Ebbing-Hand Equals Flat-Use

[Jeffrey Hull]

Hey Guys,

It is tiresome to learn how often and muddlingly edge-to-edge nonsense is maintained so exclusively by various enthusiasts at other forums.

Historical examples of flat-use are there for anyone to read and see, whether in the source texts, or as quoted & 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 the usual drone of e-t-e superiority from various modern entities.

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.

So take heart, good fellows, for flat-use is supported by even more historical masters than you may have thought.

JH

[Allen Johnson]

Agreed- I am in the process of compiling research on the change in the use of the Scottish baskethilt pre 1745 in the Gaelic tradition as opposed the the regimental system, adapted from smallsword play. In the regimental system there is use of taking an edge on the edge of your forte- but its also surrounded by other limitations and environs where that would be a latter choice after a feint, slip, or "avolting" (stepping off line). Ive seen many quote these late masters as proof of edge parry and then use it for medieval longsword and the like. Context is everything.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jeffrey

I was actualy just looking at Talhofer a couple week's ago i wish i would have paid more attention to the mounted section didn't even see that.

Jeff

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Never mind all those Renaissance and later texts that explicitly describe hard edge-to-edge parries, and Medieval texts that advise you to do parries with your edge, never bothering to mention you must *not* hit the opponent's edge... <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Of course, those defences were performed with the (often unsharpened for this very purpose) forte of the sword, and most certainly weren't hollywoodesque, sword-ruining foible-to-foible blocks.

Historical examples of flat-use are there for anyone to read and see, whether in the source texts, or as quoted &amp; translated and explained by the writings and demonstrations of various ARMA associates.

I doubt anyone of note in the HF "community" would deny this - most just don't agree with the "edge contact didn't happen historically" stand taken by some.

Rabbe

[Stacy Clifford]

We have never denied that some defenses are executed with the edge of the ricasso or forte, such as kron. You are on the same page with us in saying that defending with the edge at the middle or weak of the blade, the business portion of the cutting edge, is a horrible idea if you want to preserve your edge. We do believe that using the flat of the ricasso is still preferable to using its edge if given the choice, but this shouldn't really be a source of disagreement between us either. If there is any disagreement to be had, it seems to be only on which defense is appropriate with which techniques and in what situations, and that is too long a discussion to start here (again).

As for the masters "never bothering to mention that you must not hit the opponent's edge," remember that most of these manuals are regarded as study aides for existing students, not step-by-step guides for beginners. If you were writing a similar guide for a woodshop, would you feel the need to include "do not run a board full of nails through a circular saw," or would you expect your students to already know how much damage that would do? People who use tools every day value them, take care of them, and learn their limitations relatively quickly. A sword's usefulness would quickly be diminished by a few too many sessions at the grinding wheel to take off chewed edges. Such an admonition may have simply been too elementary to waste valuable print space on.

Of course, the other argument we always have to repeat for some reason is that omission does not equal permission or constitute a recommendation. All teachers in any discipline expect you to use some common sense, which to me means know the tool you are using in this case. All tools are meant to be reused repeatedly, and if you are using it in a manner that is destructive to the tool, then you are not using it correctly.

[Casper Bradak]

Is "ebbing hand" a better translation, in your opinion, than "turned around hand" used in the currently published edition?
Though less explanatory, I do like the sound of ebbing-hand better.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Hey,

I failed to mention yet another exmple from Talhoffer-1467, that of plate 265, where the mounted swordsman *entwert* or *negates* the lance of an opposing lancer with his sword by clearly utilising the blade-flat.

Thus this master's fightbook gives us proof of flat-use with the sword against both like and unlike weaponry.

JH

[Jeffrey Hull]

AJ:

Your research into what you termed *Gaelic* versus *Regimental* techniques is precisely the sort of distinction I have been trying to get others to consider regarding Medieval and Renaissance Scottish swordsmanship.

Like you said, context means a lot. Ignoring context is like someone who had the chance to ask Erwin Rommel about tank tactics, but relied instead on the advice of Tom Landry. Each man knew his stuff -- but one needs to realise just whose stuff is pertinent to what one needs to know.

I look forward to what your research may yield for us to learn.

Thanks,

JH

[Jeffrey Hull]

CB:

I simply found *ebbing-hand* a more literal yet dynamic translation that I prefer. But I do not diagree with Rector's choice of words to translate it. You could even call it *torqued-hand* if you like.

By the way, it seems likely to me that *epicher hand* could mean dynamically bending the wrist not just inwards but at times outwards, for purpose of flat-use during versetzen or *entwerten* (see other reply about plate 265).

And FYI, one should consider *flat-use* to mean not just utilising one's own flat but also that of the foe, as needed.
<img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Good luck,

JH

[George Turner]

Interesting. I might add that powerfully displacing or deflecting an oncoming lance with your edge may cause an occassional problem, given that the lance can deliver enough force to unseat you. If your blade bites hard into the oncoming shaft, which obviously you're not stopping, just beating aside, who knows where your sword would end up. It's certainly going to tilt backwards severely.

Using the flat would let you hit an oncoming shaft as hard as you like without a risk of this.

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

We do believe that using the flat of the ricasso is still preferable to using its edge if given the choice, but this shouldn't really be a source of disagreement between us either.

That would depend on the type of parry, in my opinion. Wouldn't want to try a silveresque true gardant ward (high prime in classical terminology, I think) with the flat, for example - might damage the sword, and might result in the opponent ploughing through the defence.

I think we agree on the broad strokes, though.

As for the masters "never bothering to mention that you must not hit the opponent's edge," remember that most of these manuals are regarded as study aides for existing students, not step-by-step guides for beginners.

Yep. I'd still imagine at least some of them would mention that edge-to-edge contact is to be avoided, though - they sure warn about many other seemingly quite basic things. I doubt arguing this specific point further would be very useful, though...

A sword's usefulness would quickly be diminished by a few too many sessions at the grinding wheel to take off chewed edges.

I still don't exactly see how damage to the edge is a concern if one properly parries with the forte, especially as that part of the blade was often left unsharpened (at least in certain time periods). Many modern practioners have done edge-to-edge parries for decades with swords whose sharpness at the forte roughly approximates that of many surviving historical specimens, without causing considerable damage to the swords in question.

The average sharp could not possibly have been expected to be put through similar amounts of use.

Rabbe

[Stacy Clifford]

If the ricasso is squared off, then certainly there is less to worry about in using the edge of that part of the blade for defense. Any kind of honed edge, however, even an unsharpened one, is very likely to gouge on making edge contact with another blade due to the concentration of force, and that is going to intrinsically weaken the blade at that spot. I don't want a blade snapped off at the base any more than I want a saw-toothed cutting edge. The shape of the blade does have an effect on how you can safely use it.

I would agree that a single-handed hanging-type defense is going to be weaker with the flat, but I don't believe they were meant to be full-on stop blocks, either. They are more meant to deflect the downward momentum off to one side, and for that the flat is sufficient if the defense is well executed.

I believe that several warnings from the manuals have in fact been posted on this forum as examples in the past, but I don't have time to go dig them up. In general though, it's difficult to say what would have been considered common sense then that clearly isn't now. Since we don't use swords any more, it would help us to be told explicitly whether or not to block with the edge. At that time though, people had been using bladed weapons and tools every day for thousands of years and presumably had a large body of common wisdom surrounding them that was just assumed by everyone. ("Don't tear up the edge son, you'll break it and we'll have to buy a new one.") If you don't have any evidence one way or the other, then it's a judgement call based on practical experience. In my own practical experience I know for certain that flat parries can be executed safely and effectively at full speed at each line of attack, thus preserving my health and the blade and setting up a counter because I have practiced exactly these things for the last five years. I have seen many of my colleagues achieve identical results. This leads me to believe that we are in all likelihood doing something right.

I am not a strict interpretationist, to be clear. Where the manuals leave no room for doubt, obviously they should be followed. When their meaning is less clear, however, I believe that the dictates of efficiency are most likely to lead to a close resemblance to what the master intended to portray while achieving the desired result of the technique. In this respect, I believe most of us in ARMA find that blocking with the edge is rarely necessary and frequently achieves less than desirable results, therefore we (or at least I) find it unlikely that it would have been recommended if left unspecified in most cases.

[Mike Cartier]

I have found flat parrying to make much more sense when i want to transition my blade after receiving the opponent's blade. If i edge parry i find the swords bind more interfering with my transition. When i flat parry i have a freer blade to transition with if i am going to try and do a quick counter attack.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Yes, burying the blade-edge into a charging lance most likely spelt trouble, getting one's weapon wrenched violently out of hand by a horse-driven rail. I think that the sliding action of the blade-flat can allow the swordsman to wrap his arm around the lance after intercepting and deflecting it. JH

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Any kind of honed edge, however, even an unsharpened one, is very likely to gouge on making edge contact with another blade due to the concentration of force, and that is going to intrinsically weaken the blade at that spot. I don't want a blade snapped off at the base any more than I want a saw-toothed cutting edge. The shape of the blade does have an effect on how you can safely use it.

Agreed - chances are a thick-forted backsword will be able to take edge-to-edge contact far better than a thinner sidesword, for example. Heat-treatment is a factor, too. Many modern replicas are really rather soft when compared to antiques, and thus more suspectible to edge damage as well.

I would agree that a single-handed hanging-type defense is going to be weaker with the flat, but I don't believe they were meant to be full-on stop blocks, either. They are more meant to deflect the downward momentum off to one side, and for that the flat is sufficient if the defense is well executed.

Agreed again, as far as softer deflections go, but the true gardant I mentioned earlier is one example of what the English called a "stoppe": the opponent's blade isn't deflected anywhere. It's stopped, as the name implies, often by closing in and choking up the blow before it is in full speed. Attempting to perform a defence like this with the flat would be potentially disastrous, both to the sword and the wielder...

In my own practical experience I know for certain that flat parries can be executed safely and effectively at full speed at each line of attack, thus preserving my health and the blade and setting up a counter because I have practiced exactly these things for the last five years. I have seen many of my colleagues achieve identical results. This leads me to believe that we are in all likelihood doing something right.

I don't disagree here either, but the same can be achieved with the edge as well - heck, most of the living lineages we still have from Europe do just that.

In general though, it's difficult to say what would have been considered common sense then that clearly isn't now. In this respect, I believe most of us in ARMA find that blocking with the edge is rarely necessary and frequently achieves less than desirable results, therefore we (or at least I) find it unlikely that it would have been recommended if left unspecified in most cases.

I suppose you mean parrying edge-to-edge when you talk about "blocking with the edge"? Numerous historical manuals from Döbringer to Hutton make it quite clear that parries are to be performed with the edge, but usually don't specify whether against the opponent's edge or his flat.

All the best
Rabbe