Ebbing-Hand Equals Flat-Use

[Jon Pellett]

Jeff:

On the longsword i have a true/long edge and a false/short edge where do we get a definition of the back aside from a weapon that is single edge?

Silver may indeed have been using a backsword (though the picture in Paradoxes shows a two-edged sword). But as I argued above, I don't think they really distinguished much between the use of the double and single-edged types. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Capo Ferro in translation is online here, BTW.

Cheers

[George Turner]

Well, you know I'm always glad to be defeated by a coherent argument and would delight in finally seeing one, but I fear I wait in vain. But I'm glad to finally hear that the idea of putting your edge in the path of a forceful blow has been finally abandoned! Maybe soon, like the knights of old who fought in constant wars, we can upon our death or retirement pass our beloved sword on to our children, so they can use it, and they can pass it on to their heirs as well. Now it may be that this attitude didn't entirely hold across all European cultures, but it might well have applied to the Germanic peoples. They're freaky about tools even to this day, fully expecting to hand down their hammers, screwdrivers, and spackling knives to their great grandchildren. Germans just don't have a concept whereby a tool can get "used up".

Anyway, every generation of fencers has pondered upon armor and those old two-edged swords and something prevented them from getting it. Otherwise we'd have taught aspects of Talhoffer or Meyer in our fencing curricula for the past 300 years just to make sure the students are well-rounded. Though our modern styles can easily point to their birth they have trouble reaching further back. When we look at images from any early rapier treatise it's almost completely familiar, whereas when you look at Goliath, Talhoffer or anything similar what's depicted seems utterly bizarre. But the more refined and counterintuitive the earlier systems are, the more innovative the early fencing masters must've been to come up with something so different, and to have done it so boldly, too.

Getting back to the earlier styles and Danzig in particular, he pleads for the reader to keep the learning secret, lest regular people learn the tricks. In fact many of the early authors made the same plea. If these techniques were intuitive then people would've naturally picked up on them all by themselves, but this didn't seem to happen. If they made sense to our natural conceptions then not only would a fencing master stumbled onto them back in the 1800's, every fencing master from then to this day would have. There's something about the earlier techniques that in some countries allowed the warrior class to limit its membership. That something might be that the actions they're performing aren't innate, and so wildly violate our innate notions that they have to be taught, and in many cases performed to be believed.

Even Sir William Hope, back in the late 1600's, couldn't get back to earlier forms even upon perceiving flaws in the modern techniques he'd been taught. It may be that it's hard for a person to go backwards, but maybe because that one step requires a leap, a violation of your innate notion of how to use a stick. We surely do have powerful drives on how to use them, too, and I might pen an essay on the subject. We learn our stick use when we're extremely young, starting around age two and getting it going pretty well by the age of six. That I get frequent e-mails from engineers and physicists about swords isn't a surprise, since we all figure out how a stick works largely before we can spell, and certainly before our first class in Newtonian physics, so I often hear from physicists expressing their inner six year olds, screaming at my violation of the assumptions reached by beating on their parent's furniture. Fortunately I can argue with the F=ma half of their brain and get them to realize that normal human assumptions about the behavior of a very familiar object is invalid. As anthropologists say, we're all Aristotelians by birth, but shortly after birth we start beating on stuff to see what happens.

To survive a human must know how to throw, dodge, run, and use a club. We actually master these things before we learn how to walk biomechanically like an adult, which doesn't happen till we're 17 or so. Nature has her priorities, and sauntering isn't one of them. Unfortunately impact physics is so bizarrely Newtonian that no neural net naturally grasps it. The best that nature can do is to tell the youngsters one of the handy rules for a tribe's survival. "Identify the war chief, listen to what he says about how the damnably Newtonian stick thingies work, and believe whatever he tells you without question. If anyone you don't respect says different close your ears and ignore the heresy."

Thus we have this funny little thread, a heated debate on how to use the stick thingies. It amuses me.

[Seth Pease]

Matt

Well, after reading this thread (well some of it, its quite long) I am left wondering just what you would be referring to when you cited the talhoffer plate instructing you to parry/block, displace edge to edge. Granted your quotes about displacing with the edge are accurate your interpretation strikes me as flawed. I often displace with my edge. But its always against my opponents flat. Edge parrying in most of the instances I have seen mentioned in the manuals refers to using your edge against the opponents flat. this allows you to actively move the force of the incoming blow. Going against his edge with yours means you are opposing his force. This is much less effective physically and creates no noticeable advantage.

Even the quote on Silvers ward against a leg shot followed by a thrust would work with the flat or with edge against the opponents flat. Trying to brute force your way in to the opponents leg afterwords would be much more difficult and much less effective than redirecting the opponents attack with your edge or letting the larger surface area of your flat absorb the impact.

I concede the evidence shows defenses with the edge, in silver and else where, I do not concede however that they were strong opposing force defenses against the other's edge with your edge. It simply offers no advantage in the fight to edge on flat.

If a technique is martially sound it must offer an advantage of some sort. Edge on edge defenses offer no real advantage and often require more work than edge on flat. in other words they are martially inefficient. The sad thing about internet debates on this subject is that we can not get together and actually test the premise with you. Those of us who do favor the flat on edge or edge on flat defenses have gotten to this point not on blind faith in what some one has said but tried practice with all manner of practice implements.

As for your statements of swords being durable and thus able to take the abuse thus justifying a potentially abusive behavior... well, I can run my car with the tires poorly inflated and it will survive for quite a while, I can also let the oil drop a quart or two lower than optimal and the engine can endure it. These behaviors though WILL cut down on the vitality of my car though. Activity with the sword is the same. If your technique will POTENTIALLY harm the blade and you gain no advantage from this action why do it? It will wear out your weapon for no gain. Its not a martially sound way to fight. Even if your sword holds up 80% of the time with E to E defenses why not use flat defenses which can be expected to hold up 90% of the time and which offer better positioning for even second timing counter attacks?

you also said

"-Four, if "never get a nick in your edge" was ever a commandment of European swordplay, why so little evidence of it? Why no lines in Von Danzig or Ringeck about "Thus we parry to avoid damaging our sword" or some such? "

Frankly I think that this would fall into what they assumed was a common sense practice. In Wallerstein grappling you see a lot of text that instructs you to do a moaneuver based on some other move the students should already know. I imagine the manner of blade preservation is much the same. If the student had a weapon (a weighty investment usually) then I imagine the masters didn't see fit to lecture them on how to care for it. Why waste the page space. Also, most manuals are incredible sparse, vague, and cryptic. Talhoffern and Vadi for example do not spell out every detail of the techniques they are teaching much less basics such as how to care for your weapon. I imagine it would be like a Karate master first pointing out to his students which appendage is called the "foot." The student is simply expected to have that basic understanding. Furthermore, these manuals were not written to be used by us these many centuries after their writing. Much that we now try to reason out was likely so common in the period these books were meant for so we should not be surprised that basic concepts be left out.


Matt wrote:
This bit of cleverness proves nothing. The historical German masters, including Von Danzig, tell you to "displace", "set aside", "parry", however you wish to translate it, his sword with one or the other edges quite abit. They tell you to use the flat much less often, and often enough tell you nothing on the matter. They never once mention edge notches, edge preservation, or the like, as far as I know. So while I agree that the full-on-edge slamming of movie cliche is a bad idea, it's primarily because such blocks would allow the opponent to easily kill one and wouldn't reclaim the iniative, edge damage being a very distant third in one's list of concerns. Indeed, occasionally you run into an eventuality, like the rising cut versus zornhau messer sequence I mentioned earlier, that quite possibly could put a big ugly nick in your sword, depending on how it goes down. So be it, if it saves your ass in that situation and gives you an opportunity to kill your opponent. "

[Matt Bailey]

FYI: I started out heavily prejudiced in FAVOR of parries with the flat, not against them. I'm not "against" parries with the flat, as the historical masters spoke of them and they have obvious technical usefullness. However, the historical masters speak of deflecting and/or stifling with the edges much more often. What does that tell us?

Seth: I don't have my copy in front of me, but in Talhoffer's 1467 manual, the messer section, a rising cut is illustrated against a zornhau. Ideally this removes the opponents hand. It is possible your opponent will notice this and bind with his blow against yours instead, this is shown with ensuing follow-ups. This seqence does result in the swords meeting edge to edge, often rather harshly. Am I to forego using it because of this possibility, should the opponent be struck rather than turn his blow against the rising edge? Of course not. Thus while I agree that historical technique generally does not leave your sword "hacked like a handsaw" as Shakespeare writes, I also think an excessive concern with *never* putting a nick in your sword is a-historical and can warp interpretations.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jon

I got the Di Grasi text now to muddle through it, I was looking for the the Cappo Ferro translation thank's.

I wasn't being sarcastic with the backedge question it was just a thought that occurred to me, and with my lack of Rapier, smallsword, backsword knowledge i was just wondering.



Jeff

[ChrisThies]

Hello Matt Bailey,
I see 4 techniques in the messer section of Talhoffers' 1467 [plates 223 - 230]. I believe that you were referring to the 1st sequence (plates 223-225), and the 3rd sequence (plates 228-229), when you wrote,
"Seth: I don't have my copy in front of me, but in Talhoffer's 1467 manual, the messer section, a rising cut is illustrated against a zornhau. Ideally this removes the opponents hand. It is possible your opponent will notice this and bind with his blow against yours instead, this is shown with ensuing follow-ups. This sequence does result in the swords meeting edge to edge, often rather harshly. Am I to forego using it because of this possibility, should the opponent be struck rather than turn his blow against the rising edge? Of course not..."

[The 2nd messer sequence, plates 226 &amp; 227, is a clear example of 'f-t-e', utilizing a turned (over-supinated) wrist position - which is of the type of Talhoffer 'ebbing hand' technique which originated this thread. The final solo plate 230 is not part of a sequence, and exemplifies a technique which involves no blade contact.]

Plate 224 is the plate of the 1st sequence (plates 223 - 225) wherein the modern scholar must decide if this is an example of an 'e-t-e' or 'f-t-e' application. And plate 228 is the plate of the 3rd sequence (plates 228 - 229) wherein the modern scholar must decide if this too is an example of an 'e-t-e' or 'f-t-e' application.

So, to clarify any further discussion of specific Talhoffer messer techniques, I assume that out of the 3 seperate sequences shown in Talhoffer's 1467 messer section that involve blade-to-blade activity, you see 2 (the 1st and the 3rd sequences) as examples of either clear - or potential - 'e-t-e' application.

The Swabian text (per Rector's translation, p.310) of plates 224 &amp; 228 are:
Plate 224,
"Der hat sin how volbracht. - Der hatt den schlag versetzt und wyl In ubergryffen."
'The swordsman on the left completes his cut. The swordsman on the right sets aside the cut and steps in to grapple his opponent.'

Plate 228,
"Der hatt den angeloffen In Zorn und hatt In wollen howen durch den Kopff. - So hatt der versetzt unden uff mit macht und In sinem uffzichen hat er Im sin hand abgehowen."
'The swordsman on the left charges in with a cut of wrath aimed at his opponent's head. The swordsman on the right sets the blow aside by cutting into it strongly from below, and in doing so, hews off his adversary's hand.'

I think that the portion of the plate 228 english translation that I put in bold print above ['by cutting into it'] is that portion of the translation of plate 228 text which may be cited by one as a clear textual exemple of 'e-t-e'. I am not a Swabian linguist, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of this specific portion of this plate's translation. I do not know whether or not these specific words are an accurate verbatim english transcription of the Swabian, or if perhaps these specific words are an 'add-on' of a latter interpretive translation (plausible since this text went from Swabian to German to English).

As per plate 224, I find it interesting that this messer sequence is echoed in the sword and buckler section of Talhoffer's 1467 [plates 231 - 239]. Specifically the sequence of plates 236 - 237. Would one choose to apply an 'e-t-e' in this mirrored technique that uses a double-edged sword? I think that an 'e-t-e' application here would not only damage the true edge of the sword, but damage to one's forearm may also be incurred as the force of an 'e-t-e' is transferred through the false edge to one's arm. Would it be martially sound to train to act differently (i.e. 'e-t-e' vs. 'f-t-e') using the same technique with such similar weapons?

[James_Knowles]

the historical masters speak of deflecting and/or stifling with the edges much more often. What does that tell us?

That these were unusual situations.

Litterature utilizing expensive writing materials and labour-intensive production methods did not ordinarily waste resources on the mundane. Our age of cheap printing has radically altered the way that we in "modern" times look at written material. Technical publications the the philosophy behind them are a relatively modern invention. In these type of lengthy discussions it's easy and natural to overlook this out of ignorance. This is not to call anybody bad; it's just something that we modern people don't know about unless it's been brought to our attention.

Nowdays it's easy to say, "well, if one is to do X instead of Y, why didn't they spell it out in black and white?" I challenge anybody to grab a quill, temper it, cut it, and start writing. I used to teach mediaeval calligraphy and will happily give instructions on how to do this. It's quite easy.

I can attest to the astounding amount of mental and physical effort it takes to copy a page, let alone a book. As was commonly said, "two fingers hold the pen, but the whole body toils." No, it's not an exercize of strength, but it is an exercise of stamina.

I'll give a prize to anybody who can copy several pages of text (not a whole book) without error. Even with my training I will frequently make a mistake on a page. Single-letter errors make you mad, but when you realize you skipped an entire line... ARGH! It's much easier than you may think, and did happen during transcriptions from time to time.

Heck, take a modern pen and paper and copy an entire manual by hand. That alone should be education enough.

Even with the advent of printing, it was still expensive. However, the modern ideas of technical writing hadn't come forth during the Renaissance. Those books are much better than during the mediaeval period, but from a modern perspective they still are found lacking.

I don't have my copy in front of me, but in Talhoffer's 1467 manual

FYI the T1467 messer section is on-line: http://www.schielhau.org/talmesser.html --- very handy. I went to grab my physical copy, but it's in the car that my wife just drove off with.

It is possible your opponent will notice this and bind with his blow against yours instead, this is shown with ensuing follow-ups. This seqence does result in the swords meeting edge to edge, often rather harshly.

Assuming you're speaking of the transition from plate 223 to 230 (the fourth play), this statement is pure interpretation, not a hard fact. From my practice I don't agree. My practice shows this to be a very acute (low-angle) edge-on-edge or edge-on-flat impact in my experience. I would have to see how you perform this -- I'm assuming that you've tried this personally.

Then again, people are dancing around so much I'm not sure what point anybody is trying to make anymore. I don't see ARMA people here running around saying "Thou shalt never allow edges to meet in any way, shape, or form." That's nuts. When edge contact happens, it is at acute angles that allow the blades to slide. Yes, small nicks will occur at speed. This should not be confused with the edge blocking and bashing practiced by other WMA groups.

My observation of this monster thread is that it's hampered by isolation. The problem with debating in a forum like this is that we can't compare notes face-to-face. It'd be nice to have access to video of people explaining their theses. That would help the discussion tremendously.

I have a feeling that were we meeting in person there would be a lot of "Oh, that's what you meant? Huh. That's what I was saying, too. Kind of hard to get it across by typing." If we have so much difficulty communicating in a state-of-the-art electronic medium....

Anyhow, I resisted saying anything until now. I got to get back to stuff and can't really get dragged into this much. I don't know what the point is anymore. This all assumes that the fire simply isn't being fed by trolls or some other annoyance. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[James_Knowles]

The final solo plate 230 is not part of a sequence,

Not to contradict you... you could be right as there are other techniques that involve no blade contact.

My assumption has always been that this was a fourth play that occured after the technique in plate 228 failed, in the same manner of the technique sequences in Wallerstein.

[Jon Pellett]

This is a crazy thread. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> We're jumping from topic to topic like a kangaroo on tequila.

James:

Then again, people are dancing around so much I'm not sure what point anybody is trying to make anymore.

Well, I think a variety of arguments are in progress, which is making a mess.
There is a debate over whether hard edge parries are "martially sound" (I'm not even going to start) and how much they damage your edge. I personally don't give a rat's @ss. I know that many experienced and knowledgeable practitioners can be found on both sides of the issue, so there must be something to be said for both sides. I know that hard edge parries were used at some points in history, so they must have worked in some circumstances. Thus the question is whether/how they were used in particular times and styles.

I don't see ARMA people here running around saying "Thou shalt never allow edges to meet in any way, shape, or form."

Nor do I. However, a few of you have found it fit to inform us that we incompetents edge parry only because we are so blinded by our own greed and arrogance that we ignore the obvious truth, and that we "stretch and find some small shreds of evidence that [we] can twist to support [our] claims". This sort of talk is a bit hard to walk away from without arguing the point.

I have a feeling that were we meeting in person there would be a lot of "Oh, that's what you meant? Huh. That's what I was saying, too.

I am sure you are right. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Litterature utilizing expensive writing materials and labour-intensive production methods did not ordinarily waste resources on the mundane.

Though your points about the difficulty of copying are well taken, I have to disagree with the idea that they would leave out something due to any desire for brevity. The German texts in particular are often quite wordy and redundant.

Something I've often wondered - where does the modernized commentary text of Talhoffer 1467 come from (the stuff translated on the Schielhau site)?

Chris T:
I think the translation you are using has modern interpretive additions - the original German does not mention "cutting into."

Cheers all <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Jon Pellett]

Seth:

Going against his edge with yours means you are opposing his force. This is much less effective physically and creates no noticeable advantage.

Since you have positioned yourself so that you have a leverage advantage, his force is useless. Depending on the technique and how the angles work out, you can use the force of his blow to "bounce" your sword into the riposte, or his sword may be jolted away uncrossing you for the riposte, or you may stop his sword on yours and work from the bind, or whatever. It isn't as if you stand there flat-footed holding your sword out.

Even the quote on Silvers ward against a leg shot followed by a thrust would work with the flat or with edge against the opponents flat. Trying to brute force your way in to the opponents leg afterwords would be much more difficult and much less effective than redirecting the opponents attack with your edge or letting the larger surface area of your flat absorb the impact.

What on earth are you talking about? There is no "brute force," the line to his leg or groin is completely open. You use the false edge so that your true edge is set up for an instant riposte. Have you even tried this?

Those of us who do favor the flat on edge or edge on flat defenses have gotten to this point not on blind faith in what some one has said but tried practice with all manner of practice implements.

You know what? I believe you. Guess what? So have the edge parriers.


George:

Throwing rocks is also important, and we might add playing with fire. Also, according to some theories, getting along with dogs.

I have to disagree with you about the old styles being counterintuitive, but this thread is already swamped, so another time. I'll just mention that the warrior class certainly didn't keep their secrets very well, since the middle class fencing guilds got hold of their methods before too long, and indeed, that there was a long tradition of middle class fencing masters. Also, I would submit that the reason late-period fencing masters didn't rediscover old two-handed sword technique was because they didn't use two-handed swords. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Swords were pretty cheap in the periods we deal with. Now if you are using a pattern-welded sword that cost you twelve slaves, then you might be more inclined to look after the edge, though not at the expense of your neck.

Anyway, what the heck were we talking about? <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Cheers, I still have two essays to write. <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

PS Oh yeah. I'm challenging people on the edge-parries-come-from-smallsword thing, which I think is silly, I'm interested in Stew's take on the change-in-core-assumptions thing, and I'd like to know how you guys do Silver (I'm seriously interested, not just trying to argue!)

[Jeffrey Hull]

Mr Pellet:

I have no opinion of you, vile or otherwise.

I do know what it is like to be directly insulted at another forum, and I assure you that you have not received such here.

I would say that what is truly vile is the needless destruction of one's weaponry (there was a time when swords were considered holy objects, named by their wielders), and the ignoring or vilifying of historical sources due to vested interests -- as demonstrated by certain modern practitioners and writers who advocate edge-to-edge bashing.

I do have an opinion about Medieval and Renaissance flat-use in swordsmanship. Said opinion is strong, substantiated and justified.

You may read further of such at a new posting I have made, if you like.

Earnestly,

Jeffrey

[Jeffrey Hull]

Matt:

Please be aware by flat-use is meant the meeting of swords during brechen or versetzen, whereby fighter's sword meets foe's sword in one of these three ways:

flat-to-flat

edge-to-flat

flat-to-edge

I stated this because it seems that you may be taking too narrow a definition than what I am trying to describe.

JH

[George Turner]

Jon,

Since you have positioned yourself so that you have a leverage advantage, his force is useless. Depending on the technique and how the angles work out, you can use the force of his blow to "bounce" your sword into the riposte, or his sword may be jolted away uncrossing you for the riposte, or you may stop his sword on yours and work from the bind, or whatever. It isn't as if you stand there flat-footed holding your sword out.

Or as William Hope cautioned, you can pick your sword up after it's knocked out of your hands by a real blow, if your opponent will let you. Apprently by the late 1600's there was so little power being used that fencing masters had to be reminded to keep enough of a grip on their rapiers so they wouldn't lose it after someone delivers a real swing.

What on earth are you talking about? There is no "brute force," the line to his leg or groin is completely open. You use the false edge so that your true edge is set up for an instant riposte. Have you even tried this?

And there one of our core assumptions rears its head. The direct line to his leg or groin doesn't move your sword edge two feet. So what does the opponent do while you tap him with your instant riposte to the thigh, a common fencing move that has yet to hurt anyone, and how do you protect your head if you've stuck your blade down in between his legs? If your blade was tracking out after intercepting his leg blow and you let your arm following in its natural arc you could continue the motion around and deliver a powerful downward blow or else follow that quick and short path for a thrust.

You're advocating a wrist cut for the man who said that wrist cuts cause little hurt and thought it okay to leave himself open to a few of them. Silver derided rapier men because they didn't even know how to make strong blows. The short and direct wrist path is quick, but it certainly doesn't make a strong blow. Silver ranted about problems with that, and if we're not careful all the Silver studies will end up producing nothing more than sport fencing with an unusual guard position and some cool terminology for the same old thing.

George: Throwing rocks is also important, and we might add playing with fire. Also, according to some theories, getting along with dogs.

And we start throwing things at what age? In case you haven't flipped on ESPN lately, adult humans, normally considered rational beings, seem obsessed with running, throwing, dodging, and hitting things with sticks bats, and clubs. They started doing it about the time they learned to walk. Despite mastering such activities they never seem to lose fascination with them. Yet the hardest thing for a person to understand is something they're innately wired for, like crawling. Look at a snapshot of a crawling infant and try to guess which limb is supposed to move next. Despite being experts at performing the act of crawling most people are stumped at guessing the required sequencing. So too when it comes to hitting things, which is why I hear adults say crazy things like "If I strike from a moving army tank I strike with the momentum of the entire tank". Well in that strange world I can plant my feet firmly and resist with the mass of the entire planet, too. Beware unexamined assumptions and innate notions. Touching is not wounding.

[Seth Pease]

Jon wrote:
“Since you have positioned yourself so that you have a leverage advantage, his force is useless. Depending on the technique and how the angles work out, you can use the force of his blow to "bounce" your sword into the riposte, or his sword may be jolted away uncrossing you for the riposte, or you may stop his sword on yours and work from the bind, or whatever. It isn't as if you stand there flat-footed holding your sword out.”

Actually, I have to disagree with you here. All the points you mentioned are accomplished MORE effectively with the flat. What leverage advantage do you gain by using the edge over the flat for a deflection? None. For redirections? None. For “bouncing” your sword off his the Flat is infinitely superior. For binding and winding the flat is superior (you can actually “wind” from the flat to the edge and in the process improve your position), you can stop the sword on your own better with a cron like maneuver at the ricasso and you can do this still with your edge to his flat which is superior to your edge on his. I assume you don’t want to just stand there, although some who argue for dual time defenses are effectively doing just that. I also assume you want the maximum advantage with the least wasted energy or motion. The edge to his edge affords no advantage.

Jon also got a bit testy and wrote:

“What on earth are you talking about? There is no "brute force," the line to his leg or groin is completely open. You use the false edge so that your true edge is set up for an instant riposte. Have you even tried this?”

Perhaps not the same thing. I was looking at the post made earlier referring to defending a strike to the leg. I used the brute force not as a quote obviously but as an illustration of the needed action to get the result you wanted. I went outside and tried the play indicated earlier with another arma member and found that I could inteprete the play two ways from the given text. One way is inefficient, The other used my edge to his flat and worked much better with less wasted motion.

If you have pictures to illustrate what you were referring to I would love to see them as that would help clear things up. I may be on the completely wrong page (figuratively and literally) from you. But please, no need to flip out and use italics <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Jon then said:
“Swords were pretty cheap in the periods we deal with. Now if you are using a pattern-welded sword that cost you twelve slaves, then you might be more inclined to look after the edge, though not at the expense of your neck.”

I personally would use the edge to defend my neck if I had no other option. Hell, I would use my arm or hand if I had to. But most of the edge parries I have seen referred to here or performed elsewhere are not save your neck defenses but pointless wasted motion that results in inferior quality defenses. What is the logical advantage? Pick a maneuver or technique from an online manual, link to the plate, then explain to me the advantage of using the edge over the flat for that technique.

Matt on the other hand wrote:
“Seth: I don't have my copy in front of me, but in Talhoffer's 1467 manual, the messer section, a rising cut is illustrated against a zornhau. Ideally this removes the opponents hand. It is possible your opponent will notice this and bind with his blow against yours instead, this is shown with ensuing follow-ups. This seqence does result in the swords meeting edge to edge, often rather harshly. Am I to forego using it because of this possibility, should the opponent be struck rather than turn his blow against the rising edge? Of course not. Thus while I agree that historical technique generally does not leave your sword "hacked like a handsaw" as Shakespeare writes, I also think an excessive concern with *never* putting a nick in your sword is a-historical and can warp interpretations.”

I just flipped through the book myself. I cant find the plate you are describing with certainty. Can you go to the online version and tell me which plate you meant. I looked at the one plate naming the use of a rising cut to defend against a descending cut but its not aimed at the hands. (223). I have done this repeatedly and at speed and intent. You wont meet his edge with yours unless you really do something goofy. Properly executed this defense sets aside the blow strongly redirecting the opponents force and creating a wicked opening to exploit. If your edge meets his you cant set it aside and no opening is created. I must assume that this is NOT the plate you referred to.

So, next plate. 224 shows either a flat to edge defense or a very oblique edge on edge ontact. I have done this maneuver at speed and intent as well and I can tell you that you will not make strong edge on edge contact here. It would be counter productive. You want his force transferred through your blade and arm not directly into your edge. The followup on 225 also is only accomplished well from the flat. There is no gain from meeting his edge with yours.

Plate 226is clearly edge on flat. Using that knob on the messer requires the flat. So that cant be it nor the follow up on 227.
Plate 228 has the cut at the hands, this has to be the plate you meant. I also see where if you screw the pooch while executing this your edge will meet. I do not see this as an argument for purposeful use of the edge. Offensively Tallhoffer is clearly instructing us to cut at the hand. The hand is not an edge. To use this plate to advocate edge use is a real stretch. Furthermore, any accidental contact could be easily argued as impacting obliquely on the flat or ricasso. Thee wrath cut is descending from the right, the ascending strike from the mirror side. Trying this at speed will not yield a hard edge to edge strike so even stretching talhoffers intent you cant convincingly argue for edge use here.

Defensively, If I want to avoid getting my hand lopped off there are many options. turning my cut so that my edge hits his is a stupid one. I would better survive by altering the wrath cut into a deflecting wrist cut into his flat. This presents a better thrust and displaces the upward cut. It also requires less change in momentum from the zornhau than pulling back or turning my edge onto the opponents edge.

Defensively you cant argue well that this is an edge on edge advocacy plate.

Also. look at plate 231. Note the similarity with plate224. this would clearly show the flat against the arm to defend a descending cut to the defenders left.you could not effectively defend with the edge against his edge from here so I have to conclude that plate 224 is also flat advocating.

Plate 236 also shows active flat to edge defense with the same type of technique. plate 240 is also with the flat,so are plates

23, 22,26,31,33,36,136,252.

Some others can be argued either way so I left them out.

[Jon Pellett]

George:

So what does the opponent do while you tap him with your instant riposte to the thigh, a common fencing move that has yet to hurt anyone...

Well, except that guy whose "calf fell down to his ankle" (how is that even possible?) and died later (albeit of botched surgery), as mentioned in Godfrey. Though you're right, of course, being stabbed in the groin can't be that bad: in fact I've heard people say that genital piercings feel good. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

...and how do you protect your head if you've stuck your blade down in between his legs?

With your buckler, target, or dagger, since this ward is only for the sword double. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Also, of course, you fly out immediately after.

If your blade was tracking out after intercepting his leg blow and you let your arm following in its natural arc you could continue the motion around and deliver a powerful downward blow or else follow that quick and short path for a thrust.

Sure. You can if you like. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

You're advocating a wrist cut for the man who said that wrist cuts cause little hurt and thought it okay to leave himself open to a few of them.

No he didn't. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Show me the quote. IMHO leaving yourself open to anything would go quite against the spirit of Silver. OTOH he does use at least one wrist cut - in BI 8.14 he says that your wrist blow at his dagger hand "shall hurt him although he have a gauntlet thereon, for ... your blow will cut off the fingers of his gauntlet." Not exactly wimpy.

Silver derided rapier men because they didn't even know how to make strong blows.

Yes - "...neither can any of these fine rapier men, for lack of use, tell how to strike a sound blow." The reason for this lack of use, i.e. practice, was a result of the safety or sporting rules of the MoD: "There is in my opinion in our fence schools an evil order or custom in these days used...that is this, at the single sword, sword and dagger, &amp; sword and buckler, they forbid the thrust, &amp; at the single rapier, and rapier &amp; dagger, they forbid the blow." He isn't complaining that they use wrist cuts, but that they don't learn how to cut properly at all.

C'mon, you can do better than that. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> Anyway, it's my turn: how do you perform this parry? And how do you do the forehand and guardant parries?

Cheers