Ebbing-Hand Equals Flat-Use

[Mike Cartier]

I agree with Matt and I would add that I would also not be especially impressed if there was an actual living lineage HEMA out there dating from Medieval or renaissance times, it would not automaticaly mean it was better, humans change stuff . There is a whole list of martial arts with supposed lineages that are quite ineffective, so a lineage is not the be all and end all of martial arts. Not only that but very very few of the actual claims of living lineage in EMA are factually supported beyond 1 or 2 hundred years when researched.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Rabbe:

I should like to help clear any cross-linguistic confusion I may have caused. One can think of *flat-use* as any of these techniques utilised in your versetzen or parry, vis-a-vis fighter and foe:

flat-to-flat
edge-to-flat
flat-to-edge

But not the edge-bashing, as Jake stated, of edge-to-edge.

Hence, I would rather practice the three-fourths of methods which are virtually non-destructive to my blade and quite arguably more technically effective, than to practice the other one-fourth which destroys my blade and is less effective technically.

I hope that makes it clear what is meant by *flat-use*. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

JH

[JeffGentry]

Hey guy's

I know absolutely nothing about rapier, backsword, smallsword, lately becasue of this thread i have been browsing Silver.

I have looked at Silver's true Gaurdant, And tried to follow his description to the letter and i just cannot see how you would need to use the forte to stifle a blow from an opponent, it appear's you could be very mobile in this gaurd.

It seem's like there are alot of option's open to you to thrust, cut, high or low, i just don't get the edge on edge even on the forte too stifle a blow.

I can see using the flat of the forte to stifle a blow.

Jeff

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Matthew,

About living lineages: no, I did not mean that there are living lineages from the Renaissance or earlier (thought there is at least one that *might* be, but that's aside the point). My point was that there is concrete proof of edge-to-edge parries being done for centuries by men who used swords in life-or-death combat. If it was such a rubbishy technique, I'd think its use would not have been nearly as common.

Mike,

I'd still (generally, anyway...) trust techniques preserved in a living lineage of masters, from a time when swords were used in actual combat, a whole lot more than those of a bunch of mostly amateur reconstructionists who've been working from books for a couple of years, usually not even concentrating on one text.

This is sorta off the topic of this thread, though - sorry about that.

Jeffrey,

Thanks for the clarification. It does help.

Rabbe:

I should like to help clear any cross-linguistic confusion I may have caused. One can think of *flat-use* as any of these techniques utilised in your versetzen or parry, vis-a-vis fighter and foe:

flat-to-flat
edge-to-flat
flat-to-edge

But not the edge-bashing, as Jake stated, of edge-to-edge.

Hence, I would rather practice the three-fourths of methods which are virtually non-destructive to my blade and quite arguably more technically effective, than to practice the other one-fourth which destroys my blade and is less effective technically.

But edge-to-edge parries do *not* have to be damaging to your sword, nor are they somehow less technically effective. Silver, for example, chokes blows up edge-to-edge, forte-to-forte with his true gardant ward, and neither sword should be damaged to any appreciable degree beyond some purely cosmetic scratches, especially if unsharpened at the forte, as was quite commonly done historically. Your capablity to adminster an effective ripose shouldn't be compromised by the fact that the defence results in edge-to-edge contact either. Some Renaissance treatises, like Viggiani, are even clearer about this: they specifically mention that certain defences result in edge-to-edge contact.

As I think I said earlier, there are many practioners today who have been doing such parries with swords whose sharpness at the forte approximates that of many surviving antiques, without breaking their swords or damaging them to any appreciable degree.

Jeff,

I have looked at Silver's true Gaurdant, And tried to follow his description to the letter and i just cannot see how you would need to use the forte to stifle a blow from an opponent, it appear's you could be very mobile in this gaurd.

Silver is quite clear about it, actually.

BI 4:1 says:
"Yf yor enemye lye a loft, eyther in open or true gardant fight, &amp; then strike at the left syde of yor hed or body yor best ward to defend yor self, is to bere it wt true gardant ward--"

BI 5:3 says:
"3. Yf he charge yõ upon the open or true gardant fyght, yf yõ wil answer him wt the lyke, then kepe yor distance, &amp; let yor gatheringe be all waies in yt fyght to warde his right syde so shal yõ with yor sword choake up any blowe that he can make at yõ, from the wch ward yõ May stryke him on the right or left syde of ye hed, or thrust him in the bodye."

His diagram also says to parry blows at your left side with gardant, from both open and gardant fight.

It seem's like there are alot of option's open to you to thrust, cut, high or low, i just don't get the edge on edge even on the forte too stifle a blow.

I can see using the flat of the forte to stifle a blow.

The main problem with doing parries like these with the flat is that the opponent might just push through the defence. Another is that your sword might be damaged from being forcefully struck at the flat of the forte.

Really, what is wrong with edge-to-edge contact in this context, since it doesn't even damage the swords beyong some possible purely cosmetic deformation of the edge near the hilt? Unless I'm entirely mistaken, even John Clements agrees that this type of parry was done historically, and is a perfectly valid one.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not trying to dispute flat parries, or the evidence for them. Nor am I trying to say that all systems used hard edge-to-edge parries. The point I'm trying to make is that numerous systems did, at least from the Renaissance onwards, and some still do today, and are entirely effective and valid despite this.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Rabbe

I miss typed that i meant the edge of the forte, I can see using the flat of the forte.

It seem's natural to use the flat of the forte to me in this position, like I said I see no reason to use the edge to block, stifle, parry, except in an "Oh No!" type of manner.

Guess I just don't get it.

Jeff

[George Turner]

I must echo Matt on this. We see the old styles entering the 1600's but mostly see varieties of smallsword and rapier technique pop out at the other end.

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 guardant ward, and the positions he launches his strikes from are quite Medieval in nature.

But again, he never – repeat never – advocates receiving hard blows statically against the opponent’s cutting edge. This is simply against the nature of successful defense when earnestly fighting with sharp blades.

Yet Silver also decried the very systems of fence that took over to form our "living lineage" as he watched his beloved military swordsmanship slip away. The reason that current fencing masters have had to spend many man-years grappling with Silver's meaning, and grapple still, is that his terms and techniques never got included in our surviving lineage of civilian single-duel fencing with single-weapon without grips or seizures. He was doing something different.

When you say his positions are quite medieval in nature you approach the point. His positions aren't medieval because they seem archaic; they seem medieval because they still allow for the delivery of powerful blows for fighting a variety of opponents and weapons under a variety of circumstances. That’s the whole point. When he strikes his opponents Silver wants to break their bones, hack off their parts, and kill them; even on the battlefield, even in armor. In contrast, our surviving lineage in large measure traces to "Les Vrays Principes de l'Espée Seule" by Philibert de la Touche (Lover of the Touch) who wanted to ruffle his opponent's expensive shirts. Foil was invented as a game from the first get-go, and it certainly wasn't even a practice weapon since those were already in common use to teach saber, smallsword, and rapier.

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.

I know this may come as a profound shock to you, but for several centuries regular folks have found fencing masters little more than a handy way to recheck their zero on a reactive target. Admittedly both sides seem to find entertainment in this, though one side more in the actual execution. Let's just say that the other side was more than a bit challenged by combat reality.

Confining ourselves to the unlikely situation that two fencers faced each other and happened to have a sword on them instead of gun, and assuming they might have actually come to blows once they're over the astonishment of meeting another of their strange kind, we're forced to ask what would occur. For a look at what could then happen read a good book on duels for scenes featuring fencing masters in "real" life-or-death combats. They would often hop around in utter disregard of everything they taught in school because what they taught in school doesn't work well in real combat, given a man's nature to use big muscles when the adrenalin pours forth, and they stabbed each other over-and-over in an embarrassing display of an inner ape with a pointy stick or hack away with the very methods they decried. On the battlefield people would either wail away with heavy military sabers or switch to a gun, as ever since the 1600's the conventional method of dealing with swordsmen on the battlefield has been to shoot them all at a nickel a pop.

Strangely enough sailors, the last people who needed an effective system of sword combat for boarding situations where they poured over the gunwales like a tattooed waterfall, eschewed the weapons and techniques of fencing masters and did so for centuries in all of the world's navies. In the face of fencing's proven "clear superiority" navies marshaled excuses for their continued reliance on real swings and stabs with very short cutlasses, mumbling about how they had to cut away and around lines and rigging during boarding actions. Maybe in truth the navies were afraid of losing ships full of fencing masters to the first boatload of unschooled drunken brutes using two-foot swords.

Even the officers would often leave their fancy sword behind and grab up a cutlass when combat actually loomed, just as Stephen Decatur did against Tripoli pirates. Those combats provide interesting glimpses at the bizarre reality of sword combat. One young bluejacket, fighting wounded, had his blow at a wounded Turk parried. This snapped off the end of his blade so he pulled out his pistol and shot the Turk. Decatur broke his blade on a Turk's boarding pike and would've fallen to the Turk's scimitar had not Reuben James used an innovative head parry to block the thrust, winning him lasting fame, an eponymous line of Navy ships, a headache, and undoubtedly lots of free ale. They were obviously swinging hard enough to snap cutlasses, sturdy shortswords very much tougher than fencing weapons, yet they wisely had pistols for backup instead of trusting solely to steel in a world dominated by edge-blocking.

Yet naval use didn't make much contribution to our living lineage either, as the noted lack of nautical fencing terms would imply. There's a reason Google says

Your search - " navy swordsmanship " - did not match any documents.
Your search - " naval swordsmanship " - did not match any documents.

There are indeed navy sword manuals, but most fit the genre of "My method for finally teaching our sailors how to use swords properly." Perhaps navies were as afraid of publicly questioning French and Italian schools of swordsmanship as they were unafraid of rejecting them, but there's a happy ending, since once the navies decided that the day of the cutlass was over, due to innovations like jets and radar, they quit ignoring the received wisdom of fencing masters and just ignored swords altogether.

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

And that's a problem when trying to rely on them to interpret how you'd use real weapons, isn't it? The only way to make a foil into a weapon is to break it and use it like a shank to muscle a carton of smokes out of the thugs on cell-block D. Even if you sharpen the tip to a needle point it won't go through shoe leather, and I know because stabbing my foot with a needle-sharp foil as hard as I can, over-and-over, is a nervous habit I've developed. A useful weapon of that length can't be made using such a small mass of steel, and no object with so little mass can behave like a sword. Even if you switch to an authentic 19th century sword, a sharp, you still have to hit hard enough to bruise before you have a prayer of making it through a person's blue-jeans. I learned that from another nervous habit. Yet fencers don't wear leg padding because nobody hits hard enough to bruise, as blade whipping is heavily discouraged, and thus nobody hits hard enough to actually wound. Centuries of "fencing masters" have taught suspension of disbelief, not lethal combat techniques. If you can't dead-stop an enraged and drunken claw-hammer wielding leather-clad Filipino pimp then either you're not holding a real weapon or you're not using an effective technique.

And indeed, no effective technique can possibly survive in an environment where the rule holds that the first hit wins regardless of energy, since the goal of minimizing delivery time (t=sqrt(2ms/F)) creates a pressure to reduce blade mass m to zero and delivery distance s to zero, both changes driving momentum and kinetic energy to zero. To assure the safety of their rapier and schlager combat the SCA took some careful measurements. Their hard and "painful" fencing blows were delivering sub-joule impact energies, significantly less than the 200+ joules required to put a golf ball down the fairway or the 100 joules used for squirrel hunting with a .22 short. Perhaps the 's' in that equation should be redefined as stupidity, because despite delivering 10 million blows that didn't inflict any injury fencers think that when some light bulb saying "LIVE COMBAT" turns on those same blows will magically cleave off body parts. In reality they won't even make the opponent blink, just as had happened the previous 10 million times they tried it, so lets pray the opponent only has another epee instead of a bottle of whiskey, a hammer, and a string of pissed off girls.

Yet compare all this to the medieval strikes in the manuals, say a Krumphau for instance. The most amazing thing about the Krumphau isn't its staggering ingenuity or that it doesn't bio-mechanically exist in any modern forms of swordplay. The most amazing thing is that they knew what a weak blow could and could not do, used it specifically for unarmored combat, and targeted it at the unpadded and breakable bones of the hands, wrists, and forearms. Fencers count their far weaker blows as hits even when landing them on a fat man's thigh, all this showing that when you don't enter a dream world where all blows are hits you can think about their relative energies rationally and act accordingly. Yet a people who were rational about impact and force would know exactly when and where never to stop a blow with the edge, and why. To enter their world you have to understand these same reasons, part of our larger lineage. You already in many areas know more than even they did, you just have to free your mind up enough to think it.

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.

Viggiani was trying to break a sword, yet his concepts revolved around the assumed supremacy of the thrust. He was also probably also not a fencing master getting real-world feedback, just someone off penning their own pet theory. And as for Fiore, isn't the fact that out of his hundreds of images you only come up with one potentially sword-breaking parry illustrative of our greater point? And how sure are we that this parry was used at potentially sword-breaking levels of impulse? There are a host of short quick inside actions that you could stop edge-to-edge, and these shouldn't be taken as evidence of general edge-blocking at range. So if you say it "might be" that techniques like these weren't generally allowed, why argue for their general use?

[Jon Pellett]

Wow. That was a very interesting and provocative post. I have to disagree with you, however.

But again, [Silver] never – repeat never – advocates receiving hard blows statically against the opponent’s cutting edge. This is simply against the nature of successful defense when earnestly fighting with sharp blades.

He never says to do so explicitly. But his language is strongly suggestive of a hard, direct parry. He repeatedly uses the rather passive term 'bear' for parries, as in "If your enemy lie aloft, either in open or true guardant fight, &amp; then strike at the left side of your head or body your best ward to defend yourself is to bear it with true guardant ward...." He also states: "...the force of a blow passes indirectly, therefore must be directly warded in the countercheck of his force: which cannot be done, but by the convenient strength of a man, and with true cross in true time...." and "But upon your guardant or open fight then hold it with full gripping it in your hand, &amp; not laying you thumb along the handle, as some use, then shall you never be able strongly to ward a strong blow." All this indicates strong hard resistance, not soft deflections and certainly not countercuts, because he discusses those on their own terms elsewhere (though it could be what you call forte-to-forte stifling, of course - in fact I believe several people interpret it that way.)

If you are talking about "Hollywood parries" (the cringe-inducing weak-on-weak ones) then yeah, I agree, they aren't in Silver, if they are in anything. Silver parries with the strong: "...no eye, in making a perfect ward for the head, to defend a blow, can discern to take the same within three or four inches, whereby it may as well and as often fall upon the hand, as upon the blade...."

What do you mean by "statically"? The hand is certainly relatively static in a Guardant parry: "...in the true carriage of the guardant fight, the hand must lie above the head, in such straightness and narrowness of space, that which way soever the Agent shall strike or thrust at the head, face, or body, the removing of two or four inches shall save all." The feet are not static of course.

Anyway, I'm sure you know all this, but I quote for ease of reference. Tell me, what do you think Silver is doing, and why do you think so?

The reason that current fencing masters have had to spend many man-years grappling with Silver's meaning, and grapple still...

As one of said grapplers -though no fencing master, in fact I know of only one fencing master who studies Silver - I'd love to know the secrets we're all missing. Do please share.

...is that his terms and techniques never got included in our surviving lineage of civilian single-duel fencing with single-weapon without grips or seizures. He was doing something different.

Sure, he was different- though I see him as transitional, kind of like 'sidesword' - but there are seizures and grips in the later stuff, albeit fairly few. Some people (like Godfrey) figure they are dangerous to rely on - as does Silver, who advises against attempting them - whereas others (like Hope) favour them. There are also pommel blows mentioned, in Lonnergan for instance.

When he strikes his opponents Silver wants to break their bones, hack off their parts, and kill them; even on the battlefield, even in armor.

We keep hearing from Paradox 13 - the rhetoric - and not BI 4.12 - what often happens in real fights.

Perhaps navies were as afraid of publicly questioning French and Italian schools of swordsmanship as they were unafraid of rejecting them...

You can't be serious. People were constantly insulting each other's styles; as far as I can tell, it has always been just like the martial arts world today. Nor did they use the la-di-dah school stuff on the battlefield - they used sabre/backsword.

For a look at what could then happen read a good book on duels for scenes featuring fencing masters in "real" life-or-death combats. They would often hop around in utter disregard of everything they taught in school because what they taught in school doesn't work well in real combat, given a man's nature to use big muscles when the adrenalin pours forth, and they stabbed each other over-and-over in an embarrassing display of an inner ape with a pointy stick or hack away with the very methods they decried.

Nicely put. But this can happen to someone doing any style. This very subject was discussed by people like Hale and Hope, just as it still is today. Most people who do Tai Chi would be laughable pushovers in a streetfight, but if you meet one of the guys who can actually do it, they'd convert you (I use the nonspecific you here) into salsa without even blinking.

Centuries of "fencing masters" have taught suspension of disbelief, not lethal combat techniques.

This can happen, if you allow yourself to be fooled. As Godfrey says "I have followed chiefly the Practice of the Back-Sword, because Conceit cannot so readily be cured with the Foil in the Small, as with the Stick in that: for the Argumentum bastinandi is very strong and convincing; and though a Man may dispute the full Hit of a Foil, yet if he is knocked down with a Stick, he will hardly get up again and say, it just brushed him."

Of course some of these fencing masters, like McBane and Figg, were stage gladiators who fought with sharp swords. Others, like Burton (not a teacher, but a writer of manuals) were experienced soldiers who fought hand to hand.

To assure the safety of their rapier and schlager combat the SCA took some careful measurements. Their hard and "painful" fencing blows were delivering sub-joule impact energies, significantly less than the 200+ joules required to put a golf ball down the fairway or the 100 joules used for squirrel hunting with a .22 short.

Guess what? According to those impact measuring machines, a full-tilt blow with a couched lance delivers all of 60 joules. Draw your own conclusions.

As for the whole fencing thing... I can only assume you've had to deal with modern sport fencers who think medieval fencing was clumsy crap and that their deadly epee techniques would take out dozens of armoured knights. That sort of nonsense is certainly deserving of a heapin' helpin' of sarcasm. But, hey, none of those guys are here now are they?

Cheers - I hope I didn't get rude here. Very provocative post as I said, and very nicely worded. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[George Turner]

I'll leave Silver aside for now. It's a big topic and quite frustrating since he's so, so tantalizingly almost clear enough. He should've just left us a video. But I agree he's transitional.

Perhaps navies were as afraid of publicly questioning French and Italian schools of swordsmanship as they were unafraid of rejecting them...

You can't be serious. People were constantly insulting each other's styles; as far as I can tell, it has always been just like the martial arts world today.

Not quite like today. The perspective back then was much narrower, as there were fewer practiced styles making substantial claims and many of those styles weren't respected (no political correctness). Few serious military people bucked the fencers, which is why it ended up in the Olympics and why militaries fielded fencing teams. European militaries would sometimes consult fencers and Patton himself fell into the mindset. Back then we didn't have swordsmen dismissing each other's totally different styles in back and forth sniping, as has become so common today. The word would come down from on high and fundamentally different methods would be dismissed as crude but anthropologically interesting. We were still basking in the glory of the assumed superiority of Western scientific fencing above all other lesser, flawed, non-scientific, and primitive methods, with the real debate limited to topics where fencers couldn't reach unanimous agreement.

Nicely put. But this can happen to someone doing any style.

Not if your style is built upon those very traits, using big muscles and big steps to attack and defend. The Ayoob method of pistol combat is similar to this, built by noting that precise muscle control fails under too much adrenalin. Instead his system relies on large muscles and naturally overdone reactions instead of extremely fine motor control, control honed by endless hours of calm and careful practice. One of Ayoob's observations was that even though many police pistol competitions are won from a carefully balanced sideways stance, the same competition winners that used that style often weren't hitting the side of a barn in life-and-death encounters. Under adrenalin people naturally face their opponent pretty square at the shoulder with one leg leading and bend their knees a slight bit. Some of the recorded sword duels show the same effect, and fencing is one of the only combat styles to place your body sideways to your opponent. Given enough adrenalin and they'll rotate around into a medieval stance, using large motions and large steps, an unfamiliar fighting posture if you've trained endlessly in something completely different. So what these fencers were doing was in essence falling back to a natural style of lethal combat that they hadn't trained for. Well, happily the medieval styles would seem to take this effect into account, so you just have to execute your training even when you're completely panicked. It still works, because it's a recording and systematization of methods found to statistically work when you're surrounded by a thousand screaming homicidal maniacs.

Of course some of these fencing masters, like McBane and Figg, were stage gladiators who fought with sharp swords. Others, like Burton (not a teacher, but a writer of manuals) were experienced soldiers who fought hand to hand.

Excuse me for cringing at the thought of period stage gladiators. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> Anyway, Burton is interesting but most of what he says that I find interesting (aside from looking for the Irish homeland in the heart of Africa and other such things) is a very slight rewording of other sources, like John Latham's 1862 work. If you've read Burton's Book of the Sword you've read Latham with the sentences very slightly altered. Where Latham remained vague Burton can't add further clarity. Yes, Burton may have fought hand to hand, but we could note a million others who did during that period, yet by and large we don't think this granted them any special insight into earlier combat techniques.

And 60 joules for a lance sounds about right, as it's an inelastic collision with the lance having a couple hundred joules to start out with, but back in the day they would be more concerned with impetus (momentum) with another eye on closing velocity. Galileo talked a bit on lance physics, differentiating between touching and wounding, to relate artillery firing angles and the slopes of fortifications to something everyone already understood.

[John_Clements]

Jake, you observation that the major issue ARMA has with "edge parries" is "really, honestly, only edge banging" and that you "can't emphasize enough how often and how thoroughly this has been made clear in discussion after discussion after discussion", is entirely accurate. I think some practitioners simply react with great emotion to the challenge that their edge bashing swordplay is inferior, unwise, ahistorical, and contradicted by the source materials. They desperately want to avoid the acknowledgment they have been doing something so fundamentally incorrect for a long, long time. So instead, they distort the discussion and try to cloud the issue. The challenge to us as educators of Renaissance fencing is to continue to clarify and define the matter, placing the burden of proof on those who argue that needlessly bashing edges endlessly was effective and acceptable.

JC

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Hi Jeff,

Hey Rabbe

I miss typed that i meant the edge of the forte, I can see using the flat of the forte.

It seem's natural to use the flat of the forte to me in this position, like I said I see no reason to use the edge to block, stifle, parry, except in an "Oh No!" type of manner.

Guess I just don't get it.

Jeff

I don't quite understand why you wouldn't use the edge in this case. Since you're taking the blow on your unsharpened forte, preferably before it is in full speed, there's virtually zero chance of damage to your sword. The flat allows you to bring less force to the parry, and a hard stop like this with the flat might end up damaging your sword as well (which will be the least of your worries if your opponent powers through your defence, though, as he might if you use the flat).

George,

The living lineages I've been talking about have not been sport fencing. How's about Hungarian military sabre, for example?

Viggiani was trying to break a sword, yet his concepts revolved around the assumed supremacy of the thrust. He was also probably also not a fencing master getting real-world feedback, just someone off penning their own pet theory.

And you, as a 21th century amateur know better than him, a 16th century fencing master? Please...

And as for Fiore, isn't the fact that out of his hundreds of images you only come up with one potentially sword-breaking parry illustrative of our greater point? And how sure are we that this parry was used at potentially sword-breaking levels of impulse? There are a host of short quick inside actions that you could stop edge-to-edge, and these shouldn't be taken as evidence of general edge-blocking at range. So if you say it "might be" that techniques like these weren't generally allowed, why argue for their general use?

My point was that we can't possibly know if such techniques were allowed at the salle. However, since various treatises show sword-breaking manouvers (though, if I may repeat myself, edge-to-edge parries do not have to be such!), it at least isn't entirely unreasonable to think they were also allowed in some salles.

All the best,
Rabbe

[Jon Pellett]

I'll leave Silver aside for now. It's a big topic and quite frustrating since he's so, so tantalizingly almost clear enough. He should've just left us a video.

Amen. My feelings exactly. I always enjoy hearing new views on the subject, though, as it's my primary focus.

The perspective back then was much narrower, as there were fewer practiced styles making substantial claims and many of those styles weren't respected...We were still basking in the glory of the assumed superiority of Western scientific fencing above all other lesser, flawed, non-scientific, and primitive methods, with the real debate limited to topics where fencers couldn't reach unanimous agreement.

Largely true, yet there was still plenty of debate.

Under adrenalin people naturally face their opponent pretty square at the shoulder with one leg leading and bend their knees a slight bit...they'll rotate around into a medieval stance, using large motions and large steps....

Very interesting. What study are you referring to? Many backsword styles do use these kind of positions, though, and later period sabre play was mainly for horseback.

As for smallsword - it's a duelling weapon. Duels are not fights in the usual sense, but social rituals. Reliable stopping power is kind of beside the point. If the best man always won it would actually be a disadvantage.

Excuse me for cringing at the thought of period stage gladiators.

I also cringe at the thought of fighting unarmoured with sharp swords. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, Burton is interesting but most of what he says that I find interesting (aside from looking for the Irish homeland in the heart of Africa and other such things) is a very slight rewording of other sources, like John Latham's 1862 work. If you've read Burton's Book of the Sword you've read Latham with the sentences very slightly altered.

I haven't read either - interesting. What was the title of the Latham book? I must admit my favourite work of Burton's is his delightfully Victorian rendition of the Kama Sutra. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

And 60 joules for a lance sounds about right, as it's an inelastic collision with the lance having a couple hundred joules to start out with, but back in the day they would be more concerned with impetus (momentum) with another eye on closing velocity.

Heh. I forgot who I was arguing with. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> But the point remains - KE is nowhere near directly proportionate to blow effectiveness.

Galileo talked a bit on lance physics, differentiating between touching and wounding, to relate artillery firing angles and the slopes of fortifications to something everyone already understood.

Cool. Lance physics (and horseback weapon effects generally) would be an interesting subject for an article. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I would rant more, but I really must go to school now.
Cheers

[George Turner]

But edge-to-edge parries do *not* have to be damaging to your sword, nor are they somehow less technically effective.

Oh, but they can be both. On the second point, if you block with the flat then the motion in your cutting plane is unhindered by motions perpendicular to that cutting plane, meaning that you can defend with your counter strike already in hard acceleration, your counterblow interrupted by nothing but the sharp sound of impact from your opponent's strike. Edge-on-edge confounds your abourning counterblow by having your opponent's blade impeding the natural motion, and if your opponent presses you have to come up with something else. In double-time fencing styles this isn't an issue, but in single-time it is. Your opponent certainly didn't swing at your blade, he attacked where it was not, requiring you to rapidly move your blade to intercept. You don't always have to waste all the motion you've built to that point by turning his blow into a stifling of your counter nor pause to reflect on the beauty of parry-riposte; rotate the plane of your edge prior to impact and keep your blade accelerating toward your opponent's inevitable defeat. To do otherwise when the opportunity exists is to throw away time, position, motion, and advantage, acting like a reactive pell instead of a swordsman.

The main problem with doing parries like these with the flat is that the opponent might just push through the defence. Another is that your sword might be damaged from being forcefully struck at the flat of the forte.

Now this just shows that you actually advocate using edge parries all the time, because obviously you've not tried the flat or you wouldn't think such crazy things. Assuming that someone could somehow "push through" the defence, we'll happily let them. While they're busy trying to bang their edge into us (in earlier styles you can use your body to trap a blade) we'll be swinging for their head, as the plane of our blow is unimpeded by their sword which strangely enough isn't against our edge because we blocked with the flat. However, we can also flip to the edge and engage in a pushing contest if there's any prize money in it. Of course if you don't work out any then your true-edge torque applied with wrist supination will likely be your weakest axis, even with your thumb on the spine which merely adds stiffness and control but no extra stength.

And why don't you try explaining that flat-damaging blow to a mechanical engineer. I'm sure they'll find it highly amusing. Maybe they'll even rotate your car's leaf-springs 90 degrees for you to help absorb the shock from driving over all the holes in your argument. I have fitness freaks swing 5' rebar at my flat as hard as they possibly can (You just keep saying "harder" till they don't have more to give). As yet I've found no weakness in it.

The living lineages I've been talking about have not been sport fencing. How's about Hungarian military sabre, for example?

You mean the Hungarian military sabre that gave us Olympic saber fencing? When asked about their earlier styles Hungarians just shake their heads.

And you, as a 21th century amateur know better than him, a 16th century fencing master? Please...

And he, an idiotic 16th century fencing master knows better than a 15th century fencing master? Please… On the bright side no matter what I write on this subject it'll be better than anything ever thought of in the 25th century, just because…

And this is what's frustrating arguing with fencers. It's all argument from ignorance and appeals to authority. You'd think deflecting with the flat is is like swearing allegiance to Satan or something.

[John_Clements]

Regarding the master Viggiani (c. 1551) writing: “In this manner, our two swords would meet cross-wise, true-edge on true-edge. This is the common parry, taught by all Masters and used by most fencers.” Here is what we know of the matter: The relevant passages occur towards the end of the Third Part of Viggiani's book (fols.81-82v of the 1588 2nd edition) where the Conte d'Agomonte is discussing with the master, Rodomonte, the best way to defend the head against a mandritto descendente (a descending cut with the right or forward edge) The Count describes how he would raise his sword against his opponent's as if to deliver another mandritto (but, of course, ascendente), with the point of his sword higher than the pommel, and with the arm well extended. In this way the swords will be joined together, edge to edge, in the form of a cross [“a questo modo si aggiugnerrebbono le spade insieme, dritto filo, con dritto filo, a guisa di Croce”]. Note this engagement would occur at the forte (on the ricasso) of each edge. In effect, he is using the Kron technique of the German school. Rodomonte remarks that (for defending this cut) this is the usual defence which all the masters teach, and the greater part of combatants use [“Questo è lo schermo commune, che insegnano i Maestri tutti, &amp; la maggior parte de combattenti usano”].

But, maestro Rodomonte then goes on to say that this is NOT good fencing technique for defending the head [“ma questo non e il buono schermo per difendervi la testa”].
There is, furthermore, a marginal comment to the effect that, when defending oneself from a mandritto descendente with a mandritto ascendente, one cannot attack the enemy in any way without great danger; and there follows a series of feints which may be used by the enemy against a fencer who tries to defend himself in this way (i.e., it’s an inferior and vulnerable defense, just as I wrote in my books back in the 90’s). According to Rodomonte (and therefore according to Viggiani) the best defence is to meet the descending blow with a semi-circular horizontal reverse stroke, mezo rovescio tondo (starting from a position as though drawing your sword). The swords will still meet dritto filo con drito filo, but the forte of your blade will strike the debole of the enemy's and thus break his sword. Thi sis the same counter-striek advocated decades earlier by Marozzo and is performed wit ha forward motion so that the blades meet on the strong of each near the hilts.

Thus, the specific technique above regards a counter striking action, not an edge parry, and the matter is one that would seem to illustrate the very problems involved with the edges of such blades clashing on sharp edges. My sincerest gratitude to Sydney Anglo for supplying this material.

This defense would seem to similar to the German “Kron” or the Italian “Corona” --in which both the fortes clash as you raise the weapon like a “crown” above the head. Some fencers, (obsessed with the 18th/19th/20th century fencing method of direct edge-on-edge static defense ala' sabre) use this passage from Viggiani to argue it is evidence for rigid edge to edge blocking. Some even assert it is a form of “St. George” guard (a parry which I regard as inferior and which I cannot even find firm evidence for its existence prior to the 18th century). Instead, it appears to me the specific technique advocated by Rodomonte regards a clear counter-striking action, not an edge parry, and the matter is one that would seem to illustrate the very problems involved with the edges of such blades clashing on sharp edges (i.e., its bad because the sword are ruined).

Vigianni, employing a slender cut-and-thrust blade, instructs that no parry is good that does not strike the adversary at the same time and that a blow may always be warded by menacing the opponent with a counter-threat. Even though using a slender sword Viggiani offered the Rovescio Tondo (left to right horizontal cut) as an almost universal parry that he suggested could even break the adversary’s blade. Nothing surprising here, in fact, if anything it would seem a warning against edge to edge bashing not a support it.

[John_Clements]

Jon,

While I concur with you re the ritualistic nature of smallsword duels and their method of practice, still the historical accounts of such encounters show overwhelming evidence that their outcomes could very often be quite bloody and "uncouth" affairs involving all manner of crude actions ---no doubt why they kept trying to stress decorum and composure, instead.

Cheers,

JC

[George Turner]

Jon,

The source for the gunfighting problem is "Stressfire" by Massad Ayoob. You might as well get it. You know you want to. <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

There is logic to facing sideways, since against a thrust it cuts your target area in half, the same logic we used to come up with our narrow helicopter gunships. They're half as wide so they'll only get hit half as much. Unfortunately we tend not to orient this way in the face of close personal danger, as it limits our natural options.

Oh, and having read Silver I can assure you there are almost no hard stops at all, just lots and lots and lots of commas.
<img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I spliced up his run-on sentences years ago to make a version that's more readable. I might dig around for it, but I don't generally use it because his meaning can be unclear and sometimes the difference between a period and a comma can guarantee a mistaken interpretation of what he said.

Christian denominations have branched over the meaning a comma can add or remove.