Ebbing-Hand Equals Flat-Use

[Mike Cartier]

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.

And what living lineages would that be?

[JeffGentry]

Hmmmmm

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.

Dobriger does mention squinting with the edge and displacing with the forward edge, if it is done right it will naturaly be edge on flat or it will be flat on flat either way it does not go edge on edge, On any part of the blade.

I think some of this has to do with footwork if you step to your right and void a Zornhau, you can cut straight down on the blade with your edge and it naturaly hit's the opponenet's flat because of the change of your cutting angle and distance, why you would cut at there blade when you could take there head i do not know, it does naturaly work out that way though.


IMHO there is no reason with any sword to block edge to edge, even a stop hit you could go to the hilt/hand to stifle the blow.

Jeff

[Jake_Norwood]

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.

That's probably a fair statement. We all use "edge parries" if you mean actively striking our opponent's weapon with the edge as a counter-cut or other displacement. But "blocking with the edge" provides no advantage over setting aside with the flat, which provides many advantages and which is frequently encouraged by the masters... "mit der flech."

It so happens that the gross majority of counter-cuts and active verstezen of that type end up having and edge-to-flat relationship. If someone cuts a zornhau at me, and I counter cut indes ("just as," not gleich, or "simultaneously," which would not be a counter-cut at all, but rather a coincidence), then because my blade is just a hair behind my opponent's in time I will strike down upon the flat (or angled in upon the flat) without "trying to." It just happens...simple physics. I am then further advantaged by this because striking down on his flat will more forcefully disrupt his attack by more violently re-directing its momentum (not to mention giving him a nasty wobble). I think that that is part of why the masters make less of a "big deal" of it than we do--because they spent so much time working with steel swords "at speed," it was obvious that the relationship between edge and flat was not something that needs to be sought when doing the techniques properly--it just happens.

Jake

[John_Clements]

You know, I always encourage and applaud reasoned discussions on this topic. But, I’ve instructed now in 10 countries showing how forceful cuts can be successfully encountered using the flat in a manner that’s tactically and mechanically superior to taking it edge against edge, have repeatedly shown every Mastercut (and then some) forcibly displaced by an edge on flat or flat on edge counter strike, and have further demonstrated how every single cut can without damage be closed with and stifled using ricasso against ricasso edges, as well as have shown how the very positions of the basic stances themselves inherently receive blows on the flat of the strong. Never once in all these years after giving such classes has anyone witnessing this in person ever denied or disputed the logic and clarity of any of it. Not once. Instead, we are still waiting for actual evidence from Medieval and Renaissance sources for instructions to bash edges together that can’t be interpreted as we properly do them.

Why do some practitioners constantly bash edges on edges then? Because of decades of seeing this junk done without consequences in movies and TV, because they have been doing it the same unlearned way since they were kids, because they were taught it in the play fighting sports of saber fencing or kendo, because the rules they spar under don’t require real swords to be really used, and because they have been doing it for so long now to admit they have been in error all along is psychologically unacceptable. But how many of these people have ever struck full force with a sharp-edged cutting blade at another sharp-edged cutting blade to actually experience the near instantaneous traumatic results to edges from such impacts? (let alone witness the physical mechanics of how real blades respond in their trajectory and momentum to such full force edge to edge impacts?). Does anyone train to really use their swords as real killing tools anymore? No, instead, after play fighting and stunt fencing swords are quickly and unnecessarily ruined using ignorant and inferior techniques.

Medieval and Renaissance fighting men did not purposely trash their swords and no source from the period instructs that they should. The historical evidence for this alone is enough on its own (not to mention the same thing appearing in Japanese, Chinese, Indian, and Indonesian swordplay and even some 19th century European teachers still understood and taught it ---the rest, as has been repeated countless times here, only taught a deteriorated ricasso to ricasso defense without any conception of earlier counter-striking deflections). But with so many other historical examples of how not to incorrectly block cuts, from Doebringer’s complaint of “wide parries” to Lebkommer’s instruction to remain aware of the flat, to Meyer’s instruction on displacing “with the flat” to his warning against “catching”, is so much and all so obviously inferior (both technically and tactically) that I personally no longer have any patience whatsoever with fools who want to intentionally employ weaker techniques, ruin blades, and can't tell the difference between this and the “jewel of the art,” as Vadi described it. The foolishness of trying to receive cuts edge-on-edge in half-swording or by hanging-point stances alone should be self-evident.

If others can’t understand all this from the historical source texts, or from our numerous writings and videos on the topic, or else can't duplicate the same actions we can, it’s not for our lack of trying to help educate them. Again, I applaud discussion, but I tell students, just leave the noise on this behind and move ahead in your own skill.

JC

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

If I may repeat what I tried to say earlier, I'm not, in any way, trying to dispute defences with the flat, or defences against the flat of the opponent' sword. What I'm trying to say is that, as far as I can see, there were historical systems that got away with edge-to-edge defences in deadly combat - without ruining their swords, too.

Mike Cartier wrote:
And what living lineages would that be?

Dear Mike,

That'd be various types of military and "classical" sabre, for example.

Jeff Gentry wrote:
IMHO there is no reason with any sword to block edge to edge, even a stop hit you could go to the hilt/hand to stifle the blow.

Dear Jeff,

Except that some defences naturally result in edge to edge contact, and, when properly executed, do not harm the sword either. Several historical authors are quite clear about this, too - especially the later broad- and backsword and sabre guys leave absolutely no doubt that they want their defences to be done edge-to-edge with the forte.

Jake Norwood wrote:
It so happens that the gross majority of counter-cuts and active verstezen of that type end up having and edge-to-flat relationship. If someone cuts a zornhau at me, and I counter cut indes ("just as," not gleich, or "simultaneously," which would not be a counter-cut at all, but rather a coincidence), then because my blade is just a hair behind my opponent's in time I will strike down upon the flat (or angled in upon the flat) without "trying to." It just happens...simple physics. I am then further advantaged by this because striking down on his flat will more forcefully disrupt his attack by more violently re-directing its momentum (not to mention giving him a nasty wobble). I think that that is part of why the masters make less of a "big deal" of it than we do--because they spent so much time working with steel swords "at speed," it was obvious that the relationship between edge and flat was not something that needs to be sought when doing the techniques properly--it just happens.

Dear Jake,

I can't really say this or that, not being very familiar with the Germanic schools of fence, but that certainly does make sense to me. I don't really think it matters whether I hit his flat or his edge at some angle in a Zornhau-kinda defence myself, but this is rather out of my area of (relative) knowledge.

John Clements wrote:
*snip* ...and have further demonstrated how every single cut can without damage be closed with and stifled using ricasso against ricasso edges... *snip*

Dear John,

That is the kind of action I was talking about. I'd still consider the edge of the forte an edge, and thus a parry in which the edges of the forte meet an edge-to-edge parry. We're (well, I am...) getting to semantics now, though...

Instead, we are still waiting for actual evidence from Medieval and Renaissance sources for instructions to bash edges together that can’t be interpreted as we properly do them.

Right. Meyer sayeth: "turn the true edge against his incoming stroke; now when you have caught his blow on the forte of your true edge, remain hard on his blade, and wind inward and outward to his head." (Translation by Stefan Dieke) 'course, he was likely using a federschwerdt, but that's still an edge-to-edge parry quite clearly described.

I can't really speak for the German systems myself, but many leading researchers who've purely focused on the German material for years or decades interpret some of the defences as resulting in edge-to-edge contact.

From Viggiani, 81 recto to 81 verso (according to Jherek Swanger's translation):
"In this fashion, the swords would connect each other true edge to true edge in the manner of a cross...
... This is the common schermo that all masters teach, and the greatest part of combatants use..." (granted, Viggiani does advise against this defence a bit later, but not because it results in edge-to-edge contact).

"... But pay heed, that in this delivering of the rovescio, the swords meet each other true edge to true edge..."

Viggiani advocated practise with sharps, by the way, so I'm quite sure he understood what kind of edge damage, if any, his parries would cause.

Although it could be argued that Silver isn't quite Medieval or Renaissance, his true gardant is and example of a parry that almost certainly has to result in edge-to-edge contact - and similar actions were the mainstay of back- and broadsword fencers for centuries. You catch his forte with yours by closing in and choking the blow up, preferably before it has come to full speed. Do it with your flat and he might just force his way through the defence, do it against his flat and he either has really funky cutting form or you're a considerably better fencer than I am...

Harleian mentiones the "stoppis" as well, but that can hardly be considered conclusive evidence, since the text is quite unclear, and Add would seem to use a similar term for stopping your own motion, not that of the adversary's sword. It might be that the meaning of the word in fencing terminology changed somewhat during the centuries, but there's no way to be sure based on the current knowledge on the early English texts.

Oh, and by the way, there is a translation of Viggiani online, if you are interested. I wasn't aware of it the last time around, but it can be found in the Tattershall School of Defence website: http://www.tattershall.org/resc.html

But how many of these people have ever struck full force with a sharp-edged cutting blade at another sharp-edged cutting blade to actually experience the near instantaneous traumatic results to edges from such impacts?

I don't know. I do however know that many have repeatedly performed edge-to-edge parries with swords whose sharpness at the forte is quite similar to that of surviving historical pieces, without considerable damage to the swords aside from some purely cosmetic deformation of the edge at the forte. I've personally seen antiques with unsharpened fortes that have edge damage that follows this pattern as well.

It'd propably help at this point if we actually defined what we mean by edge-to-edge, too. I'd categorise any kind of blade contact in which the edges meet each other, at whatever angle, and whatever part of the blade, as edge-to-edge contact. From this and the earlier discussions on the subject, I get the idea that my definition is a bit broader that yours.

Medieval and Renaissance fighting men did not purposely trash their swords and no source from the period instructs that they should.

And I've never said they would, either. Parries don't have to be, and should not be, hollywoodesque, sword-ruining, full-power foible-to-foible bashes, whether they are edge-to-edge or not, as I'm sure you know.

The historical evidence for this alone is enough on its own (not to mention the same thing appearing in Japanese, Chinese, Indian, and Indonesian swordplay and even some 19th century European teachers still understood and taught it ---the rest, as has been repeated countless times here, only taught a deteriorated ricasso to ricasso defense without any conception of earlier counter-striking deflections).

I don't think we are anywhere near a position to judge and rank the historical systems yet. Those guys, even the ones who lived after the Renaissance, fought for their lives with swords. We don't. We are only beginning to understand their writings, anyway.

I believe some Oriental systems do edge-to-edge parries as well, btw. And if I could come up with active deflections when "fencing" with boffers as a child, without any exposure to the historical texts, I'm quite sure those who fenced for their lives with sharps and had several thousand years of lineage behind them could have used such parries as well, had they wished to do so.

All the best
Rabbe

[Stacy Clifford]

Rabbe,

I think in actual practice you are talking about the same things we are, but our usage of terms differs. We would also call swords meeting ricasso-to-ricasso "edge on edge," but we don't generally use the term "parry" to describe stifling actions or countercuts. There is still a lot of debate over how "parry" should be used, but in general I think it's not necessarily the most appropriate term for every possible type of defense involving blade contact. That seems to be confusing our debate somewhat. I tend to consider a parry to be more of a passive stopping action to be followed by a separate offensive action, and many here would agree with me.

It's also been said a couple of times already that we do believe in striking edge-to-flat with countercuts. Since this and stifling are more proactive and under certain circumstances can even function offensively at the same time, we usually label these types of actions separately from parries.

Also, regarding "living lineages," there are a lot of differences between 18th-19th century sources and earlier sources from the Renaissance caused by the changes in culture and technology, and it's not a good idea to try and use the later sources to interpret the earlier ones in this case because the context is too different, so we strenuously avoid those types of arguments.

I think if you apply our viewpoint to what you're saying, then we're not really talking about anything different.

P.S. Our working definition of the Renaissance extends up to about 1650, so Silver in 1599 would very definitely be considered a Renaissance source.

[Jake_Norwood]

Right. Meyer sayeth: "turn the true edge against his incoming stroke; now when you have caught his blow on the forte of your true edge, remain hard on his blade, and wind inward and outward to his head." (Translation by Stefan Dieke) 'course, he was likely using a federschwerdt, but that's still an edge-to-edge parry quite clearly described.

There is, incidentally, one other place where the edge of the starck (forte) is used to catch the incoming edge like this, but it is noteworthy in it's exceptionalism, and in the fact that this specific technique does not appear in any other manuscript I know of. OTOH, the passage you quote, if I'm not mistaken, comes from the "Kronhauw," or "Crown-strike." The catch that Meyer describes does use the edge, yes, but it is both on the Stark/forte *and* (I cannot stress this enough) the contact with the edge functions to guide the blow into the shoulder where the cross meets the ricasso. Thus the contact made with the edge is relatively gently (this sounds odd, but I have found no better way to perfrom Kron...and it has little to do with edge-mashing at that). You use the edge to "scoop" the attack into the cross, ending in Kron, from which you execute the kronhauw. If you were to bang your edge against the incoming strike the attack might bounce out or stick in the gouge created--a "scoop" prevents both.

That is my interpretation, of course, but I've found none better.

Jake

[George Turner]

Okay, here's another question. If Talhoffer shows a man using a thumb grip on horseback, how did he switch into it with one hand busy with the reins? More importantly, how will he undo it? Since the need to be in one grip or the other is determined as the tactics unfold, whatever is done must be done quickly. This seems to imply the existence of a finger or thumb skill, some little feat of prestidigitation, that we haven't bothered with.

If there was such a skill then it probably works better one way than the other (rotating clockwise versus counterclockwise or vice versa) given that finger muscles are wildly unsymmetrical in strength and motion. This implies that it would be easier to recover from the thumb grip by repeating roughly the same motion used to get into it - interchanging your true and false edges as a result. This would require your swords and their hilts to remain absolutely symmetric, just as we see for millenia.

There are some occasional instances where the edges are interchanged when delivering a murder stroke from the half-sword, and these occur when your left hand has grabbed the blade from the opposite direction as your right hand. When you let go with the right to start the stroke the blade edge orientation has flipped and stays flipped throughout the recovery. So a two-handed sword has a move that only recovers correctly with a completely symmetrical weapon. Yet this total symmetry wouldn't add the same benefit to a single-handed sword, especially one used with a shield - unless there was something else they did that was sometimes flipping the edges.

But of course if you add any kind knuckle protection to the hilt then the ability disappears along with the skill - and possibly even the suspicion that such a skill existed.

It just makes me go "Hmmm......"

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Dear Stacy,

I think in actual practice you are talking about the same things we are, but our usage of terms differs.

I imagine that's the case as well, at least partially.

There is still a lot of debate over how "parry" should be used, but in general I think it's not necessarily the most appropriate term for every possible type of defense involving blade contact. That seems to be confusing our debate somewhat. I tend to consider a parry to be more of a passive stopping action to be followed by a separate offensive action, and many here would agree with me.

It's also been said a couple of times already that we do believe in striking edge-to-flat with countercuts. Since this and stifling are more proactive and under certain circumstances can even function offensively at the same time, we usually label these types of actions separately from parries.

I agree that there is a difference between "parry" and "counterattack", but our definitions of the terms seem to be quite different nonetheless. I'd classify the stifling actions that have been brought up a few times as a variation of "stops", one type of "parries" - a "parry" being any defensive action done to shelter oneself from an offensive action. A parry can be a beat, a stop, a softer hengen-style deflection or quite a few different defensive manouvers that don't contain a simultaneous offence. Or, that's how I define it, anyway.

I'm not sure if classical fencers make the addition of "with one's weapon" to the definition, but I believe theirs is quite similar. I don't really see any need to stray from established fencing terminology here, but then, I won't exactly mind if someone holds a differing opinion...

Here's how Merriam-Webster Online defines the term:

intransitive senses
1 : to ward off a weapon or blow
2 : to evade or turn aside something
transitive senses
1 : to ward off (as a blow)
2 : to evade especially by an adroit answer <parry an embarrassing question>

Also, regarding "living lineages," there are a lot of differences between 18th-19th century sources and earlier sources from the Renaissance caused by the changes in culture and technology, and it's not a good idea to try and use the later sources to interpret the earlier ones in this case because the context is too different, so we strenuously avoid those types of arguments.

Hence the emission of various later texts from my list of edge-to-edge quotes. When I mentioned the later systems, I was replying to comments about no types of defence requiring edge-to-edge contact, or edge-to-edge parries being useless.

I'm not trying to use the later stuff as evidence that edge-to-edge was done earlier, I find the earlier treatises proof enough... <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Dear Jake,

I have no idea from what section of Meyer the passage is from. It's just one that I had written up at some point, since it's a fairly clear example of edge-to-edge contact in Liechtenauer, to be honest...

If you were to bang your edge against the incoming strike the attack might bounce out or stick in the gouge created--a "scoop" prevents both.

Agreed. That's precisely my point, actually - edge-to-edge parries don't have to be sword-ruining bashes.

To prevent the latter of the possiblities you mention, swords were quite often left unsharpened at the forte anyway, and often were heat-treated harder than many modern replicas.

Rabbe

[Jake_Norwood]

Okay, here's another question. If Talhoffer shows a man using a thumb grip on horseback, how did he switch into it with one hand busy with the reins? More importantly, how will he undo it?

Hi George. I do it all the time (not on horseback, but using only one hand). It takes some practice, but it isn't hard.


Re: Edge parries-

The major issue that ARMA has with "edge parries" is really, honestly, only edge banging. Really. I can't emphasise enough how often and how throuroughly this has been made clear in discussion after discussion after discussion. But, people read what they want to read.

Jake

[Jeffrey Hull]

George,

Congrats regarding your noticing the *thumb-press* -- that was a little something I forgot to point out. Many ARMA guys and others have expressed their like for this gripping option.

I agree with Jake that one can slip the thumb to that sort of grip readily enough -- practicing it even a little can make it come easily for you after a while.

JH

[George Turner]

Rabbe,

Hmm... How to convey the idea.

I'm not trying to use the later stuff as evidence that edge-to-edge was done earlier, I find the earlier treatises proof enough...

But the earlier treatise example that you cited as evidence was, as Jake said, a very special case of glancing contact designed to scoop. As Galileo mentioned, blows on the slant don't hit has hard because only a part of the motion is stopped, not the whole motion. In fact Galileo said that "everyone knows" that the force of impact is determined by the resistance of the target, so why would they have used hard stops that increase the peak force of the opponent's blow? Impacts involving the flat allow the blade to flex, dissipating the impulse across a longer time and thus lessening the magnitude of these forces. Meyer's scooping is offering opposition to the oncoming blade in one plane while maintaining its motion in another, and it only works if the impact is oblique and the blades don't bite.

This lessening of potential forces is very important when heavier swords are delivering two-handed blows from the back &amp; cocked positions, as this makes their impulses, energies, and resulting forces much higher than found in later forms of swordsmanship, forms that emphasize quick blows from very forward initial positions (as in fencing). Given that the energy in the oncoming sword is a result of the applied force times the distance of application (or applied torque times angle), starting a blow from a forward position makes it very much weaker. Although it arrives slightly sooner, thus establishing its clear superiority in fencing competition, its lack of energy renders it less than effective in combat. After all, unarmored Olympians go head-to-head with live steel and they don't have a significant injury rate, much less a staggering death rate. The point of the earlier forms of swordsmanship was maximizing death and dismemberment, not optimizing both the blows and weapons for safety and in effect creating the "absolutely harmless" and "liability insurance approved" schools of swordsmanship. And if your style can't hurt your opponent, it's surely not going to overly hurt his steel blade no matter how it's used.

To get back to the point, dead stopping these early hard two-handed blows can badly damage a sharp blade in one move. Yes, you might in an emergency do one in combat, as some masters mentioned, but who would let you do one in practice?

Suppose that back-in-the-day you were John's student in some school of defence, learning to handle sharps. After you both armor up he throws a zornhau at you and you dead-stop it, ruining his foible. How much does he bill you for replacing his sword? How long does it take him to get his replacement? After he's done with you physically and verbally how many of the other students will repeat your technique? You might say that non-oblique edge-stops can't be taught by a master who values his own steel, and thus their use would be unschooled.

It's something a school of thrusters would come up with if they later decided to expand their art to allow blows, especially if they were using rather blunt sabers designed for use on horseback.


And Jake,

I've noticed that most things I do I don't do on horseback.
<img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Dear George,

But the earlier treatise example that you cited as evidence was, as Jake said, a very special case of glancing contact designed to scoop.

I know - that last comment was intended to be humorous, hence the little tongue-on-cheek smiley. Looking back at it now, though, it admittedly wasn't a very magnificent triumph of wit...

Sorry for being unclear.

This lessening of potential forces is very important when heavier swords are delivering two-handed blows from the back &amp; cocked positions, as this makes their impulses, energies, and resulting forces much higher than found in later forms of swordsmanship, forms that emphasize quick blows from very forward initial positions (as in fencing).

True to some extent, but there are also some fairly “charged” positions in some of the later systems. Silver, for example, is quite clear about parrying blows edge-to-edge with his true gardant ward, and the positions he launches his strikes from are quite Medieval in nature.

As another example, the Bolognese sidesworders, who speak of edge-to-edge parries several times, also often used fairly charged guards.

Given that the energy in the oncoming sword is a result of the applied force times the distance of application (or applied torque times angle), starting a blow from a forward position makes it very much weaker. Although it arrives slightly sooner, thus establishing its clear superiority in fencing competition, its lack of energy renders it less than effective in combat.

Thus, generations of fencing masters, many of whom had seen and participated in real life-or-death combat taught "less-than-effective" systems for several centuries? I'm having a bit of trouble buying that, to be honest.

After all, unarmored Olympians go head-to-head with live steel and they don't have a significant injury rate, much less a staggering death rate.

What is used in Olympic competition is hardly live steel. As you propably know, their equipment is blunt and extremely flexible – intended to be safe, not to kill, and not to really even approximate real weapons.

To get back to the point, dead stopping these early hard two-handed blows can badly damage a sharp blade in one move. Yes, you might in an emergency do one in combat, as some masters mentioned, but who would let you do one in practice?

I don't know. At least Viggiani has one potentially sword-breaking parry, and he never mentions it shouldn't be used in school-play, and neither does Fiore, who also has at least one such technique unless I'm mistaken. While it might be that techniques like these weren't generally allowed, there is no way either of us will ever know.

Suppose that back-in-the-day you were John's student in some school of defence, learning to handle sharps. After you both armor up he throws a zornhau at you and you dead-stop it, ruining his foible. How much does he bill you for replacing his sword? How long does it take him to get his replacement? After he's done with you physically and verbally how many of the other students will repeat your technique?

I have no idea. It's propably worth keeping in mind, though, that (some of) these people weren't playing around with swords for fun like we are today. Thus, the loss of a sword wouldn't necessarily have been as large a concern to everyone as it to some today.

And even if hard stops against the foible were not allowed in some schools, nothing would have prevented their use in battle.

You might say that non-oblique edge-stops can't be taught by a master who values his own steel, and thus their use would be unschooled.

Except that they are being taught even today, both by living lineages and leading reconstructors. Not with sharps, of course, but the usage of blunts is fairly well documented, historically, as is the practise of not sharpening the forte of the sword to make it more resistant to parries.

Dear Jake,

The major issue that ARMA has with "edge parries" is really, honestly, only edge banging. Really. I can't emphasise enough how often and how throuroughly this has been made clear in discussion after discussion after discussion. But, people read what they want to read.

I guess I misunderstood some of the earlier posts in this thread, then, and I'm genuinely sorry if I did. English is not my first language, which might have contributed to my confusion, but I thought some of the posts were quite clearly against edge-to-edge contact in all its forms.

All the best
Rabbe

[Matthew_Anderson]

Rabbe, you said: "Except that they are being taught even today, both by living lineages and leading reconstructors".

I'd really like to know who is practicing a "living lineage" that can be traced back to the 15th or even 16th centuries. That's what we're really talking about here, not later styles of fencing. Jeffery's post, the one that started this thread, referred to Talhoffer, for instance. Is someone out there practicing a "living lineage" handed down from Talhoffer to one of his students, to another, all the way up to the present? Of course not. I wish someone was, I'd be the first to study with him! There simply are no "living lineages" to medieval or early renaissance fencing. We are all trying to recreate an art from historical sources, that's why we have so many differences of interpretation. I'm sure if we could spend five minutes together, swords in hand, we could make each other understand our points of view by demonstration and we would probably find that we are not that far apart on this issue. I will not however, accept what someone is teaching today as part of a "living lineage" as evidence of how it was done in the 15th century. Unless of course, Talhoffer, Ringeck, or Fiore Dei Liberi are in there somewhere <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />