Flat Parries

[Jake_Norwood]

Now, I'm one of those people that felt the flat-parry was "obvious" once it had been explained to me. I never liked the idea of edge-bashing (which was counter-intuitive for me, but which I did as a little kid 'cause that's what they to in the movies). I think the evidence is pretty solid and I'm happy being part of the "flat-only" gang.

I've had a lot of conversations with folks that belong to the "edge-only" gang that has more recently been converting into the "it doesn't matter gang." The "it doesn't matter" gang has a few arguments they use in their favor (though I can remember none of them), and is generally as stubborn as the other gangs are.

So anyway at the Provo NTP 1.2 last weekend John shows us the relation between Iron Door, Schrankut, Hengen, Schrankut (left) and Boars Tooth. He then showed us how all of these positions (and all non-abwenden "parries") are derivatives of either Pflug or Hengen. He then describes from manuals (Meyer for Hengen, I forget the reference for Pflug) that the Masters instruct us to parry from Hengen and Pflug using the flat.

Then we add it all up. Hengen, Schrankhut, and Iron Door are all similar to Hengen...where the deflection is made with the strong of the flat. Boar's Tooth is a "lowered" Pflug. And then there's just Pflug itself...

You can receive (parry passively, we'll say) any attack from these positions, and they *all* use the flat. Clear as day. Functional. Obvious.

Like I said, it's always been a "duh" sort of thing to me, but this presentation left me shaking my head and saying "wow...beat that!"

Good stuff, thought I'd share.

Happy Versetzen,

[Tony_Indurante]

I'm of the flat parry school myself, and after seeing the evidence for it I just can't see a reason to use your edge, as the flat just works better. That said, the explanation in the 1.2 class, alongside actually using the described parries, left me with the same "clear as day" feeling.

I find the "it doesn't matter" argument flawed. The whole reason you train is so that in the moment of crisis you have the proper skill trained to the lizard-brain to react correctly. When your life is on the line, you have a correct response, not a panic reaction- so obviously it matters how you train.

Additionally, I can’t see how using the edge to parry has anything that makes it superior to using the flat. Using the flat not only protects the cutting edge, it also brings the resilient part of the blade where it needs to be- resisting the cutting part of the other sword. Also, when I receive a blow to my flat, or when my opponent receives my blow to their flat, not only is much of the energy of the blow immediately dissipated but the attacker usually ends up with his blade off-line, making it harder for the attacker to recover or redirect his blade and easier for the defender to counter attack in safety. I did not find the same reaction when you parry with the edge- though ymmv.

If you have no advantage to using the edge to parry, why would you train to use it that way?

[George Turner]

There's even another consideration, coming from the amount of practice that you do. When you start out, all actions are equally probable (sort of). As you train and practice, you start building and reinforcing the habits of what and how to do certain things. A beginning tennis player might think that they would volley the ball with the edge of their racquet if they couldn't get the face re-oriented in time. An experienced player has so many neurons and so much experience at hitting with the face of the racquet that the edge option probably couldn't occur in real-time. They would just miss the ball. The edge volley option would be totally outweighed by the huge and well-established motor circuitry that hits the ball with the racquet's face. One result of extensive training is that as long as the situation is familiar, you're very unlikely to do something completely random and different from what you've heavily trained for.

So the problem would become one of training to use the edge. To get into that habit, with speed and intent, would require practice, and practice would chew up many blades. Even if someone were willing to do it, would they find anyone else willing to chew through some of their own blades just to teach edge blocking to a newbie

However, edge blocks may have occurred in combat, especially because you're trying to put your opponent in some position that's hopefully unfamiliar to them, getting them open, off guard, and exposed. You're removing their control over the situation, so some of the collisions might be a bit random, as far as their own technique goes. Of course, on the flipside, if you've got your opponent open, exposed, and off guard, why the heck would you hit his blade, whatever its orientation? And would you ever want to do a hard edge block with a sharp, bronze blade?

George Turner
ARMA in KY

[Scott Anderson]

then there are those groups whos philosophy was never parry at all, that's what your shield is for. bronze age greeks for one, even flat parries are bad for bronze, with every blow it takes, or gives, it work hardens making it just that much more brittle.

just my two cents worth

SPA

[John_Clements]

Yes, true. Even without a shield this is still the philosophy with cutting blades. The idea is to displace by counter striking deflection if you can't avoid blows, and then only last actually recieve them on your weapon ---and it's here that the edge/parry debate exists, especially since later forms of European swordplay lost the counter-cut concept and actually came to advocate using the edge.

JC

[Jay Vail]

FYI, John, although you've probably already noticed, in Rector's Talhoffer, two flat parries are clearly shown. See plates 226 and 234.