Edge versus Flat parry...any new evidence?

[Guest]

Brandon and Bart,

I would make them pay for 2 new Del Tins and "yes" Bart the flat on flat is overblown. If folks want to bang up there edges then I say have at it. I guess it's one's taste but flat is the way to go.

Brandon: The misuse of your swords is a very good example of why not to edge on edge. Sorry to hear about it.

Todd

[Guest]

I do have one consolation: in a critique of the production, the swordsmanship was said to be the only good thing about it. Thanks.
It amazes me that some people are still up in the clouds about this issue. What amazes me more is that one very prominent individual (whom I shall not name) claims that opposing with the flat will result in your BREAKING YOUR SWORD.

[Shane Smith]

I read that bit about the broken sword too...What is he thinking? <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Probably this isn't new, but sure it's on topic. In the Arma fencing manuals section there is an Hutton's work, Cold Steel I think, that shows a broad sword St. George guard of 1730, in this case the flat is offered to the blows the guard itself is meant to stop. Now, why should one offer the flat when he is going to turn his hand and parry with the edge? While not direct evidence, this leads to the reasonably probable deduction of flat parry.
From a logical point of vew
If flat parry can be deduced with good probabilities from many instances, it agrees with common sense and swords do not show signs of edge parries,if edge parry is not supported by direct evidence and it's not so probably deduced from many instances, the match has been won, no need for a K.O.

[Guest]

I've read your post with attention, now I do not mean to be boring but it seems to me that you are asking to an age something it could not produce. To make a long story short, and not to make you snore, european medieval culture could produce evidence of two kinds: authority (in the religious doctrine field) and formal demonstration in math.
It's a matter of fact that great importance was given to the debate over the nature of Eucharist and that Berengarius of Tours went to jail while his prosecutor, st. Pier Damiani, became saint, and that while the syllogism was dissected and explained to nausea, almost no one could make an expletative picture. Medicine itself was based on the "authority" concept because no one could dissect a dead body. Asking for "evidence" to the medeval culture is asking too much. Better fate can have a claim for evidence to the renaissance and post renaissance period, but there is one fact to be considered: one instance of evidence is just one case! Giving for granted that edge OR flat parries were taught, during the centuties of the sword, can lead to give the single instance of evidence too much importance. Did one find a picture showing an edge parry, why should the fencing community ignore all the reasons that promote the flat parry? Isn't it possible that edege parries were used and even taught by a minority of uninformed over the years? Renaissance spirit is chaotic as much as medieval spirit is formal an pious, the art of explanation was not perfected yet, in Di Grassi we find geometry and personal opinions cooperating in the demonstration of the validity of a fencing style, we can see that fencing masters contradicted each other (Saviolo-Silver), during an age like this evidence might be easier to come by than coherence of the whole fencing community.
I think we should stop thinking that one day evidence will be produced that will SHOW the truth about parries' execution, because evidence is always subject to interpretation, the medieval period is stingy, the renaissance period could even give contradictory evidence. I'd rather trust the good reasons for one thesis (flat parry) as long as they're many and sound, other than ask for unrefutable evidence to be provided by the european culture of the periods involved.

[Jay Vail]

Nice illustrations, Todd.

I'd also add there is evidence for the flat parry from Rector's Talhoffer, plates 240, 252, 259, 234, 226, 224. These are plates of combat with the small or one-handed sword or messer. In several, the defence against the oberhau to the defender's left is performed with the knuckles of the sword hand pointing toward the sky, what Talhoffer calls the "turned around hand." If you try this, you will find that your blade contacts the enemy's on the flat rather than the edge. There is no advantage to doing a parry this way unless you are trying to avoid edge-to-edge contact. I'd post the pictures if I had website access. Maybe someone else can do it.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Guys,

I have been lurking here for quite some time and haven't had much reason to post until now. Some of you know me from other forums however in brief I am a member of the Stoccata School of Defence in Sydney and also an accredited Kalis Illustrisimo instructor.

This post is in response to Jay's post that parrying with the hand turned around has no advantage over a simple parry whether flat or otherwise.

This is simply not true. The parry with the hand reversed is a form of ceding parry.
Having the hand reversed allows you to control the opponents blow and the "twitch" around to the outside line in a very fast fashion that a simple parry (whether edge or flat) does not allow.

My hypothesis here is backed up by the fact that in the very next plate this is exactly what happens and also by the fact that this very same method (called Cadena Real) is found in the Illustrisimo system.

About flat vs edge in opposing the adversary's sword. I am firmly in the camp that recognizes two very important factors.

1. There is no universal method of parrying that applies to all weapons. Eg. I believe that 15th Century Messer manuals show almost exclusively flat redirections because this is the most effective manner of wielding the particular weapon. I believe that Silver's single sword method involves almost all edge stops because this is the best method of wielding an English Basket Hilted Sword.

Edge vs Flat doesn't seem to matter in German Longsword because most of your defences are countercuts where you are attempting to attack you opponent in single time. As the defence is only a part of the counterattack, your concentration should be on cutting the other guy, not protecting your sword.

In closing I would say that it is impossible to make generalisations about defensive actions with the sword as there are many types of swords, many (sometimes contradictory) systems for their use and many types of defences within each system.

I look forward to further debate on this fine forum, particularly if people start posting on the unarmed forum where much of my interest lies.
Regards,
Stuart McDermid
Stoccata School of Defence, Sydney Australia.

[Randall Pleasant]

Stuart

Good to see you here and thanks for expressing an alternative view on this subject.

I must respectfully disagree with you in regard to whither or not edge-on-flat matter in German Longsword. Period art of battles often shows broken swords. Given the up-close-and-personal nature of a sword I personally believe that a broken sword during any type of battle almost always resulted in the death of its owner.

Although it is not "evidence", what has not been expressed clearly by ARMA members in regard to using edge-on-flat parrying (I'm using parrying in a very general manner) is how natural it is to use. If I might dare to speak for most ARMA members (hit me in the head in private email only please <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" /> ), once we start using edge-on-flat parrying we really <u>do not have to concentrate</u> on doing it. It just comes naturally. For example, last August (2002) serveral ARMA members, including myself, attended Bob Charron's class on Fiore. I noticed that the non-ARMA people were performing edge-on-edge parrying when practicing the different techniques. On the other hand, the ARMA members were able to perform <u>all</u> of the techniques with edge-on-flat parrying with really no effort or concentration. Although many of the Fiore techniques were new to most of us, we already had the muscle memory that allowed us to perform parrying actions with/against the flat. The difference in how ARMA members performed the techniques were very slight from the way in which the techniques were demonstrated by Bob. Most often it involved only a very slight angle change in the path of our blades. I don't think Bob ever even noticed that ARMA members were doing exclusively edge-on-flat parrying. The other reason why using edge-on-flat is so second-nature to those who use it is that our blades are almost always aligned for a follow up cut. For a simple example, if an adversary cuts a Zornhau at me when I am in Pflug then I can make a short edge cut that will hit his blade on the flat, displacing it, while leaving my blade aligned for a quick counter cut. There is no real thinking in these actions.

I have followed a number of your discussions on unarmed techniques. I look forward to follow them on this forum too.

[Jay Vail]

Stuart, respectfully, I think you'll find you can perform the "twitch" counterattack as easily with an edge on parry as with the turned-around-hand against the oberhau arriving from your left. Give it a try. We used to do the analog of the edge on parry of the same kind in escrima and could "twitch" the weapon as easily. I've just tried it with my waster and don't notice any appreciable difference of speed or force between one blocking method and another in leading to the counter.

This does not change the central point that Talhoffer clearly appears to depict a parry with the flat.

I would also point out that the Talhoffer plates depict the same block, the turned-around hand, for messer *and* single sword. It appears that Talhoffer is prescribing the identical technique regardless of weapon. Thus the argument that a flat parry is prescribed for the messer because of some inherent characteristic of the blade lacks force.

I would finally add that I am not a dogmatist on the use of the edge over the flat. Men will use what they need to use to save their lives regardless of damage to the tool. But much of the evidence from most of the fechtbuchen appears to point to the use of the flat as the ideal method.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Jay,

Your experience is completely contrary to mine in this regard. Have you tried this parry with steel?

The forearm and wrist are cocked for the action in this position and the position of the blade allows the attack to blow through it. You gain the outside line without making any additional movements and are fully "bent" for the counter. If you make the parry in an orthodox fashion then you have to make the twitch happen yourself.
Cheers,
Stu.

[John_Clements]

I must disagree. I think my bright young friend Bart is somewhat wrong here on the parry issue being overblown. The question is indeed significant for modern students' understanding. But it has been somewhat distorted. The real issue is that Medieval and Renaissance fencing simply did not use the “dui tempo” (double time) method of familiar parry and riposte swordplay style that is so common in stage-combat derived from the sport saber and 19th century military broadswords (itself based more on 18th century smallsword fencing styles than any earlier systems). The whole concept of rigid blocking actions where you hold your blade out there and let your edge get banged is precisely what is absent in Medieval and Renaissance fencing. Educating people in the deflecting &amp; displacing techniques that the source manuals teach is the real issue (as I know Bart also agrees) and in this sense, yes, it is in my opinion a small (but vital) part of their overall teachings.

JC

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi John,

I can understand your point of view to a degree here applied to the German (and possibly Italian?) Longsword but cannot apply this as a blanket statement to all weapons of a time period of hundreds of years across a large number of countries with differing weapons.

Di Grassi is a good example of a master that shows both single time and double time defences.

Di Grassi shows counterthrusts with an inverted hand against the thrust however his primary defence against the cut is to step off the line to the left, knock the incoming blade upwards with his false edge and then return a cut/thrust to the face. I fail to see how the latter can be interpreted as a single time defence.

So John, what is your take on the inverted hand messer parry in Talhoffer 1467? Do you think as I do that it helps one to gain the outside line?
Cheers,
Stu.

[John_Clements]

I think the double time method begins with the lighter foyning weapons, and had no role with earleir cutting blades.

Yes, I think the inverted hand positions may be trying to show how you can make a deflection and quick follow up cut. If you try these things with steel and contact play you can work them, and with sharp blades on test targets you can make good cuts.

JC

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi John,

1.33 (which is a Stoccata specialty and the earliest fencing manual extant) shows moves that are definitely double time defences. The sword is used to parry, the bind is transferred to the buckler and the followup is then made with the sword.

Interestingly, Silver shows almost exactly the same counter only he begins the move from "true guardant" rather than "priests special" ward.

I really don't see how a blanket statement like "I think the double time method begins with the lighter foyning weapons, and had no role with earleir cutting blades." can apply to all weapons from all countries in a given period.

There is a good reason to make a single time defence with a German Longsword. These weapons are long enough to make the single time response viable and necessary.

German fechtmessers and longswords of Silver's length are not. Having seen what I believe to be a very good interpretation of a couple of the English longsword texts done by a good friend of mine, the attacks are mostly in second intention as the parries are done as stops.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Guest]

Gents,

I really think this excersize is like looking for individual trees in the forest and then saying, "Aha, an oak! Therefore all trees in this forest are oaks!" I also think individual citation of evidence without supplying the context is pointless.

The main thing to remember, at least with longsword, is what Liechtenauer said, and I paraphrase, "parries which do nothing but block are useless." The German system stresses the counterattack and counterthreat. What you should look at is the blade dynamic for all the various elements and see that some use the flat, some use the long edge, and some use the short edge. There is no hard and fast rule, it all depends on the situation, how you're placed, and what you're facing.

Now, just to quote a few of the Master's verses:

---
Nachreisen: Learn Travelling After twofold or cut in the defense.

Handtrucken: Your edge wound to flat hits the hands.

Zornhau: If he strikes high to your head with the long edge from his left shoulder, then do the same, onward if he then stays strong on the sword, then drive your arms quickly and slash with the short edge behind his sword's blade to his head.

Zwerchhau: When you stand against him in the guard of the roof then strike high to his head, if he then springs from the strike and means to come forward with a traversing strike by slashing to the left side of your head, then let your sword's long edge fall on his sword, if he then slashes across over to the other side, just then slash your sword ahead traversing under his sword to his throat so that he cuts himself with your sword.

Break against Zwerchhau: When he slashes you with a Traverse from his right side high to your head's left, then displace with the long edge and stay with the point in front of the chest, if he then slashes from the sword over with a traverse to your lower right opening, then you also strike a traverse through low between you and also to his right side, and bind thus on his sword and stab just then to his lower opening.
---

(Source = Goliath)

Actually, every time I'm asked the question, "Do you parry on the flat or with the edge?" my answer is "Yes."

Cheers,

-M


[color="$1"] [/color] [color="$1"] [/color]