Displacing: Edges and Flats

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Thanks for the answers,

I guess I HAVE much to learn. Still, there is a bit of misunderstanding: I attacked with a dritto squalembrato, he jumped back (I let that be, for we were using steel blunts without any protection) and hit my blade with full force on it's false edge, AFTER it already passed him - thus, it was not threatening him any more. I guess he had that kind of attitude from saber-play. He did that a couple of times, after a while without any effect, but still, there are chances you meet somebody who actually can't fight ptoperly - and is in his way even more dangerous, for your blade's edge. Two questions have arisen from this in my mind:
- In the middle ages, they were not only well-taught warriors, but less skilled as well. And having inferior weapons, maybe ancouraged the warriors of lesser classes to actually parry with the edge. Of course, that signed their death warrant, but still, the weapons would be damaged, would they not?
- Somehow you MUST fight even those, who are about to ruin your edge. How do you do it? In a fight, that is not to the death, or not even for the first blood! Nobody needs to tell me that in a real, messy, bloody fight a Zornhau would end the duell without any damages being done. But we are in a fencing hall, and in ourselves we do not parry edge to edge, yet sometimes meet groups who (sadly) do. Well on my account, my sword is hand-forged by Peter Regenyei, and that means something. I do not wish to hold on to a piece of metall, but do also not have the money for another one if this is ruined.

I do not want to sound like a "what if monkey (WIM)", this is a serious question.

byez,

Szabolcs

[Jaron Bernstein]

Well, you might want to use a cheaper training blunt for yer freeplay. I know I would hate to see my very good (but expensive) sharp get chewed up.

<img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[philippewillaume]

Hello, Szabolcs
I do not think those are what if type of question.

I can not talk for the ARMA since I am not a member but my understanding of their position is that edge to edge is not found in the manuals we have at the moment for that given period of time. This is not equivalent to edge-to-edge parry was never use by anybody in the 14-15 century.
If I got them right they say that if you knew how to fight you would not have used edge on edge. If you opponent want to parry edge on edge there is not much you can prevent for this happening but we as &amp;#8220;tutored fighter&amp;#8221; are not going to use it.

Personally I use steel only for from work and test cutting. Interpretation and sparring or semi- free sparing is done with shinai.
For me for the German style to work you need to take control of the centerline, this is achieved because you intend the master haw to land so I think you need to train and spar as if it was a fight.


Philippe

[Jeffrey Hull]

Historical sources, along with physics, and effective technique, is why ARMA advocates what it does.

Do you get it now? <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

JH

[Mike Chidester]

It's important to keep in mind that not all techniques are created equal.We draw from dozens of masters, each with differing opinions on how techniques should be performed. We select those that are the most efficient and effective. Just because something's in a manual doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Craig Peters]

Chris,

This "edge on edge" parrying debate isn't even an issue, but for a moment, let's look at the various problems in what you are advocating. First of all, you and Rabbe Laine have both committed the fallacy of pulling quotations out of context. You can read more about it here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quotcont.html. In every case, the quotations provided in support of edge on edge parries have consisted of only a sentence or two drawn out of th entire fechtbuch. In John's essay on the myth of edge parrying, he specifically explains why the contextual evidence surrounding these quotes is consistent with "edge striking flat" parries.

Secondly, it is a demonstrable fact that 90 degree angle (and other similar) edge parries cause a considerable amounts of damage on blades. Members of the ARMA have empirically tested this time and time again. We've got evidence for it in some of our test cutting videos. Now, it's pretty clear that George Silver was a smart guy. He was also a cosmopolitan guy too- after all, he mentions the fighting styles of the Spanish and the Italians among other things in his Paradoxes of Defence. So, why would a smart guy like George be advocating edge on edge parries when we know that it can damage or destroy a sword, something that the German masters (and there's reason to suggest a cosmopolitan guy like George would know of them), also knew about and advised against too?

Thirdly, if edge on edge parries were used extensively by historical masters anywhere, we should expect to find historical blades at the site of a battlefield that pretty much look like saw blades. Viggo Mortensen, the actor who played Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings was allowed to keep one of the swords he used for making the film, using edge on edge parries, and he specifically remarked that the weapon was "badly chewed up". Yet, when we look at historical pieces found at the sites of battles, we see that they have some nicks, dings and gouges, exactly what you would expect from striking steel armour, impacting with shields, and things of that sort, yet these blades are not "chewed up". If edge parries were used extensively, why isn't this apparent on historical swords?

Fourthly, sparring experience gives us the knowledge that edge to flat parries are a far more effective means of defense. When two edges strike against one another, the blades impact and then remain locked together. Aside from gouging the blades, what advantage does this give to either swordsman? None whatsoever. In contrast, a correctly executed edge to flat parry will smash the offender's sword out of the way, leaving him completely exposed to a follow through attack. If edge parries really are useful, can you please explain what advantage they offer over an edge on flat parry?

And finally, simple physics dictates that the force upon a sword (and the person wielding it) will be much greater in an edge on edge parry. Physics also dictates that the blade will either crack along the crystalline metallic structure of the weapon, or fold and warp as a result of the impact. And, big surprise, physics also dictates that an edge on flat parry is by far preferable to an edge on edge parry in terms of stress that both weapons receive. See Kevin Cashen's brand new article on the reality of edge parries, in terms of physics and metallurgy, here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/impacts.htm

So my question to you now is, why on earth should we believe that edge parries were advocated, by British masters or otherwise, when all the evidence we have points against it?

[Jon Pellett]

Mike Chidester said:
It's important to keep in mind that not all techniques are created equal.We draw from dozens of masters, each with differing opinions on how techniques should be performed. We select those that are the most efficient and effective. Just because something's in a manual doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Hmmm. I can't speak for other people, but I don't do this at all; I study a text in order to recreate that style (or more accurately to have fun trying to do so), not to pick out the best techniques. I don't care whether it's the "best" style, either (not that I'm remotely competent to judge that). YMMV.

Craig Peters said:
Fourthly, sparring experience gives us the knowledge that edge to flat parries are a far more effective means of defense.

Uh, sparring isn't fighting. It is a good way (essential, even) to test interpretations, and it is a lot of fun. In any case, it is very personal. A bunch of you guys say "edge-on-edge parries suck for us." A bunch of other guys say "they work well for us." Who are we out in Internet-land supposed to believe? Your anecdotal evidence is less than convincing, I'm afraid. More importantly, they were extensively used historically*, and even if you consider the styles that used them relatively inferior, they clearly worked well enough, so they are a viable technique, if not an ideal one.

In essence, if you guys feel these parries are lousy and don't want to use them, that is perfectly reasonable and it is your privilege. To claim that some historical style doesn't use them simply because you don't like them is bizarre - there is no reason that style couldn't happen to be an "inferior" one.

Cheers

* I am not referring to longsword (nor any pre-1500 style for that matter). I am not convinced by interpretations I have heard of the early English longsword stuff, and I see no reason to believe it involved much use of hard stops. (Though I have not actually seen it in any detail, so I could be wrong about this.)

[Jon Pellett]

What exactly are we arguing about? <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

No one disputes (I hope) that edge on edge parries were used, from at least the 18th c. on, with broadswords. We all agree (I think), that hard stops are not a valued technique with the longsword (except, possibly, in the English style, but I do not see any evidence for this myself.) There is, as I understand it, a technical dispute over how the edges meet in certain counterstrokes and setting-asides used in the Medieval styles, with notable scholars on both sides of the argument. There is a difference of opinion over the effectiveness of certain parries, and over how significant the blade damage they cause is, which is not going to be settled over the Internet. Finally, there seems to be a debate over whether certain 16th and 17th c. masters used hard edge parries.

The edge of the strong is considered an edge. I'm not sure what the oft-quoted "stifling" with the strong is, as opposed to parrying with the strong.

Is this an accurate summary? What am I missing?

In every case, the quotations provided in support of edge on edge parries have consisted of only a sentence or two drawn out of th entire fechtbuch.

And the passages which state that you shouldn't parry edge to edge are where, exactly? <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> In any case, why would you expect otherwise?

In John's essay on the myth of edge parrying, he specifically explains why the contextual evidence surrounding these quotes is consistent with "edge striking flat" parries.

The essay does a good job of explaining how the Medieval methods use counterstrokes and deflections rather than hard stops, but I didn't find the comments on later period stuff very convincing.

So my question to you now is, why on earth should we believe that edge parries were advocated, by British masters or otherwise, when all the evidence we have points against it?

See, we must be talking about different things. English backsword masters were using hard edge parries a hundred years after Silver, right? They did exist? So why couldn't they be in use a little earlier, in Swetnam say, who specifically mentions parrying with the edge, and uses very similar positions?

let's consider the notorious Viggiani quote - I trust we all remember it. He explicitly describes an edge-to-edge parry much like a later inside Guard, and says "This is the common parry, taught by all Masters and used by most fencers." Isn't this indisputable evidence that a hard edge parry was widely used in 16th c. Italy? Now, to be sure, Viggiani thinks it is a flawed technique, which he replaces with different, more dynamic, hard edge parry. So what, exactly, is it you guys are saying didn't exist?? <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Cheers

[Jaron Bernstein]

I have question on this. Some here have spent a decent amount of time examining actual antique blades. Of those historic blades examined, how many had edge damage consistent with the edge-on-edge hard blocks in question here? What types of sword?

[Stacy Clifford]

The edge of the strong is considered an edge. I'm not sure what the oft-quoted "stifling" with the strong is, as opposed to parrying with the strong.

Parrying is kind of a general term for stopping a blow, whereas stifling more specifically refers to moving in and stopping a blow early in the arc to prevent power and energy from being generated. It's a more proactive and complex action than simply stopping an incoming blow at the peak of its cutting arc as a reflex. You might reasonably consider stifling to be a type of parry, but we use the more specific term because we believe it more accurately describes how the actions described in the manuals were intended to be performed.

[Derek Wassom]

There was only one antique that I have examined with any amount of edge trauma. It was a 17th Century saber with nicks along the back, unsharpened edge.

[Craig Peters]

Uh, sparring isn't fighting. It is a good way (essential, even) to test interpretations, and it is a lot of fun. In any case, it is very personal. A bunch of you guys say "edge-on-edge parries suck for us." A bunch of other guys say "they work well for us." Who are we out in Internet-land supposed to believe? Your anecdotal evidence is less than convincing, I'm afraid. More importantly, they were extensively used historically*, and even if you consider the styles that used them relatively inferior, they clearly worked well enough, so they are a viable technique, if not an ideal one.

In essence, if you guys feel these parries are lousy and don't want to use them, that is perfectly reasonable and it is your privilege. To claim that some historical style doesn't use them simply because you don't like them is bizarre - there is no reason that style couldn't happen to be an "inferior" one.

Perhaps I should clarify on this. Our experience has been that edge to flat parries are far more effective in fighting. Anyone else who feels otherwise is welcome to dispute us- but they have to prove that their edge to edge parries are actually effective in combat. However, I personally have tried edge on flat parries striking with as much force and intensity as I could. And especially when you strike with real force and intent, just as you would in ernst fechten, edge to flat parries work extremely well. Would you not say that striking with full speed, force and intensity is good evidence for how a sword will respond in a real fight?

And no, we don't claim that a historical style doesn't use them because we don't like them. If you read John's article, he points out evidence and reasons why manuals are advocating edge to flat parries, rather than edge on edge. If you believe that his interpretation is less than convincing, you need to provide good reason why a) his reasoning is faulty and b) why your reasoning is better. I have not seen anyone so far even attempt to do this.

To be clear, we're aware that certain manuals after the Renaissance periods (ie post 17 century) clearly advocate edge on edge parries. But for weapons before that, we disagree that there is evidence of edge on edge parries being instructed, and since it's been our consistent experience that edge on flat parries work, why would we parry edge to edge?

[Craig Peters]

What exactly are we arguing about?

We're arguing about the use of edge on edge parries actually being instructed in certain manuals, particularly the British ones, but examples were also cited from other manuals, in the use of the sword for Renaissance martial arts.

The edge of the strong is considered an edge. I'm not sure what the oft-quoted "stifling" with the strong is, as opposed to parrying with the strong.

The edge of the strong is still an edge, but you don't cut with it. "Stifling" involves deliberately stepping toward your opponent, with your sword raised, to intercept and prevent the blow from being fully struck, using the strong or the guard to trap an opponent's blade. An "edge parry" is specifically using the weak portion of your blade and holding it out to "block" a strike with the edge- you see it all the time in Hollywood movies.

And the passages which state that you shouldn't parry edge to edge are where, exactly?

The burden of proof always lies on the person making an assertion. You should know this- there's no way we can prove to you that something doesn't exist, which is why you have to prove that it does exist.

I didn't find the comments on later period stuff very convincing.

Why? Be more specific. And remember, you need to offer reaons why a) John's interpretation is flawed, and b) why yours is better.

So what, exactly, is it you guys are saying didn't exist??

This is a straw man argument; we never said that edge on edge parries don't exist. In fact, I'm sure that they existed back in the time of Liechtenauer and were employed by the kloppfechter. However, that's a much different thing from saying that medieval or Renaissance master advocated their use.

[Bill Welch]

Jon Pellet wrote:

"No one disputes (I hope) that edge on edge parries were used, from at least the 18th c. on, with broadswords. We all agree (I think), that hard stops are not a valued technique with the longsword."

I think that this statement covers more of the problem than most know, it is simply arging apples and oranges.

"Finally, there seems to be a debate over whether certain 16th and 17th c. masters used hard edge parries."

The second statement prob. has alot to do with the weapon that you are refering to, that and I dont think that there really is much of a debate(see first statement)

[Risto Rautiainen]

To Jaron. I haven't seen a lot of medieval swords "live", but I have seen some which have had nicks. There's a longsword in Estonian History Museum, which has very many nicks that are obviously from 90 degree blocks. That sword had seen a lot of abuse. Another one that comes to my mind was a cinqueda (sp?) in Turku Castle, Finland, that has some nicks along the blade. (I have pics I can send via e-mail if you're interested). So there are quite many swords I believe that have evidence of static edge to edge blocks. However we should remember that we don't know who has done them. The swords may have been used in battle by someone who has no idea about swordfighting or even by some early sword enthusiast with the same problem. And then there's the fact that not all fighters on the battlefield were professional soldiers who knew how to use weapons properly and the oops factor brings a lot of mistakes that produce nicks.

Thats my 2" patches of squirrel felt.