Edge versus Flat parry...any new evidence?

[Randall Pleasant]

Mike

Myself, I feel the issue is more of an exercise in not seeing the forest because of the trees. I too use both the flat and the edge to parry (using parry in a very general sense for any type of displacement). However, I never find a <u>need</u> to parry edge-on-edge in order to perform any technique by any of the medieval masters. In fact, performing a technique using an edge-on-edge parry feels very un-natural to me.

In regard to Master Liechtenauer phrase "parries which do nothing but block are useless" what more represents this uselessness than tying up your blade edge-on-edge? An edge-on-flat parry leaves your blade aligned for a quick counterattack so that your parry was not useless. There are just no situations in which an edge-on-edge parry allows me to perform a technique more natural or counterattack better. Of course, it is always better to have no blade contact at all, which is why I like techniques suck as Nachreisen.

Please consider the following:

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.

First, in this technique you cannot cut directly at the adversary because he is in the Before and you are in the After. If you cut directly at the adversary his Zornhau will hit you before your Zornhau can land. Therefore, your Zornhau is aimed at the adversary's blade so as to displace it, which results in your long edge hitting the flat of his blade. This action will leave your short edge <u>perfectly aligned</u> for the quick short edge counter cut to the adversary behind his blade.

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.

As you well know, in a Zwerchhau counter to a vertical cut the idea is to have the countering blade displace the attacking blade by hitting its flat and catching its edge on the crossguard and allowing the countering blade to continue on to cut the attacker. In this technique, which is a counter to a Zwerchhau counter, once you recognize that you are being counter you change the direction of your cut from the adversary's head to your left side so that you vertical cut will "fall on his sword" and displace it. Since you are cutting a vertical cut to displace a horizontal cut your long edge will hit the flat of the adversary's blade. Again, you are left with very good blade alignment for performing the rest of the technique.

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.

This works almost exactly like the previous technique.


BTW, thanks very much for your work on Goliath. I am currently work primarily with your translation of Goliath and enjoying it very much. Again, thanks!

Respectfully,

[Guest]

Randall,

> Myself, I feel the issue is more of an exercise in not seeing the
> forest because of the trees. I too use both the flat and the edge
> to parry (using parry in a very general sense for any type of
> displacement). However, I never find a need to parry
> edge-on-edge in order to perform any technique by any of the
> medieval masters. In fact, performing a technique using an
> edge-on-edge parry feels very un-natural to me.

Actually, my point about forests and trees was that you can go into any fechtbuch and find a whole bunch of quotes which, taken in isolation, "prove" your point, and are therefore pointless. I then mocked myself by throwing out a bunch of rootless quotes which, taken in isolation are highly suggestive but prove nothing.

Thanks for helping me prove my theory correct. Even so, I will respond to your ripostes:

> Therefore, your Zornhau is aimed at the adversary's blade so as
> to displace it, which results in your long edge hitting the flat of his
> blade.

Sorry, my blade hits his incoming long edge. If it hits his flat, his zornhau was badly aimed. Zorn to zorn is edge to edge, anything else is not zorn to zorn, it is something else.

In the scheitel counter to zwerch, the initial impact will be at his long edge, if you hit on top on the flat, you (a) no nothing to stop his forward arc, leaving yourself exposed in the instant, (b) put your pivot point too high denying yourself half the "snap" of the pivot over, and (c) deny yourself the leverage to bring your quillons into the equation, which is very important in this manoevre.

In other cases, such as schielhau, an impact on flat that winds to an edge is indeed quite useful, and that wind to the edge puts your quillons out quite nicely blocking the glance - which may otherwise rap you on the knuckles.

Like I said, no hard and fast rule. It is neither edge nor flat, it is both, depending on the displacement being executed.

To be honest, I find this argument as useless as a Campbells soup spoon versus fork duet. Why does it keep rising from the grave?

> BTW, thanks very much for your work on Goliath. I am currently
> work primarily with your translation of Goliath and enjoying it very
> much. Again, thanks!

You're quite welcome. My translations are my contribution to our community and I'm happy people find them helpful.

Cheers,

-M

[Randall Pleasant]

Mike

I apologize for missing the point you were trying to make with the forests and trees. My ex-wife would tell you that I am quite good at missing points. <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" /> I am sorry that you feel that this discussion is useless. If for nothing else, this discussion has us talking about how we perform given techniques. Given that none of us can be 100% sure how a given technique was really performed in the past, a discussion such as this is always of some value. Please view any of my comments only as discussion and not as an attack on you or your knowledge. Your reputation, character, and knowledge are well known and well respected within ARMA.

In regard to the Left Zornhau counter to a Left Zornhau you state:

Sorry, my blade hits his incoming long edge. If it hits his flat, his zornhau was badly aimed. Zorn to zorn is edge to edge, anything else is not zorn to zorn, it is something else.

In this technique it can be assumed that the adversary's Left Zornhau is aimed at my upper right body and is performed at a distance that will allow his blade to cut deeply into my body. I could indeed perform a Zornhau that results in an edge-on-edge parry. However, 1) I would have to perform the Zornhau in a manner so that my hilt is much lower than my point and 2) I will not produce the body position on the adversary like that shown in Image 3 of Goliath (which is shown below). On the other hand, if I perform a full arm Zornhau with good intent my strike will 1) result in an edge-on-flat parry and 2) displace the adversary's blade hard enough to force his blade over, leaving the adversary in a cross-arm position with his short edge up, and leaving my blade with the short edge up and aligned for the counter cut. In Image 3 of Goliath, which is associated with this technique, we see that the adversary has been forced into a cross-arm position and is receiving a short edge cut to his head. I am assuming that the man on the right made a left pass on the counter Zornhau and is now making a right pass witht his short edge cut. At this point I must say that I have not done testing to see if I can actually perform an edge-on-edge parry that will force the adversary into a the cross-arm position. I have on a number of occasions force the adversary into the cross-arm position using the edge-on-flat parry in this technique.

Since we know the outcome of this technique should result in the adversary having a body position similar to that shown in Image 3 we can test this with the following:

Hypothesis: When performed as an edge-on-edge parry, a Left Zornhau counter to a Left Zornhau will force the adversary into a cross-arm position.

Null Hypothesis: When performed as an edge-on-flat parry, a Left Zornhau counter to a Left Zornhau will force the adversary into a cross-arm position.

<center>

</center>

In regard to the Scheitelhau counter to a Zwerchhau you state:

...the initial impact will be at his long edge, if you hit on top on the flat, you (a) no nothing to stop his forward arc, leaving yourself exposed in the instant, (b) put your pivot point too high denying yourself half the "snap" of the pivot over, and (c) deny yourself the leverage to bring your quillons into the equation, which is very important in this manoevre.

You are right in that the initial contact will be along his edge. However, my edge will be coming from the side of his edge, not straight on with his edge. Note that Greg Mele and I concluded on the SFI forum that it is possible that some of what he considers an edge-on-edge I consider an edge-on-flat. A vertical cut counters a horizontal cut in the same manner that a horizontal cut counters a vertical cut. Thus, my Scheitelhau to my left side (I am only trying to defeat his counter, not cut him) will either knock his blade down so that it will be traveling down (missing my body) rather than in a forward arc or his edge will catch on my long edge quillon.

Let me end by saying that I welcome comments from all scholars regardless of their view point on this subject. While we will probably not change each other's mind on this subject I cannot help but think that we will learn a lot in the process of discussion.

Most respectfully,

[Guest]

Ran wrote: "ARMA members were able to perform all of the techniques with edge-on-flat parrying with really no effort or concentration"

I agree. Constant practice of flat parrying brings the scholar to a point of no effort or concentration when using the flat to parry. It's very natural to me IMO. It's like throwing up a wall. I often here the agruement from folks who insists on using edge on edge. I don't feel these folks train with an expensive replica and/or conduct real test cutting or parry against someone cutting real intent. IMO.

Sure you can do it all day with a waster or those god awful heavy stage weapons with no damage but using a good $300-$500 replica and you will end up with a sword that can not cut properly and a loss of money <img src="/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" /> . As John says "move material aside". You end up with a useless tool with knicks along the edge.

Cheers,

Todd
http://www.armanortheast.com/Inter%20Event%20Front.htm

[Guest]

Hi Todd,

> I agree. Constant practice of flat parrying brings the scholar to a
> point of no effort or concentration when using the flat to parry. It's
> very natural to me IMO.

Oh, I don't disagree, displacements on the flat are definitely valid and I do deploy them as opportunity allows. I just don't think 100% of versetzen is on the flat. Both the long and short edges play a definite and indispensable role, not just the flat, and the treatises confirm this if you read them with an open mind.

What I take issue with is when someone pops into a fechtbuch with the goal of finding data that matches their hypothesis and glosses over or even distorts data that does not agree with their preconceptions. This is not a sound method of analysis, in fact it's flawed. One must keep an open mind so as not to get bent out of shape by something unexpected.

So instead of reading a fechtbuch or other treatise with the goal of finding evidence that supports flat versus edge or any other point of contention, why not just read the fechbuch and see what it says, period? Prejudice is a form of blindness after all.

Mit freundlichen grüssen,

-M

[John_Clements]

I should have been clearer, I am referring to use of a single sword alone, whether one or two handed. The combination of coordinating two weapons, naturally, allows for diffferent defenses by its very nature. Yet even there, this is either as two simulataneous actions performed as one movement, or as two seperate actions seperated by time --which arguably can be called...two seperate actions.

JC

[John_Clements]

The three short Englih sword texts of the 15th century make several uses of terms that are identical to ones found in German works, such as round strike, double round strike, rake, and others, so we have logically interpreted them in a manner that is consitsant with the German school, as my article last year n the subject decribes. The results were very consistant with the German methods.

JC

[John_Clements]

Mike said:
"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."

This is true.
Yet, we still must make the distinction, especially for new students, as to what is meant by "parry", as in not a rigid block, but a deflection of an oncoming strike by counter-cutting at it. This is far different than merely holding your blade out there to receive a blow on your edge with theirs ---which is indeed the later style of 18th &amp; 19th century dui tempo (i.e., "sabresque") blocking that we continualy point out there is no evidence for in earlier fencing with cutting swords, what Joachim Meyer called Aufangen and warned against. It is the whole heart of disagreements on the issue we feel.

JC

[John_Clements]

Miek wrote:
"Sorry, my blade hits his incoming long edge. If it hits his flat, his zornhau was badly aimed. Zorn to zorn is edge to edge, anything else is not zorn to zorn, it is something else."

We here this often. I understand how it can seem this way if you just cut the same way at them. But we still confidently disagree.
In 2000 at the SSi event in Houston I demonstrated for the audience countercutting a strong zonrhau with another strong zornhau using steel blades and showed that by changing the timing, and by aiming not at their blade but at the person, you indeed can end up hitting edge on flat, thereby deflecting their weapon strongly and simultaneously cutting them.

This is what we practice and teach.
I showed this several times as well just recently in Provo to more than a dozen students using wasters, as well. It only takes timing. We do it all the time and have for years.
What more can I say?

JC

[Mike Cartier]

I agree we must keep an open mind and not try to only validate from manuals, and i also agree that flat is not ALWAYS the only way to parry, however that being said.....
flat parry is to me the far superior method, from my own humble experiences anyway. Does that mean you should only ever use the flat? I would say no, but only under the special circumstances that would make that more advantageous, whatever they may be.

Hit the sword with the flat, hit the person with the edge

I think this is still a useful discussion , but as many realize its not about parrying but countercutting.

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

[Shane Smith]

I agree that two zornhaus thrown in opposition by the combatants will indeed ideally end up with an edge-to-flat parry and a subsequent set-aside to completion.When I perform this maneuver in free-play,I usually end up with a gliding 45degree parry along my opponents blade which simultaneously displaces his weapon from the line and strikes home to either the arms or head...I actually have to make a concious effort to do otherwise whereas the glide along the flat of the opposing blade is a natural for me.

I've never seen any value to conciously "parrying" a zornhau(or any other cut for that matter) with a hard, edge-on action.The time required to rotate the wrists for a cut from that position strikes me as a tactical liability whereas when I strike his flat I can simply ride his blade with no additional effort. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Shane Smith]

Good points Mike! I am in total agreement with you on the "no parry for all occasions" theme. I tend to LARGELY favor the flat for general purpose use,but I will readily concede that on comparatively rare occasions,it just doesn't happen that way. Whether it's a tactical error on my part,or a simple act of chance,the edge does get a bit of work from time to time at my hands. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> I've still got a bit of fine-tuning to do on my work at the hilt it seems. <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi John,

Interesting,

Rather than resort to foreign sources, we used Silver's instructions on the short staff to help us interpret English shortsword as Silver says the fight of the longsword is that of the short staff. (quarterstaff). The interpretation I have seen looks nothing like German longsword, involves lots of one handed actions, and indeed looks alot more like quarterstaff, particularly in it's methods of feinting which are in second intention.

The primary difference is this. The German practitioner looks to attack cut his opponent. He knows full well that a bind is often a likely result. As such he accepts the bind and moves to use sentivity and leverage to kill the other guy from the bind.

The English method is IMHO different. The Englishman makes his attack to draw a parry and then alters the attack by either speeding it up, slowing it down or changing it's line to still get the hit.
Cheers,
Stu.

[joelthompson1]

I don't think any new evidence would really help in this debate. Someone would surely argue against such evidence regardless of its validity. I see several types of arguments in this debate. We have people arguing that a certain plate in a manual shows edge parrying when, in fact, the plate does not actually show a parry at all. We have people saying that a master "means" this when he says that. We have people saying that either way works when they try it with a waster. We have people arguing that it is an edge parry when the edge of one sword strikes the flat of another. We have people agruing the point who do not actually spar. And there are various arguments involving actual indcidents of broken swords. And there are specific references, for example, the left zornhau defended by a left zornhau argument.
Great. Here's the problem (in my humble opinion, of course).
First, if you do not actually fight (spar, fence, engage, fight, call it what you will), then you really have no argument (no offense) because you cannot prove your point in the real world of three dimensions. Next, you must use steel. Wooden wasters or padded weapons bounce off each other and don't react the same way steel does. Steel blades slide against each other, they flex, they bend, their edges get nicks and burrs, and they sometimes break. So, if you don't fight with steel, your argument has no merit since it is unimportant to any medium save steel (again, no offense meant). We are speaking of parries on real swords here.
I think it is important to define an edge parry as one where the edges of both blades contact each other (not any other part of the sword or blade) in a static type of block in such a way that the energy behind one edge is countered or absorbed by the energy behind the other. Anything else is just that. Something else. If the two blades contact at 45 degrees as they move against each other in opposite directions (as in some "set aside" motions), then this is not a true edge to edge parry. I think this sort of thing leads to much of the disagreements. Likewise, if the two blades contact so that one is on edge and the other on flat, this is not a true edge to edge parry. Hopefully, all will agree that my definintion of a true edge-on parry is harmful to any blade and will lend itself to a broken sword.
Now, just for the heck of it, and not to pick on anyone, let's look at a specific example. There was a post expressing the opinion that a zorn versus a zorn is an edge parry. Let's go to the Segno. A left zornhau is a descending diagonal cut. Looking at the Segno in front of you, let's say it is from your left to your right. The defending zornhau is identical, except that it is generated by the opponent who is facing the other way. So, on our Segno, the cut is exactly opposite the first one. In other words, it is a downward diagonal moving form right to left. Obviously, the two swords (cuts, zornhaus) will meet at a 90 degree angle. Two 45's make 90. Now, let's look at blade orientation. To properly cut, the blade must be oriented so that the cutting edge travels along the same angle as the intended cut (zornhau) or at 45 degrees. If both blades are thusly oriented, it should be clear that when they meet, the two edges will be at 90 degrees to each other, and on opposite planes. Which means that unless they meet precisely at the exact midpoint of each diagonal with the two blades parallel (highly unlikely), the leading edge of one blade will contact the flat of the other. Not an edge to edge parry. Rather an edge to flat parry and a setting aside or a beating of a blade.
Bottom line, parrying on the flat or against the opponent's flat is the way to go. It makes sense, and it will save your blade. Yes, there will always be instances where a proper parry could not be generated. Improperly generated strikes, improper blade alignment by one fighter, etc. But these are exceptions and not the rule. We must go with the high percentage move. Parry on the flat. If you're one of those folks who don't wear seatbelts because you heard of someone being saved when they were thrown out of a car, then go for that edge parry. It keeps the vendors in business.
Finally, let me say that I have been a staged combat fighter for longer than I have been an ARMA member. My friends and I used to parry on the edge all the time. At one outing, we managed break six swords; two CAS Iberia and four Starfire (guaranteed not to break) swordlike objects. Over the years, we broke a lot of swords by many different makers. However, since I found ARMA and we began teaching everyone to parry on the flat, not one single sword has broken. NOT a coincidence.

Joel Thompson

[Guest]

Hi Shane,

Overall, I think we largely agree. I think we all see that no single element is applicable 100% of the time. This is my main point.

> I've still got a bit of fine-tuning to do on my work at the hilt it seems.

Well, I got a smithereened finger in October because I (a) didn't have a proper grip (fly-away finger), and (b) I forgot the edge-to-flat ride dynamic and got wacked on the right hand.

Where I find the flat dynamic most important is the glance/glide/slide/ride sort of deflection, where you *want* a smooth transition, but even here it's important to see how the quillons have a role to play - stopping the glide before your hands get hit by a sliding blade. This is done by winding to an edge from the flat.

Sometimes you want a hit'n'stick bind so you can use the instant lying spent to wind on the blade or fly off to another opening. In this case the slide dynamic of engaging on the flat will not help you, it may actually work against you.

If we look at a sword as an integrated weapons system where the offensive components are the point, long edge, short edge, cross, and pommel; and the defensive components are the point, long edge, short edge, flat, and cross; we see that there are many elements to work with and they all have their uses. To single one out as the best for all occasions is, in my opinion, denying yourself a full view of the bigger picture.

Or, as I said in another forum, never discount something until and unless it is proven useless through testing and experimentation. I think we all agree on this point.

Cheers,

-M