Interesting cross training yesterday

[Mike Chidester]

That's obviously nonsense, however, there are also plenty of legitimate Japanese sword arts that use the edge parry. For instance, Yagyu Nobuharu, headmaster of the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu (the style of the Tokugawa shoguns) recently announced that parries in the Yagyu Ryu are indeed to be performed with the edge, and said that trying to avoid the edge parry was "such an Americanization."

That doesn't make it a legitimate or historical technique. A lot of sport fencers will tell you things about WMA that are completely untrue, and oft-times suicidal. Unless Yagyu Nobuharu is a shogun, and fought in those battles, he's a modern practitioner advocating a flawed technique.

In the real world, you simply can't bang two sharp pieces of steel together without damaging one or both. This is both basic science and common sense.

[Chris Thompson]

>That doesn't make it a legitimate or historical technique>

Ummm, you are aware that the style was founded by his direct ancestor and has been passed down from one generation to the next in an unbroken line to him? When it comes to Japanese sword technique, I'm more inclined to take the word of a hereditary Japanese sword master than some guy from America who doesn't practice that art at all.

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Hi Mike,

What do you think of the fact that numerous other quite non-sportised lineages from all around the world, both Europe and the Orient, parry with the edge as well? Do you think *all* of these systems (some of which have been used in real combat with sharps as recently as the beginning of the 20th century, and, I'm told, some even later - please don't ask me to back the latter up with sources, though...) are flawed, along with the now-dead systems that documentably parried with the edge?

Thanks.

Best wishes
Rabbe

[Jeffrey Hull]

Why yes, they are flawed if they advocate bevel-gouging edge-to-edge parrying.

And yes, I would rather take the word of some guy from wherever whose argument is sound, rather than the the word of an expert who tells you something which is self-evidently wrong. Besides, I could suggest Japanese experts who would advocate something in agreement with the opposite of yours. So what?

JH

[Mike Chidester]

What do you think of the fact that numerous other quite non-sportised lineages from all around the world, both Europe and the Orient, parry with the edge as well? Do you think *all* of these systems (some of which have been used in real combat with sharps as recently as the beginning of the 20th century, and, I'm told, some even later - please don't ask me to back the latter up with sources, though...) are flawed, along with the now-dead systems that documentably parried with the edge?

If you're referring to the systems we practice in ARMA with that last bit, John has rebutted such absurd claims more completely than I ever could.

As a general comment, you just keep ruining your swords, if that's what you like doing. Me, I'll use techniques that don't destroy mine. Swords are expensive.

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Hi Mike,

I'm writing this on someone else's computer and am in a bit of a hurry, so please forgive the possible typos and poor grammar - don't have the time to double-check my post right now..

If you're referring to the systems we practice in ARMA with that last bit, John has rebutted such absurd claims more completely than I ever could.

I don't know if you practise it at ARMA, but some of the treatises on the Bolognese school of sidesword, for example, occasionally quite explicitly state that a *certain parry* is to be performed edge-to-edge. I'm by no means saying all parries in all systems should be performed that way.

As a general comment, you just keep ruining your swords, if that's what you like doing.

But there are practioners who have been parrying edge-to-edge for *decades* without breaking swords left and right, and there are swords in museums with edge damage, quite likely from parries, that is so minimal it possibly cannot have had more than a cosmetic effect on the sword.

And in any case, I don't really care what it may or may not do to the sword - if historical masters parried edge-to-edge, they propably had a reason to do so. At least I most certainly don't know what is effective in a real fight better than they did.

Best wishes
Rabbe

[Stacy Clifford]

But there are practioners who have been parrying edge-to-edge for *decades* without breaking swords left and right, and there are swords in museums with edge damage, quite likely from parries, that is so minimal it possibly cannot have had more than a cosmetic effect on the sword.

Two notes on this:

1. Parrying edge-to-edge with blunts or sharps for decades? Most replicas today still don't have historically accurate edge geometry, let alone ones that were available 20-30 years ago. Blunts can take the damage because there's more metal involved, but all the sharps or sharper blunts I've seen slammed 90 degrees edge against edge have taken deep, hideous triangular gouges. I'm also not so sure I trust the judgement of anyone who uses sharps against another human being for "practice".

2. What kind of edge damage are we talking about? Folded edges, scratches, and ground off burrs, or deep triangular gouges? Different objects (helmets, crossguards, rocks, shield bosses, etc.) will cause different kinds of damage to a certain degree, and you can test this to get a general idea of what kinds of trauma a sword might have suffered. That's why we trash a few swords in edge-on-edge tests, just to see what really happens when you do that. The results I've seen myself were not pretty and were easily distinguishable from other types of blunter trauma. You can view our test results on this website. If you can perform a similar test and document that your results are different, then that's where the real science begins for both sides of the argument.

[Chris Thompson]

Bear in mind that proper edge-to-edge parries are made with the fort, and that the fort is either lightly sharpened or blunt. Furthermore, that the fort is not the section of the blade you cut with.
However, there seems to be little point in this discussion. On the one hand you have numerous historic treatises specifically saying to parry on the edge, even within the German style ARMA uses. (Dobringer actually says "All displacements are made with the true edge.")
You also have numerous living traditions that parry on the edge, ranging from classical fencing to some styles of Japanese swordplay, to a Southeast Asian style I saw described on SFI recently, where they parry on the edge regardless of edge damage, because the point is to stay alive not to protect your weapon at all costs.
On the other hand you have this one group that insists edge-parrying is foolish and disregards all evidence and any style that believes otherwise, based ultimately on the opinion of one man and a somewhat tortured reading of the source texts.
Of course, some styles do avoid edge parrying, including some European styles. A reasonable person would have to conclude that a variety of different methods were used and that they're all valid in the context for which they were designed. But when you get people saying that Yagyu Nobuharu doesn't know how to parry properly in his own family system, or that a dozen historical fencing masters were wrong and John Clements is right- well, then it seems like we're maybe not dealing with reasonable people in the first place.

[Brian Hunt]

Hello all,

I have been following this thread for a while, I have seen the arguments for edge to edge parries made here, and on other forums. I think in many ways, we are discussing apples and oranges here. When Dobringer say's to displace with your true edge, I could argue, and will, that he means to strike your opponents weapon aside with your true edge. However, IMHO, this doesn't mean that you strike your edge into his edge. I can do all types of displacements with my true edge without having to do an edge to edge parry, mostly by striking his flat with my edge. As for "parries" that are made with the unsharpened forte, I feel that this type of an action is more of a stiffling action made into his strike with your forte to stop his action before it gains its full power/momentum, therefore this action is not an edge destroyer. Part of the problem, IMHO is that the word parry has way too many connotations with it. Which is why I prefer to use the German terms, such as abstezens, etc. Most people I have talked with see a parry as a hard stop. When you do this type of an action edge to edge, it creates the type of damage that Stacy discussed above. If I strike his weapon away (or as Mair would say, set his weapon aside), then I can easily do this by striking on/into his flat with my edge. Sure there will be instances of incidental edge contact, but it is not a 90 degree edge destroyer. These are the type of actions I see in most of the manuals before the side sword/cut and thrust, rapier, and small sword. I haven't had a chance to do a lot of indepth study of the Bolegnese (spelling?) side sword manuals, so I choose not to comment much on them, but my cursory study has not seen a difference in their parries with the edge from what I have said above. However since side sword is not a primary study of mine at this time, I will be willing to be corrected by someone with better knowledge there than myself.

my 2 cents worth on this dead horse we are beating. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Brian Hunt
GFS.

[G.MatthewWebb]

Chris T wrote:

"well, then it seems like we're maybe not dealing with reasonable people in the first place."

Is your argument devolving into name-calling? Citing a Japanese source and a Southeast Asian style is not germane to European swordwork. Referring to Bolognese sidesword is closer to relevance, but since the the sidesword and longsword are different tools, then the comparison may not be so relevant at all. I will not comment on Bolognese swordwork because I have not read the relevant documents.

The best discussion will be based on tests (see Clifford's point above) not interpretation of old manuscripts or quoting far-away experts. I will add that many, if not all Japanese koryu practioners have breaks in their lineage, though they frequently avoid discussing this. Without documention and I know of no detailed Japanese documents that exist, there can be no certainty that what they do know is how their ancestor fought several centuries ago. Most of the scrolls that I have seen illustrated or described, have stick figures and cryptic names of techniques. Still, I don't speak or read Japanese so I can not state that is true with 100% certainty! For instance, the Kashima Shinryu claim a long lineage but one of their leaders, the fierce Kunii Zen'ya, the current headmaster's teacher had a rather mixed martial arts instruction. Current Kashima Shinryu teachers themselves have suggested that the transmission is not pure, far from it. This information is from an email I received while on their email list. I'm not sure I have saved it. This is a common story in lineage history.

My two cents.

Matthew Webb
Oklahoma City, OK
USA

[John_Clements]

Every time you come on our forum and make that same misinformed assumption and mislead our readers I am going to counter you.

You cannot assert that modern fencing styles --or their post-Renaissance fencing styles 18th &amp; 19th century forebears - all "use the edge to parry with" when they are either no longer using sharp swords now, or at the time were teaching specifically only to use the ricasso nearest the hilt to intercept the oncoming blade at the same spot nearest the hilt. This rigid blocking is also not something that can be used to argue that any location of an edge should receive a cut from any location of another edge, or that this can occur without serious trauma to the edge. It is also not something that was advocated in pre-Baroque fencing styles.

[Ray Brunk]

Excellent post by Brian Hunt. One that should be read closely.

**(Dobringer actually says "All displacements are made with the true edge.")

I don't believe there is a single ARMA member who would disagree with this instruction. Where in this sentence do you find that you should be striking your opponents edge? Striking you opponents blade at an angle or even his flat with your edge give you great advantage whereas turning your blade to impact edge to edge gives no advantage.
I have read parts of the manuals that have been posted in the past by pro edge to edge guys. In most cases there is clear instruction to parry with you true edge but absolutely no instruction to actually strike the opponents edge. In the few instances where edge to edge seems implied the parry is typically a mirror strike. Example Zornhauw against zornhauw. If an opponent strikes with PROPER zornhauw (45 degrees) and you parry with a PROPER zornhauw (45 degrees striking at your opponent &amp; not just his blade) then your edges are slicing at an acute angle giving you an advantage (through absetzen) I have not seen (haven't read every manual yet) any instruction of a 90 degree straight perpindicular edge to edge parry. I believe it is a case of the previous example being mis interpereted by men who would like to believe they "know" what the masters meant regardless of the actual material. As I have said before if you doubt the ARMA belief...stand across from an opponent and slam edge to edge(with steel) at FULL FORCE, FULL SPEED(remember these swords were used to fight to the death not prance around) and note 2 things. What advantage did you recieve with blade action and how much damage was sustained? I would bet no advantage as the edges will stick when they chunk into each other and considerably more damage then any sword you have ever encountered.
My 02 cents on a dead issue.

[Chris Thompson]

>This rigid blocking is also not something that can be used to argue that any location of an edge should receive a cut from any location of another edge>

But I didn't say that. What I said was that the edge was used to parry in some historical styles. Yes, it's a certain type of edge parry, it's done in a particular way and with a particular part of the blade- but it is, just as clearly, an edge parry. (Furthermore, it's clearly a hard stop, as the manuals I'm referring to actually call it a "Stop" in some cases.)
Also, I've said that certain other styles of swordplay around the world also use an edge parry.
Now, if you agree that some types of historical fencing did use an edge parry, why do your members repeatedly make sweeping statements dismissing *all* edge parries as unhistorical?
And if you agree that some styles of swordplay from elsewhere in the world use a type of edge parry, then why do your members make sweeping statements dismissing venerable schools of swordplay as rubbish merely for doing things differently from ARMA?
When your members reflexively dismiss the opinions of historical fencing masters, current masters from living traditions and anyone else who uses a different technique from you, it makes ARMA as a whole look ignorant and fanatical.
If all you're saying is that parries formed a small part of Medeival swordplay, then fine I agree. If you're saying that some styles, including yours, try to avoid edge parrying, then again I see no cause for dispute. But you don't leave it at that. Both on this forum and elsewhere, ARMA members consistently mock and dismiss all edge parrying no matter who says to do it and whether they know anything about the weapon in question or not. Then, when you're challenged on it, you call it a "dead horse."
Well, if it's a dead horse than accept that other styles do it differently and that we have our reasons and historical evidence for those reasons- in other words, agree to disagree and leave it at that. But as long as ARMA continues to publicly treat anyone who does the edge parry as a fool, even if they're a dead historical fencing master or a living Japanese sword master- well then, I will continue to challenge you.

[Jake_Norwood]

Hi Ray. This isn't pointed at you.

Two things.

First,

**(Dobringer actually says "All displacements are made with the true edge.")

Shyeah, right. Whatever. I don't seem to recall that advice. Doebringer makes no such "all" generalities that I'm aware of. And while I agree that a good many displacements are made with the long edge (Doebringer doesn't say squat about any "true" edge...frickin' Italians...), there are many throughout the so-called German tradition that make obvious use of the flat as well. The whole sword is used, of that there is no argument. The argument is over how.

Second, the purpose of this thread was not and should not become another completely pointless edge-edge discussion where someone chooses to completely misinterperet ARMA's stance on the matter while throwing information that is either likewise misrepresented or less pertinent to the eras that we generally discuss.

Honestly, I'd rather just see it dropped. It's old. Real old. If you really *need* to get your monthly Edge vs Edge fix, go read an older thread.

Jake

[Mike Cartier]

*falls on his sword to avoid participating in another edge to edge parrying debate*

Anyways i don't see us denigrating anyone.