Edge versus Flat parry...any new evidence?

[Shane Smith]

There is much heated debate concerning this subject among our fellow Swordsmen.We as a community seem to be perpetually divided on this issue mainly due to a lack of credible evidence.As all of the available research that touches on this subject is getting a bit dated in my opinion,I'm wondering if any additional/recent research of the source-texts has turned up any hard evidence in support of either the edge-on or flat parry in MEDIEVAL swordsmanship with the longsword or sword? I know what I think,but it sure would be nice to prove it or have it dis-proven definitively by the Masters themselves. If we can find the evidence,we can put this baby to bed once and for all <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Shane,

My 2 cents is this. If folks are set in thier ways from watching hollywood stage combat where they use edge on edge parrying and attack each other swords then I'm afraid there is not much you can do to make them understand what is historically accurate.

For me the anwser to the question "evidence on using the flat vs the edge to parry" is this....simply look at fechtbuch images in many of the manuals and you will see with your own eyes they are using the flat to parry. The manuals images speak directly to you showing a flat parry to set aside. The 15th Century Fechtbuch Goliath is a very good example. You have to go to the direct historical source and that is where the anwser is! <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />



[image]

“You must learn the art of setting aside so that his cuts and thrusts may be broken.”
- Master Sigmund Ringeck, 15th century



John's essay: http://www.thearma.org/essays/parrying.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/parry.htm

Thoughts?

Todd

[Guest]

Well, I think it's clear that all the medieval masters taught that it was better to displace, set aside, void and counter with proper footwork than to parry at all. When parrying is the appropriate or only option however, anyone who has tried it knows (whether they will admit it or not) that an edge parry stops the movement of both blades, making the fluid, instant transition into a counterattack (which virtually all the masters seem to have taught) impossible. It is clear that in general parrying with the flat is a more effective way to fence. Examination of fechtbuch images bear this out many times as do the text in some cases. My question would then be, based on the fact that extensive experimentation has shown flat parrying to be extremely effective and efficient, and this seems to be supported by the fechtbuchs to at least some degree, where is the evidence for edge parrying? I've seen none.

[Shane Smith]

Thats the problem as I see it.While I fully agree that the flat is the best plane of the blade to parry with, until the evidence is found in the Masters own words,we will not see a resolution to this issue in the WMA community at large. <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Shane Smith]

Todd, I agree that the illustrations in the source-texts do support our commonly held interpretation (Indeed, I have used that as evidence on more than one occasion with "non-believers" <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> ),however, there are those that will not be convinced until someone can point to "Y" statement in "X" manual.That is what I'm convinced must be found in order to resolve the question once and for all. Where is it??!! <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" /> If it was deemed to be of critical importance,it seems reasonable that the Masters would have seen fit to describe this aspect in one passage or another of their works. ... <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Randall Pleasant]

Todd Sullivan

My 2 cents is this. If folks are set in their ways from watching Hollywood stage combat where they use edge on edge parrying and attack each other swords then I'm afraid there is not much you can do to make them understand what is historically accurate.

Todd

Very true. We all have biases, developed through our life experiences, that affect how we analyze Historical documents. As you noted, the majority (but not all) of the edge-on-edge people have a background in theater and/or re-enactment. They engage primarily in dashing swordplay with rules as either a theatrical play or as a sport rather than in swordfighting without rules. Thus, most of them tend to analyze the Historical documents from the view point of actors - even if they don't intend to do so! Some of them do play rough and hard, however, it is still unrealistic non-historical swordplay. On the other hand, many (if not most) ARMA members have some type of military or law-enforcement background. Some of us who have taken first place in the real world still have bad dreams about what second place looks like. Very few ARMA scholars appear to have a background in theater and/or re-enactment. Thus, I think most ARMA scholars tend to analyze the Historical Manuals from the view point of soldiers. Soldier during the firearm era have known to "keep their power dry". Likewise, I believe that medieval soldiers knew to keep their edges sharp and protected - their lives depended upon it.

[Bart Walczak]

Todd,

I hate to disappoint you but unfortunately while looking at the pictures you can prove almost anything...

The first two you attached, which come from Duerer's fechtbuch, do not prove anything at all when you apply the context to them - and they are illustrations to certain techniques described in Codex Wallerstein, which scarcely are "parries"...

So as usual - be careful...

[Guest]

Quoted from John Clement's article "The Myth Of Edge On Edge Parrying In Medieval Swordplay": "the Von Bauman version of the mid 15th century Codex Wallerstein more than once specifically instructs to defend by setting aside blows mit der flech (or mit de Flache) &amp;#8211; that is literally, &amp;#8220;with the flat&amp;#8221;. " You can't get much more specific than that. There is more evidence in the rest of the article, I strongly recommend anyone who hasn't read it check it out:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm

[Jared L. Cass]

Now, provided the translation is correct: At www.schielhau.org /Meyer, page 22 under the heading Hanging it states, "From the preceeding, Hanging is to be understood clearly, this you do thusly: When you stand in the plough, and your opponent strikes to you, drive your grip above you so that the blade hangs somewhat toward the ground, and take his strike thus on your blade's flat, to then work with Winding to the next opening."

It can't get much clearer than that! <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Jared L. Cass, Wisconsin

[Guest]

Your right Bart, henceforth "interpitation" <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

In these images I see flat touching flat or flat touching edge. I don't see 2 edges touching each other and the artist certainly has not drawn any of the sword blades (which would appear as a thin black line) facing the reader.

My other point is this: Perhaps using the flat was just common knowledge during the time periods and people simply used the flat to set aside and didn't need to write it down?

[GaryGrzybek]

This is how I've been looking at it too Todd but of course we cannot only rely on images.

The part that burns me up is those folks who say "Well, the Masters didn't say which part of the blade to use so it probably didn't matter"

I just don't buy that <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[Shane Smith]

Matt,indeed it does say to parry with the flat in the Codex Wallerstein,but I have read that text in full and it is pertaining to the use of the messer,not the longsword or sword. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[Shane Smith]

Excellent link Jared! Thats not quite a MEDIEVAL longsword text,but man,that sure is getting close.If the translation is accurate,this is interesting indeed...

[Bart Walczak]

Hi Todd,

Other people in the "mordschlag" pictures (Duerer, and Talhoffer) see the evidence for hard edge-to-edge block... Not that I'm one of them, but really, they do <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Take a look at some very strange Talhoffer interpretations in Germany... ouch... <img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" />

The very first action (Duerer, where the guy thrusts into another's belly) is in CW labelled nach, and I can assure you that the contact in there is edge against flat. It's not a parry...

The second one is not a parry too. It results from a footwork feint...

In my opinion the whole parry issue is way overblown and it is so miniscule part of medieval swordsmanship, that it is a wonder it got so much attention... <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

How's this for evidence: In August of last year, Stage Right Theatre Company (formerly based out of Sugar House Utah) performed a production of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. I volunteered my services as fight director. There are three fights scenes in said play, and I choregraphed each, utilizing authentic Medieval technques and footwork. I lent them two of my Del Tins, and intructed them in their proper use, including using the flat to set aside blows. Needless to say, the knuckleheads used the flat to "parry" during practice, whilst I was there, but during the actual running of the production, they conveniantly forgot. My bastard and longsword came back all gouged. as I use these two for blunt work now, it doesn't bother me too much...but it did when I got them back. Before the production, they were nice. Afterwards...that's another story. The flat is obviously the bit to use to parry.