**Warning: long post ahead**
In regards to the MyArmoury thread, and similar "debates," what I've always wondered is if much of the disagreement stems from confused terminology.
Spawned somewhat fromt he MyArmoury thread, and these thoughts,I actually devoted some time this week to trying out various techniques and seeing 1) which seems to work better and 2) what actions result in edge-on-flat and ede-on-edge.
The preliminary results:
Edge-on-flat is easy. You do not even have to consciously think think "must present flat." The guards do it for you, unless you are for some reason holding your sword horizontally EDIT: by "horizontally" I mean the sword rotated so the edges are parallel to the groud, even if the tip is inclined or declined relative to the hilt. Simply transitioning into pflug or alber or ochs automatically presents the flat to recieve a blow. Even in a left-side pflug with the long edge facing up, unless you are holding it essentially horizontally, the flat is most likely to get hit. Even doing a Zornhau into a Zornhau, the swords tend to hit more on the side than directly edge-on.
Getting unambiguous edge-on-edge is more difficult. The only ways I was able to accomplish this was by:
1) In pflug, by moving my sword edge offline from my opponent and rotating my arms and body to intercept the blow edge on (I found that this was easier to do if I had my arms tucked in to my body with the hilt almost touching my torso. Having the arms partially extended and the hilt any distance away from my body--a position allowing for more rapid and wide-ranging movement--intercepting the opponent's edge with my edge was difficult, and almost impossible unless I made a conscious effort)
2) Cutting directly at the opposing edge from an alternate line of attack. I.E. if the opponent strikes downward and diagonally from his right (e.g., to my left shoulder), I cut diagonally upward from my lower right--but I cut at the opponent's sword, purposfully aiming for and trying to hit his edge with mine. It stops the enemy's sword, yes, but leaves you in absolutely no position to atack (wind and bind maybe). Thing is, this action is actually sort of instinctive--his sword is swinging at you, so you swing against it with your own. I suspect a complete neophyte who has never held a sword before would do this instinctively if attacked (my wife did, my cousins did, my sister did...). It is also very Hollywood (which might explain why it seems instinctive...)
In short, blocking with the flat hapens anyway, but getting unambiguous edge-on-edge contact, particularly when performing a hard-stop, actually may requires you to purposfully seek it out.
Notice I said unambiguous edge-on-edge contact. This is what I think may be at the root of so much bad-blood ala the happenings at MyArmoury. I had my wife help me out with my exploration, going through different movements to try and figgure out what people were doing to result in edge-on-edge contact. We did have many times where my wife would say "That looks like edge-on-edge" to which I would reply "No, I think that's edge-on-flat."
The problem was how were were each defining the types of contact. She was under the impression that "edge-on-flat" necessitated the edge of one sword contacting squarely on the flat of the other (i.e. the edge touches directly on the central riser or spans the fuller, touching only the flat of the sword), and that any contact of any part of one edge with another edge constituted "edge-on-edge."
I, however, was defining "edge-on-edge" to mean the blades were nearly-perpendicular to eachother, where the ONLY point of contact is the lateral-most margins of the blade (that is to say, if you ran your fingernail along the very edge of the sword from crossguard to tip, the narrow band you would be touching--the part that contacts first in a cut). If you looked at the swords edge-on, you would see two narrow lines intersecting, like a cross. "Edge-on-flat" was anything where the swords were not directly perpendicular to eachother. If you looked at one of them edge-on, you would be able to see (at least a good part of) the flat of the other.
Yes, the edges may (and certainly do) contact in this situation, but the fingernail-touched biting edge of one sword is touching the side of the edge of the other (or the sides of the edges of both are contacting). A very slight rotation or push will move the edge completely into contact with the flat ala' my wife's orginal definition. I was defining this as "edge-on- flat" because one edge was on the flat side of the other edge.
I started thinking of it as force-vectors. In an edge-on-edge collision, the force vector through both swords in more-or-less in line with their quillions. In an edge-on-flat collision, the force vector on at least one of the swords is more at an angle passing through the flats of the sword (if that makes sense) up to a maximum of perpendicular to the quillions. Defining a set angle as the dividing line between "edge-on-edge" and "edge-on-flat" is nigh on impossible, though.
So I wonder if some of these "edge-on-edge" proponents are simply defining "edge-to-edge" contact more like my wife was--where any time the edges touch at all it is edge-on-edge contact, and then by extension, edge-on-flat must be squarely on the flat.
Surely, there are some who claim unambiguous edge-on-edge hard-stop "parries" are legitimate technique and have basis in the historical documents. I will not compltely discount the possibility, but I am yet to see something that definitively calls for a direct interception of one edge squarely with another. I've seen examples of "Strike at his sword with your edge" or even "strike at his true edge with your true (or false) edge" These quotes are often cited in these "debates." To me, I'm unconvinced that these quotes mean "stop his sword cold by intercepting his edge with yours." If you think about it, swinging your edge at his edge from the side means you'll catch his edge on its side (and thus edge on flat by the definition above) and more push his edge out of the way then stop it dead, or if it does stop it dead, the swords are rarely Hollywood-perpendicular.
Just my $0.02.
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
