Edge versus Flat parry...any new evidence?

[Shane Smith]

Hello Mike!.You are absolutely correct when you point out the cross-guard and pommels utility for those seeking to move to hand-work from the stoppe.We incorporate that into our sessions as a matter of course. To do otherwise would surely lead to a false understanding and an incomplete Art.Thanks for bringing that in to the debate! You see guys...It's NOT all about the sharp bit in our endevour when it comes to controlling the fight!

[Guest]

An humorous tale about edge on edge parry: five years ago I decided to practice medieval swormanship, so I built two padded great swords of five pounds and bought a video (I won't say which video) that tought edge on edge parry. I did not know John's books at the time. Well, to figure out how I looked, imagine Ghimli younger, at age 23, and slimmer, with a shorter beard, now put in his hands a sword that stands from his feet to his mouth, you got the picture of the small man with the big sword who did not know what he was doing.
This sorry animal found a companion who was as big as a gorilla (not the same guy I spar with now) and they proceded to practice blows and parries, after he parried some strong fendenti form the massive sword, edge on edge, the small man started to feel pain in his tumb joint, but he could not give up! 20 minutes later your hero would not have been able to use his strong hand to clean his butt. It was a matter of practice of course! I just had to build up the corns, so I started to beat on heavy objects with sticks, practised edge on edge banging with more intensity, swords broke, my hands hurted like hell...

One day I bought a book written by a Texan guy, when I read about setting blows aside, flat versus edge etc... I thought: "Ah, ecco!" ("Ah, here we are!").

I even managed to realize that I was better off with a smaller sword.

[Guest]

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.

As a stage combat practitioner and choreographer, I think I can explain this in simple terms that do not at all relate to edge versus flat. Theatrical weapons typically take more abuse (and repeated abuse in the same places, coincidentally) than any historical weapons were ever designed to take. This is for a multitude of reasons, not least of which is that most actors are untrained and use the swords without any real control. Were they to fight with the same lack of control using their flats (instead of thier edges), the blades would still break from time to time.

Cheers,

[Hans Heim]

Hello together,

I personally think that the discussion about parry with the flat or parry with the edge has attached too much importance.

We come here to a very important point which a friend of mine from France had made clear for me; we are talking here only about techniques, not about principles.

Yes, there are some techniques in which you displace “versetzen” with the flat (at least with the Langes Messer, or later even with the longsword) but there are also examples for displacing with the true edge:


Aus Doebringer:

Auch sal eyner guter fechter / vol lernen / eyme an das swert komen und das mag / her wol tuen / mit den vorsetczen / wen dy komen aus den vier hewen / von itzlicher seiten / eyn o[e]berhaw und eyn u[e]nderhaw / Und gen yn dy vier hengen wen als bald als eyner vorsetzt von unden / ader von oben / so sal her czu hant yn dy hengen komen / Und als her mit der vo[e]rdern sneiden / alle hew und stiche abewendet / als ist es mit den vorsetczen /


Also should a good fencer learn how to contact the sword and this he may do with the
displacement, because they (the displacement) come out of the four cuts from every side one cut from above and one cut from below and went into the four hanging (the Ochs and the Pflug) every time someone displaces from below or from above so he should go immediately into the hanging and as he should set aside with true edge every cut or thrust this it is with the displacing.


Or even an example for being nearly totally passive.

Aus J.Meyer

Merck derwegen anfenglich das des Versetzens zweyerley ist / das erste ist da du ohn allen sondern vortheil / gemeniglich nur aus forcht versetzest / in welchem du nichts anders thust / dann mit deinem Wehr / so du deinem gegenfechter entgegen heltst die streich die von im beschehen aufffahest / auch nit begerest ihn zu beschedigen / allein benüget an dem / wie du ohn schaden von ihm abziehen mögest.

Remember that the displacing happens at first in two different ways, the first that you displace without advantage for you, only because of fear, here you do nothing else then to hold your weapon towards your enemy and catch with it the cuts from him, without trying to hurt him, you only try to go away from him without being hurt.


But this are only techniques, the important thing is, that we should learn the concept behind the techniques. The techniques are made for learning the concepts, for teaching the concepts for our understanding of the concepts.

One of the concepts of Lichtenauer is: Be in the “VOR”, if you are in the “NACH” do everything what is useful to get out of the “NACH” to get back in the “VOR”.

If this to use the flat, o.k. use the flat, if this is to use the edge, o.k. use the edge. So what?

I have never seen written in the manuals: “Only use the flat of your blade for displacing.”

and

I have also never seen written in the manuals: “Only use the edge of your blade for displacing “

Why? It was not worth for the master to write it down, because they don’t care about it.

We here in ARMA use only the flat for displacing, this is o.k. for me, but we have to realise, that this is only a technique.

For us it is the best technique, it is so good for us that we decided to be or principle of displacing. But it is not the concept of displacing from the manuals, it is only one possibility one technique out of the manuals.

Hans

[Guest]

Hallo Hans! Wie geht es? Hello to the rest of you too.

> If this to use the flat, o.k. use the flat, if this is to use the edge, o.k. use the
> edge. So what?
>
> I have never seen written in the manuals: “Only use the flat of your blade
> for displacing.”
>
> and
>
> I have also never seen written in the manuals: “Only use the edge of your
> blade for displacing “

You are exactly right, there is no issue. You use what is right for the task at hand. Some of the elements are with the edge, others the flat, some void altogether, and in some you throw your sword away and end up in a grapple. It all depends on the situation.

An allusion was made to a certain Italian video, I believe I have a copy as well. What you see there is not displacing, it is blocking and, yes, their blades are very notched and saw toothed, no surprise. If all you do is block the attack, then I don't care what you use, flat or edge, a block does nothing but keep you in the nach. Your Meyer quote says that quite plainly.

A sword that just blocks absorbs all of the kinetic energy of the oncoming attack. This is where notched and broken blades come from. A redirection or deflection, be it with flat or edge, redirects that energy without absorbing it all into the sword and swordsman. This is partially why the longsword masters said that parries which do nothing more than block are next to useless.

If you apply the master principles and, when parrying, always try to deflect and counter, not block, the whole issue is moot. There are principles for every aspect of the weapon. After all, the master strikes are neither offensive nor defensive, they are both and represent the five main principles of displacement.

With that in mind, flat versus edge in parrying, particularly with longsword, is a pointless (sic) argument. There are too many dynamics of displacing, redirection, and deflection to state that one element is the best element. In fact if you bog yourself into a preconceived mindset that "this is the way" and all others are cr*p, you risk missing the lessons the masters taught.

It is far too early in the game to entrench ourselves into closed, static, unbending mindsets. Let's try to keep our minds open. We'll learn more that way.

-M

[joelthompson1]

OK. Let me try one last time to make my point here. Mike, my point is that most references seem to point to parrying an edge against a flat or a flat against an edge. Hanging, displacing, what have you. Perhaps, part of the problem is the usage of the words parry and block. I use them interchangeably. I don't think any manuals say to parry an edge cut with your edge. Yes, there are edge parries where the two edges slide against each other, but certainly not at a 90 degree angle. This is why I tried to define the term "edge parry". When your edge contacts your opponent's edge head on, that's an edge parry, and it isn't recommended by any master, and it will tear up your sword edge. Perhaps this is a definition of the term "block" if you wish to differentiate. I agree. When the two edges come together like this, the result is a "static" (perhaps the better term) parry or block. Sure, it happens in sparring, and it certainly happened in real fighting. But surely, no one trains this way as a viable technique.

[John_Clements]

There are a number of related issues to consider in all this. I’ll try to address some quickly. I am really swamped with things this week.

One of the most important elements t consider in interpreting of how to displace/parry is that unless you attempt to do them at high speed and with force, you simply will not get the proper result or deflection. From years of showing this and teaching this I have not doubt. (it’s one of the reasons we have so often had to disagree with people and then one them over once they are shown things in person). To perform a proper redirection of the oncoming blade requires sufficient oncoming energy. How the other blade responds and what body mechanics you need to use are dependent upon using adequate force and speed in your technique. Doing any of the counter-cutting displacements slowly or “softly: distorts them too much and artificially affects the dynamics of how the blades interact. It changes the outcome.

When I show this sometime students will say, “Oh wow, I see, you aren’t making a ‘mirror image’ diagonal cut to theirs, you are stepping away and traversing or turning as you react.” I’ll say yes, and also the counterstrike is not exactly “simultaneous” either, it can’t be. It has to be a split second different in the timing, it is mezzo tempo/Indes yes, but this still means you respond in the middle of their strike only after you perceive their action. In this way, you counter their blow, otherwise, if it was purely simultaneous with both parties moving exactly the same time then the blades would hit and just bang edge on edge.

On top of this, there are other issues to consider, such as complaints about edge damage to blades caused by edge parries are found in Medieval literature as are ones to blades being “turned” (i.e., deflected by counter blows) rather than “stopped” by blocks. (my next book documents several) and anyone having seen Hank Reinhardt's demonstration of the effects of actual sharpened blades hitting each there edge on, cannot deny how the swords are entirely ruined beyond repair as a result.

As well, all the parries of cuts by cutting sword in 18th & 19th century manuals are ones of rigid opposition, that is, receiving the attack on the edge of the ricasso ---they never include deflecting counter cuts (edge on edge or edge on flat) as in earlier systems of edge fencing. Why is that? What precisely changed? The common view is that the later methods were “refined” or “superior” even. I disagree entirely and the research presented in my one of my future book supports this very strongly.

BTW, we’ve long noted that with the exception of a strong right hanging parry, and a supinated right barrier ward, the use of a single hand Medieval sword and a two-hand Medieval sword are identical in virtual all respects of counter-striking and displacement.
Making edge on edge blocks (which does not mean closing-in strong to strong to intercept and stifle) with them is inefficient and inferior.

JC

[Shane Smith]

I don't see where we disagree John.I was not implying that the combatants would throw "simultaneous" zornhaus. I reasoned that we all are aware that perception of the impending assault and the course it would take would of course be required before one could counter it. I WAS saying that a parry and a counter should be ideally performed in one simulateous action.<img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[TimSheetz]

HI Hans,

Thanks for the translations!

You wrote this comment: "We here in ARMA use only the flat for displacing, this is o.k. for me, but we have to realise, that this is only a technique."

Actually, this is not accurate. The discussion is about principles... It isn't a question of whether the masters mention using the edge in a specifically "defensive" way, but that they certainly do not advocate a methodology of defense where the edge is deliberately thrown in opposition directly against another blade's edge.. where both blades stop. Then the 'blocker' launches his attack, as in modern sport saber fencing.

I see this as the important matter. Of course, in combat a person will interpose their weapon any way to prevent themselves form being killed/injured... and that leads to edge-edge contact by accident or blind ugly neccessity... but as a general principle, I think ARMA advocates that the Masters were telling us to counter.. that is conduct maneuvers that simultaneously protect and attack.. if not simultaneous then in short succession and with efficient action.. not direct edge-edge opposition where the action ceases as the blades dig into each other, then action is restarted again.

I think this is the "Meat of the Matter"... a principle not a technique.

I think few would argue against this.

Thanks,

Tim Sheetz

[Shawn Cathcart]

A confusion of terms makes this issue worse. Displacing and Setting Aside are used often, but are often taken differently by different people. For example I would define them as follows:

1. Displacing a blow. Such as a hanging guard, receiving his edge on your flat.

2. Setting aside a blow. Such as a beat, your edge on his flat.

Now I could be wrong, everyone else may think they should be the other way around, or some manual may state them otherwise. Also, people mix english terms, with German technique names and people get confused. I'm open to changing my above definitions, the point being, if your talking with someone on the forum, it would be wise, and useful to agree with them before hand your definition of terms that you are referring too.

When talking about Edge on Flat people often only take into account their blade. The manuals cite examples of edge and flat. But remember the opposing blade with these examples.

1. Your edge to his flat.
2. Your flat to his edge.

Also the definition of an edge on edge "parry". The edge of an actual steel blade is minute, it is VERY thin. I define and edge on edge parry as follows:

Edge on Edge "parry" - Any "parry" where your edge makes a straight on 90 degree impact with your opponents edge.

Your edge hitting his edge at a 45 degree angle even, to me does not mean an edge on edge parry. On an edge so thin where does the "edge" end and the "flat" begin? Much more quickly than on your rounded waster to be sure.

One other consideration. As John mentioned you with certain techniques meet edge on edge with the ricasso, but this is often used as a closing and stiflying technique. And in winding and binding you often turn from your flat onto your edge, and in a bind you can end up sliding edge on edge, that is fine as well. But remember this: You do not want to receive the impact of his edge squarely on your own edge, IF your sword is of the cutting variety, and not solely the thrusting.

On your other point Mike about looking for justifying examples in the manual to prove your points I whole heartedly agree. Relying on translations of centuries old texts with illustrations that are not always clear, you can provide an example of pretty much anything to prove your point. I run into the same problem on the skeptic forum I subscribe too. Links for proof are often cited to news sites and other things. But hell, there are more than enough news sources in the world to find articles to support pretty much anything. With that said, I'm in complete agreement with John on this issue.

[Hans Heim]

Hi Tim,

You wrote:

Actually, this is not accurate. The discussion is about principles... It isn't a question of whether the masters mention using the edge in a specifically "defensive" way, but that they certainly do not advocate a methodology of defense where the edge is deliberately thrown in opposition directly against another blade's edge.. where both blades stop. Then the 'blocker' launches his attack, as in modern sport saber fencing.



For a long time this was my conviction too, but after writing the part about defence with the longsword in our book I hade to realise, that the concept behind “Versetzen” is something else. This was not easy for me, because I discovered something that I didn’t expect to find and which I do not like.

O.K. let’s start:

Defence with the longsword (without totally stepping out of the cut, Nachreisen, Ansetzen or running away <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> etc.)

1.General “Versetzen”:

This are only the four diagonal cuts, like Doebringer wrote, please look at my last posting.
This general displacing could be divided into two actions, with the energy (the cut) of the en-emy or against the energy. It could result a Zornhau against Zornhau situation (countercut) or even a block, only think about a Zornhau from the right and an Unterhau from the right at the same time at the same angle.
J. Meyer, wrote about this block(please look at my last post) as the first and the same time as the worst possibility of “versetzen” and Meyers impression was that Lichtenauer thought of this with his poem:

Von dieser versatzung nun / thut auch Lichtenawer meldung da er spricht.
Vor versetzen hüt dich / Geschichts dir not es mühet dich.
Mit welchem er das versetzen darumb nit gar will verbieten / nemlich das du nichts anders dann zuhauwen lehren solt / dan wie es dein schad / wie droben gehört / wann du dich auff das versetzen wolltest gewehnen / dieweil es an dem zuvil / so du zu versetzen gedrungen wurdest / Also ist es nicht nutz so du mit streichen uberbolderst / gleichfals auch hingegen unbedacht gleichsam mit zugethanen augen hinwider mit seinen streichen zuglich hinein Hauwen wolltest / welches dann keinem Fechten / sonder vil mehr einem unbesunnenen Bawren getrösch gleichförmig


The displacement with the energy uses J.Meyer in the poem:

Abschneiden.
Aschneiden soltu also treiben / halt das Schwerdt mit ausgestreckten Armen lang von dir / oder sencke dich in die Hut des Olbers / hauwet dann dein gegenmann mit langen Häuwen auff dich / so schneid dieselben mit Langer schneid von dir ab zu beiden seiten / so lang und vil biß du dein vortheil ersihest / das du zu anderer / dir mehr füglicher arbeit kommen mö-gest.
In disem Abschneiden ist das Nachreisen auch fein heimlich sampt dem Schnidt begriffen / darumb jhn den auch der Lichtenawer in einem Spruch verfasset da er spricht.
Schneidt ab die herten / Von beiden geferten.
Das ist schneid die harten streich von dir ab von beiden seiten / aber von disem Abschnei-den wirt hernach in den Exempeln / und andern Wehren mehr geschrieben.

Short translation:

Hold your sword with stretch arms away from you, or put it into the Alber. If he cut at you with long cuts, so slice the cuts away from you with your true edge from both sides until you see an advantage for you.

The absolute main rule for this general displacement could be seen in Doebringer and in Goliat:

In all displacing your tip should never ever end more than “eine halbe elle” (perhaps 20 cm) away from the face or the breast of your enemy. In all of your displacements you should search with your tip the next opening.

This general displacement is followed by a second move from the defender.

We have here a two times action.


An other aspect of this is the „versetzen“ in the bind. This could be done with only a push sideways, the thrust after the Zornhau against Zornhau, or sometimes with moving into “hen-gen”. Like breaking the “mutieren” in the Lebkuechner, this is plate 23 in Talhoffer with the longsword.



2.Special “Versetzen”

This are some of the mastercuts in which you defend and hit simultaneous. Like the Zwerchhau, the Schielhau and sometimes the Schaitelhau.

This are one time actions.

The Krumphau is also a one time defending action, but without blade-contact. Remember: “Krump auf behend, wirf den ort auf die hend” and so he fits not into this spezial displace-ment.


3.Defending without a cut

Here we have the technique “Absetzen” which is made from side to side or from below up-wards and never from above to below (as far as I have now seen), because from above you use cuts.

In “Absetzen” you intercept his cut or thrust with moving from one guard into an other guard (from right Pflug into left Pflug, from right Pflug into left Ochs, from right Ochs into left Ochs, from right Wechsel into left Plfug and so on) and after that you step towards your enemy and kill him.




Conclusion about defending:

1. General “Versetzen”
1.1 Versetzen with the true edge
1.1.1 Versetzen with the true edge as “block”
1.1.2 Versetzen with the true edge as countercut (setting aside), and a second move
1.2 Versetzen in the bind
1.3 Special Versetzen, one time action (mastercuts)
1.4 Absetzen


You are right that some of the displacements are better then the others and some do less harm to your blade then others, but the concept behind the displacement is in my eyes only: do everything what is necessary to get out of the “Nach” to win the “Vor” back.

This is what the manuals gave us, this is not what I whish that the manuals should give us, but it is so.
I do not teach a block, because I think that this is a very bad technique, maybe a natural move for somebody who is afraid or surprised, but still a very bad technique.
I think that if somebody teaches something he has to have a concept, a big plan behind his “teaching of the techniques” it should be more than techniques and so it is allowed to teach what you think that is the best way for learning the big plan. This could sometimes result in not teaching all of the possibilities of techniques, this is o.k. for me, because there is the “big plan”, but I have to accept that there have been “bad techniques” too and they are even proven. <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />



Sincerely,

a not so happy Hans about this.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Hans!

I am puzzled. We are "crossing wires" in our communication... cause what you are saying is what I agree with... An excerpt from your post's last paragraph:

"I do not teach a block, because I think that this is a very bad technique, maybe a natural move for somebody who is afraid or surprised, but still a very bad technique."

I agree... I am just saying that it can run deeper than just being a technique, cause it can change the whole methodology of how you fight. It isn't about whether the true edge was used to beat and contact the opponents blade.. It is a part of the techniques. The argument comes from INTENTIONALLY cutting directly into the oncoming blade edge to edge as a standard consistent practice. You didn't describe that. From what I read you don't think that is a viable technique - I couldn't see it in your translations. That is the major point of contention In discussions, I believe.

Be happy. The way I read it, we agree! <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Tim Sheetz

[Guest]

There are two things to say:
1) why are we discussing this important matter only with regard to the long sword? I respect the point of vew of those who consider it to be "The sword", but I do not agree with such an assumption. European swordmanship, for most of the time, had to do with the use of one handed swords either single and double edged, used with something else or alone. I think that dissipating the fog should start from one handed swords, being they more relevant (they're even more intriguing, for me at least) in the European swordmanship filed.

2) Drawings are partial evidence, anyone familiar with gestalt psycology will agree with me on this point: one can see more than one sense in a picture. It could be argued that swords were oriented in a direction (flat) because no medieval picture show swords' side vew etc.... Like formulas, pictures are to be interpreted witha proper MODEL (something that gives a specifice meaning to variables, costants and relations), like formulas, pictures are "true" in a model and "false" in another.
Text surely helps, but THE LACK OF EVIDENCE OF EDGE ON EDGE BANGING weights more (if anscertained), because it's a factor that can be seen, we do not need to rely on the words of others, no matter how authoritative they are believed to be.

[Hans Heim]

Yes Tim,

we agree. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hans

[steve hick]

Hans Heim wrote:

>>For a long time this was my conviction too, but after writing the part about defence with the longsword in our book I hade to realise, that the concept behind “Versetzen” is something else. This was not easy for me, because I discovered something that I didn’t expect to find and which I do not like.<<

Book? Book? 'Fess Up Hans, what book?javascript:void(0)
tongue

Steve