge parries are unhistorical") and the ridicule and disrespect shown by some ARMA members to those who are outside

Well, well... so we are getting to the bottom of this. I think it would have been better, for all of us, to have started here from the beggining... saving a lot of bits on this forum.

Jeffrey summarized what is ARMA opinon on this regard. I believe wit was clearly stated. What ARMA thinks, communicates and practices, does not come out of a feverish dream or revelation. Is the product of scholarly and practical investigation.

It is really borderline to proper behavior, to come out and freely acuse ARMA of divulging false information. Frankly I find it rather insulting.

This is a science, so the masters said. Follow the scientific method then. I know I do everyday.
I invite anyone to produce hard strong evidence, beyond interpretation of lines taken out of context, to prove the falsity in whatever ARMA states. Everything else is just words.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hello everybody,

This is my few cents on this.
I cant understand why forums are used to fight. Why not think things over? Like, Chris HAS a problem, that is clear. He came here becouse he had discussons with ARMA members on other forums. I guess it does not matter who is right or wrong on the specific issue - gee, I respect you guys at ARMA, you know that! But I am also VERY tired of people who create forum-wars. Maybe, you should think it over, if there really were some members who acted incorrectly on other forums. It just sounds like this: http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/cults.htm
And that is probably not the best course for our precious martial art and not in the sense of our old masters, is it?

Anyway, I think edge-to edge parrying does indeed make sense in broadsword- and saber-play. We in hungary were using lots of sabers in our history, and our heritage DOES teach edge-on-edge, followed by riposte, but only with the ricasso or the false edge. And, with a saber that is SUITED for edge-to-edge!
On the contraversory, with a Longsword, it makes less sense. A longsword is much longer and can be used in a more effective way, than edge-to-edge parrying. Anybody stating otherwise should probably show evidence (mine is all the video-, picture - and textstuff on the net on the sides of SAGA, ARMA, AEMMA and probably - Cold Steel. Quit Laughing! They have a quite nice saber-playing DVD).

I am just a guest here. I did not mean to be offensive or be too clever. If you feel that way, it was probably just because my poor english.

cheers

Szabolcs

[Brian Hunt]

Hi Szabolcs,

welcome to the forum. I don't think that anyone here would argue against the fact that edge on edge parries exist in later period saber manuals. We tend to disagree that this type of dual time edge to edge parry was used in rennaisance/medieval fencing.

once again,

welcome.

Brian Hunt
GFS.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hello Brian <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Nice to meetcha <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

We tend to disagree that this type of dual time edge to edge parry was used in rennaisance/medieval fencing.

Totally agree.

The question is just, what do you do if you meet... an inexperienced fighter? Who attacks your edge on any occassion? happened to me not once but twice, and could not well handle it. I am not good enough to simply overwhealm him, that means, we "fenced". And He parried with the edge, and worse, hit my sword with his edge on my edge, AFTER my blade already passed him! He called it "push away" and it certainly worked, for it left me exposed (after the first time I learned my lesson and it did not work again). So I guess shouting at him, like, "waddahell R yo doin' to my blade?!" is not completelly accurate. You do not shout at your enemy to leave alone your edge! anyway, my sword looked like [censored], after that meeting. I could repair most dents, but a few cracks still remember me at that fight. So how do you solwe situations like this?!


Szabolcs

[philippewillaume]

Hello

I would side with john on the 15-cent manual I can no see where edge on edge parry is advocated. That being said chris is right for later stuff, the thing is that the two statement are not mutually exclusive and as far as I can tell are both correct.

To be fair I think ARMA has taken a bit of underserved flak on that topic in the past and this is quite understandable a sensitive topic and the same seem to be true for Chris. We all have or sensitive fencing spots.


Szabolcs
I think there is difference between what the game plan is and what actually happen on the pitch.
Swordfighting is like casual sex, you may take all the precautions you want, that does not guaranty 100 % against pregenacy or STD.

phil

[Craig Peters]

Swordfighting is like casual sex, you may take all the precautions you want, that does not guaranty 100 % against pregenacy or STD.

Love the quote Phillipe, and it accurately describes the situation.

Szabolcs,

I would suggest that your sparring partner's success was more due to your inexperience than his skill. When you say "push away", it sounds as though he was simply displacing your blade, which is probably the least effective defensive action possible with a sword. If you had a good understanding of fuehlen, you probably could have sensed his intention to displace with force, allowing you to withdraw and quickly strike to another opening.

The other dangerous thing about displacing or simply using a sword to block blows is that a skilled swordsman will continue to press the attack relentlessly, until his foe is overwhelmed. Being put on the defensive like that is probably the worst thing that can happen to you during a swordfight, and it's one of the best things that can happen for your opponent.

In contrast, had your sparring partner forcefully counterstruck with the edge of his sword against your flat, you would have suddenly found your blade aimed at the ground while he still threatened you. Hence, ARMA's preference for this type of strike if necessary.