The use of quillions to parry an attack - Opinion?

[Guest]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post here. This site is amazing and very well documented. I am a French Canadian from Quebec, so please excuse my English. I am not familiar with all the terminology of fencing in your language.

With a small group here in Quebec City, we are developing new attitudes towards the Great-Sword and the Two-hands Sword. We do use the credibility of the ancient texts, but we like to continue the evolution of the techniques, stopped I would say by the discovery of canon powder...

We are developing new combat techniques involving the use of the quillions to parry and facilitate the riposte. It is proved to be very effective.

What would be the credibility that you would associate to this technique, and are you aware of any ancient texts presenting this use of the quillions or, at the opposite, expressingly prohibiting this use?

I am discussing that matter with French people in France. They are not always open minded about the possibility of creating new techniques. Some of them prefer to stick to the ancient texts, sometimes refusing to admit the limits of such an approach.

Then I would really like to hear from you about that matter. That would help me in my own research. If you can provide with arguments for or against, and even sources, that would be of immense help.

Yours truly,

Fred Smith, historian
Quebec, Canada

[Jake_Norwood]

Fred-

Firstly, I think that most everyone here will agree that the old techniques were the ones that really worked, and that until we are fully acquainted with the old techniques we really can't go around inventing our own.

What you may be doing, though, is more along the lines of extrapolation--in other words, the cross-bar techniques you're developing are reasonable given what we know about the fighting styles of the day. I would encourage further experimentation and research. Many techniques that my group thougt we invented turned up in manuals once we did more research.

I'm a little confused, however, concerning these "new techniques" with the cross-bar (what you're calling the quillions). The cross-bar is extremely versatile and has many many uses in both offense and defense. Could you provide more details on what these techniques you're working on are?

And remember, if it works at speed with intent, then you're on to something.

Jake

[Guest]

Jake,

Thank you for your quick answer. I am afraid that my command of the English language is not good enough to fully demonstrate the use we make of the quillions. But I could still try to give some examples.

The most common parry we make with the quillions kind of looks like the Crown, or the "kron" that is seen is some ancient texts. To parry a hit to your head, coming in direct line on it from top to bottom (I am sorry, their must have a word for it in English but I do not know it yet), you won't use the blade of the sword, that some would put horizontally over their head, despite the possibility that the blow is so strong that you still bend your arms and get hit on the target. Instead, depending of the guard position, we just raise the sword vertically to make that blow hit the quillions. You might use the right hand side or the left hand side of the quillions (dextre and senestre, as we use in old French...maybe you also use those terms), depending on how you intend to riposte. It is very effective when you have a very heavy armor, since you do not raise your arms that high. Then, you are free to make a bridge over your head with the opponent's blade, depending of the intention.

Other example, way less common. If you get attacked on your right flank by an horizontal move, you will still block with the quillions, your sword being perfectly horizontal instead of in a vertical or diagonal axis. Then you only need a slight move to turn over the opponent's blade, and get more strenght in the riposte. There again, you decide which side of the quillions you use, depending of the intention. If you block with the left side of it (that would be the one pointing to the ground when you hold your sword horizontally next to your body), all the upper part of the opponents is open for a counter-attack to the head or shoulder...Is quite dangerous if you do not evaluate exactly where you must take contact with the opponent's blade. But with experience, it proves to be really effective.

Technically speaking, we parry with the angle created by the quillions and the ricasso. I just figured it might be important for me to be more precise about it. Just the quillions would not be as effective, and a lot more dangerous. Let's say that we manage the blow to hit that angle, only saying that we use the quillions...

In fact, any ways the attack comes you might block it with the quillions and be prepared to make a riposte in very effective ways.

I know that might sound strange or newbie, because of the language gap. Maybe you can still see what I intend to explain. I doubt it sounds common, still.

You encourage further experimentation and research, and that is exactly why I decided to post my questions in this forum! As you suggest, we might someday find mentions of those techniques in ancient texts. But we did not find any in the most common ones, but we do not either find restrictions in the use of the quillions-ricasso angle.

That is why, if you know any source that talks positively or negatively about the use of the quillions for defensive purposes, please provide me with this information. If you have any personnal thoughts about it, please do not hesitate to share them.

This discussion makes me think that I might get someone to make some drawings of our techniques. A picture is worth a thousand words!

Regards,

Fred Smith
Québec, Canada

[Guest]

Here's an example from Ringeck referring to the Zwerchau: "If he strikes an Oberhau at your head, jump to his left side with your right foot; while you jump, turn your sword so that your hilt is high in front of your head and your thumb is down striking at his left with your short edge. You catch his strike with your hilt and hit him simultaneously on the head" I'm sure there are other examples and many more that are implied but not directly stated. Using the crossgaurd is nothing new and I would be very surprised if we, as modern practioners, were able to come up with anything not known to our ancestors. These men used and developed these techniques for hundreds of years and counted on them to stay alive in mortal combat. I'm sure even a mediocre swordsman of the 15th century would laugh at our skills.

[Guest]

Matt,

Thanks for your comments and source. If you ever find others like this one from Ringeck, please think about me and point me to the sources!

I am overwhelmed by the fact that the tone of your replies tends to point to the fact that using the crossguard is quite common, since we have lots of discussion with the French over the last years and they seem to agree that no ancient texts talk about this use, and so it means it was prohibited. You all seem very open minded with assertions that do not necessarely fit precisely with those ancient manuals. I really enjoy that attitude.

If anybody else got quotes like this one to help me give some more credibility to the use of the crossguard, please contact me within this forum.

I really appreciate your comments, Matt. Thank you very much.

I am looking forward to get other feed-back.

Regards,

Fred Smith
Québec, Canada

[Jake_Norwood]

On the contrary, Fred, using the quillions (well, crossbar, technically) is very common in the old manuals. Maybe not exactly in the way you describe, but common nonetheless. Just look at the images here on this site for example after example.

A suggestion, though. Instead of trying to catch blows right on the hilt or in the little "angle" as you call it, try to receive the blows at an angle on the ricasso and "scoop" them into the bend between ricasso and cross. That will be more dependable then aiming straight for the bend every time.

Jake

[Guest]

Hello again Fred,

I agree with the other people here, the quillons are widely used in the historical swordmanship, may it be to control a blade, to catch an arm etc...

In french, the ringeck's text is something like this (from ardarmhe's translation, availlable on our website)

"Le travers prend, ce qui vient ici du toit.
Glose
Retiens que le coup travers brise toute les coups qui seront frappés de haut en bas. Et ce coup s'exécute ainsi : Lorsqu'il te porte un coup haut à la tête, alors bondis avec le pied droit contre lui, hors de son coup à son côté gauche. Et dans le bond tourne ton épée - avec tes quillons hauts devant ta tête, (de telle façon) que ton pouce vienne en bas - et frappe-le avec le court-tranchant à son côté gauche. Ainsi tu attrapes son coup dans tes quillons et tu le touches à la tête. "

However it doesn't correspond AFAIK as the quillon's parry you used. The main parry is not with the quillons in that example. the parry is done by striking the vertical strike on the flat edge with your own edge, thus redirecting it on the side. Then you let the quillon catch the descending blade, to control it, and at the same time you strike his head. It is not block-strike, but strike-block. At the moment the quillons meet the ennemiy's blade, the blow have lost almost all his power, so you can control it easilly.
In this little piece you've got almost all the liechtenauer's style resumed: if he strike, then strike him: walk aside, touch him and at the same time intercept his own strike, then control his blade (in that case with the quillons).
Then jump on his body, stomp it, draw you dagger, cut his troath, his scalp and dance a victory dance in honor to the God of war.
<img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

If you wanna find more quillons techniques, just go at the traduction, and with the Ctrl+F just search "quillons", you'll be able to see by yourself how much it is used and how.

Bye,

[Guest]

Good comments Michael and I agree completely. You are not really catching his blade directly on the cross at all, it just sort of stops there (possibly) as a result of your striking his blade with the short edge as you step in and cut him.

[Shane Smith]

Hello Fred,
AS so ably revealed by my fellow Swordsmen above,the cross is much employed in the various source-texts left to us by the Masters. The passage cited by Matt is a perfect example of that.We at ARMA make much use of the cross-guard as well,particularly when the fight moves in to hand-work.The binds and leverages possible are nearly limitless in number and application.

It's interesting to note that you have arrived at the same conclusions even though you have apparently not been exposed to the source-texts wherein these techniques are discussed.I believe this speaks well of both yourself and your methods.There is much to be said for the DOING of things as opposed to the DISCUSSION of how one might do things.The fact that we at ARMA, and you yourself are actually doers gives us valuable insight to fill the voids in our current understanding that talkers can't hope to possess.Best regards and keep us posted of any new insights you and yours may come across.Welcome to the forum. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Thank you Michael for your interesting insights. In fact, just before you proposed that I scan Ringeck to learn more about the use of the crossbar, I was exactly doing it, using the translation you provide on your site, www.artsdarmes.fr.st !

I would add to your comments and those of my American collegues that we do not aim the coming strike directly on the angle created by the blade and the crossbar. In fact, most often, the hit do strike the ricasso to end its course on that angle. Sometimes, instead of hiting the ricasso first, it will hit the crossbar and then stop on the angle, because of the angle we give to the whole sword.

I would say that I conceive the crossbar as an added protection, in case the opponent's blade slide up to the fingers. I have the impression that this part of the sword was first really thought with that in mind.

The difference in our approach here in Quebec City would be that we don't use the crossbar just as an eventual protection. We intend the strike to end on this part of the sword, wether by hiting it directly or sliding on it. The difference would all reside in the intentions.

What do you think about it? Is this active use of the crossbar something known to you all and ancient texts that I might not be aware of?

Regards,

Fred Smith
Quebec City, Canada

[Guest]

Hi everyone,

Let me introduce myself in this discussion…

I’m a sword practitioner from Quebec and I’m in direct contact with the development of cross-guard techniques.

In fact, the goal of using the cross-guard is to not use the blade during defence so you can place your attack at same time. Using the ricasso or using the edge to let the blade slide to the cross-guard require that your blade isn’t disposed to strike until you secure the attacker with the cross-guard. We develop here a method that enable a counter-strike during the cross-guard catch… (huh ! Bad English heh !?! Wish that you follow my point folks !) This is why most of the time we’ll catch the blow directly on a branch of the cross guard. Our point is using the cross-guard for defence as often you can so you’ll use your blade for what it’s supposed to… kill.

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

Gabriel Mailhot
Quebec, Canada

[Shane Smith]

Hello Gabriel,what you describe is also common in historically-accurate SWordsmanship.There is nothing new under the sun.We at ARMA VAB worked on these very things this past weekend.One example; My opponent throws a zornhau to my left shoulder and I pass forward and slightly right with my right foot to move in and offline of his cut somewhat.AS I do so,I cut into his blade horizontally with my forte at the crossguard with my tip pointed at his face with my pommel fairly low and allow his blade to stoppe at my crossguard and be bound.Simultaneously,I am continuing my cutting motion around the axis created at the cross of his blade and my guard.This results in a nearly simultaneous stoppe AND counter cut to the throat or face with my tip.It's hard to explain but simple to understand in practice. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Jeffrey Hull]

Hey Fred,

I am not sure if this would be exactly what you are talking about, but in Sigmund Ringeck's Fechtbuch (1438-1552 AD) he speaks of "Gehultz", which I maintain could be a term for the general area from the ricasso/blank of the blade to its crux with the crossguard, an "L"-shapen area on either side of the blade.

Ringeck deals with this regarding "Zwerhaw". The quote below in archaic German is courtesy of Die Freifechter, as can be gained through the ARMA Links page:

*****

Zwerch benympt, was von tag her kümpt...

Merck, der zwerhaw bricht alle hew, die von oben nyder gehawen werden. Vnd den haw tryb also: Wen er dir oben jn hawet zu° dem kopf, so spring mit dem rechten fu°ß gen jm vß dem hawe vff sin lincken sytten. Vnd im springen verwent din schwert - mit dem gehultz houch vor deinem haupt, das din doum vnnden kome - vnd schlach jn mit der kurtzen schniden zu° siner lincken sytten. So vasch dü sinen haw jn din gehultz vnd triffest jn zu° dem kopff.

Ain stuck vß dem zwerhaw.

*****

Basically, the part where it says:

So vasch[t] dü sinen haw jn din gehultz vnd triffest jn zu° dem kopff.

Might be rendered as:

Thus catchest thou his hewing with thy ?crux-area? and drivest thou [your blade] to the head [of your foe].

There is the excellent translation of this same passage at this very site of ARMA, which differs in its wording, yet I think agrees in spirit. You might prefer that one, and I would encourage you to read it, as it is most helpful.

Good luck!

JH