My questions regarding defensive manoeuvres

[Michael Navas]

I've read a lot of editorials and essays, but I still cannot grasp certain aspects of proper swordwork, so I have a few questions. To help me get them across, and because I probably lack the proper terminology, the following are definitions I'll be using:

Dodge: This one is simple. Any manoeuvre that doesn't rely on making any sort of contact with the opponent or his weapon, but keeps you from harm nontheless.

Parry: Deflecting or redirecting the opponents weapon with the flat of yours against the edge of his (or vice versa).

Block: To take the opponents edge upon your own flat (or vice versa), directly stopping it without any redirection.

Questions:

1. What is the difference between using the above defensive manoeuvres? Is it all circumstance, or is there some sort of hierarchy of which manoeuvres are preferrable to which? Or in other words, is there any incentive for actually parrying or dodging rather than just blocking? Blocking seems by far to be the easiest thing to do, so is it all about circumstance?

2. What is it that makes such a big difference between an edge on edge block, and a half-sword bind? If the first is completely nono, how can the second be the preferred method? I don't see how running into an opponent in half-sword and ram your edge into his can be so substantially less damaging to your edge than an edge on edge block. The force may be lesser, but so much that one is preferred and the other to be avoided at all costs? It doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.

3. What is wrong with my terminology? Any corrections you can make is appreciated.

[Craig Peters]

I've read a lot of editorials and essays, but I still cannot grasp certain aspects of proper swordwork, so I have a few questions. To help me get them across, and because I probably lack the proper terminology, the following are definitions I'll be using:

Dodge: This one is simple. Any manoeuvre that doesn't rely on making any sort of contact with the opponent or his weapon, but keeps you from harm nontheless.

Parry: Deflecting or redirecting the opponents weapon with the flat of yours against the edge of his (or vice versa).

Block: To take the opponents edge upon your own flat (or vice versa), directly stopping it without any redirection.

Questions:

1. What is the difference between using the above defensive manoeuvres? Is it all circumstance, or is there some sort of hierarchy of which manoeuvres are preferrable to which? Or in other words, is there any incentive for actually parrying or dodging rather than just blocking? Blocking seems by far to be the easiest thing to do, so is it all about circumstance?

None of the above. The best thing to do is to attack first, the as quickly as possible, exploiting the nearest opening, with your cut or thrust travelling the shortest distance possible while still fencing with your full force. If that attack misses, follow up with another to another opening: again, it has to be "to the man", quick, and direct as possible. If you do this, worrying about parrying, blocking or dodging will not be an issue.

2. What is it that makes such a big difference between an edge on edge block, and a half-sword bind? If the first is completely nono, how can the second be the preferred method? I don't see how running into an opponent in half-sword and ram your edge into his can be so substantially less damaging to your edge than an edge on edge block. The force may be lesser, but so much that one is preferred and the other to be avoided at all costs? It doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.

I am not sure what you mean. Even in half-swording you can make edge to flat contact.

3. What is wrong with my terminology? Any corrections you can make is appreciated.

Dodging is often referred to as voiding, and blocking is typically called "displacing". Keep in mind that your idea of blocking might be a bit different from "displacing", which tends to involve pushing aside or otherwise displacing a foe's weapon out of the way. Displacing as a defense is a bad idea. Voiding is better, but only if you can make a counter attack from it. The best plan is to strike first and strike well.

[Matt Bryant]

First off: I will be using a few German terms. If my quick-and-dirty definitions are not clicking, you may find clarification here:
http://www.thearma.org/terms2.htm

I agree with Craig on the "attack first" principle, but in the instance that you must defend (as often happens in a less ideal situation) there is somewhat of a hierarchy of options.

Ideally, you should void (dodge) and counter cut. This is referred to as nachreissen or "traveling after" in English.

Another great thing to do is to redirect his attack via absetzen (setting aside) and versetzen (a striking displacement). This is good because it defends you while simultaneously either striking/thrusting your opponent, or setting you up to effectively strike/thrust/slice them.

The static blocking is to be avoided. Sometimes it is necessary, but it only defends. It does not defend AND give you and adventitious position .

These concepts likely sound odd and even fanciful right now, but once you are given a good foundation and are shown how these actions are performed, it will make perfect sense. And, yes, what you do is all circumstantial. Are you too close to void, what is his angle of attack, what guard are you in etc...

To address the half-swording/edge-on-edge question: When half-swording, you can easily turn the sword so that you intercept or displace a your opponent's blow on the flat. I think that this would be especially important when doing a static block. If you block with the edge... well the other edge will transfer the force of the blow into your hand(s). I honestly have not tested it, but I think that would likely cut you.

Hope this helps. If you have any further questions about what I have said, feel free to ask.

[philippewillaume]

Hello just to agree wit Craigh and Matt but I can only talk for the lichtanauer tradition

Blocks are to be avoided for the very reason presented by the two above.
Basically you are surrendering the vor automatically whis is bad and evil and unpleasant to whatever god (goddess, goddesses or gods) you may worship.

That being said every one of what you call parry and what I would call deflection (absetsen) has a dodge component it.

Basically two of the nachraisen, are striking before he strike and striking just after he strike. So I would say pure dodge is as undesirable as blocks.
If you move you may as well make it an attack.

Phil

[Shane Smith]

Per half-sword binding, you can bind flat and lever with the flat a little, but if you are really going to lever someone hard with your sword, you need to angle your edge into theirs a bit. The flat flexes too much in many cases to impart the considerable force being generated. It is rarely edge-to edge 90 degrees however. It is normally on an angle not unlike the angle of two zorns meeting. I have done extensive research and hands on training in this field of study and in order to throw effectively and lever violently, the edge is easier to use, and in good leather gloves, your hands are safe. You will not damage your edge anywhere near the degree you would in blossfechten with edge on edge parrying. When it comes to armoured halfsword, I do use the edge quite a bit.

[JeffGentry]

Mike

I think Craig and Matt are on the right track to an extent.

First i think we can all agree attacking first is the best ption in a perefect world, We however do not live in a perfect.

Ideally, you should void (dodge) and counter cut. This is referred to as nachreissen or "traveling after" in English.

This is one we need to becareful about, I diGrassi he talk's abot voiding back and then having to step back to where to you were just at to strike, I thnk absetzen is the prefered method in Doebringer he tell's us to lear setting aside to break thrust and strike's and the goes on to say later that the displacing will bring us into one of the 4 hanging's where we start to wind(these are paraphrased i do not have the manual's with me at the moment) so i would say to use good absetzen and good versetzen and this is all you need.

Jeff

[Michael Navas]

Okay, that was quite helpful, actually.

To recap the hierarchy of preference:

1) Kill first.
Reasons: No fuss, doesn't take precious time, doesn't dent body, armour or arms.

2) Void.
Reasons: Prevents injury and gives you an opening for nachreisen.

3) Absetzen/versetzen
Reasons: If you have to bang your blade into the opponent's, you might as well use it to take away harm, providing it gives you an opening for counterattack and is done in such a way as to spare your own edge.

4) Block
Reasons: Better than dying, but gives you nothing in return, unlike the above options.

Thank you. That is what I was hoping you'd say. But a couple of clarifications, then:

1) What is the difference between absetzen and versetzen? The dictionary said absetzen was just a form of versetzen, but here they are used as two distinct techniques.

2) As Jeff touched upon, if the void is backwards, thus robbing you of the opportunity to counterattack, where does it fit in the hierarchy? I was under the impression that voiding was the preferred thing to do at all times, but from what I am reading in this thread, actually using your blade is preferrable because it gives you opportunities for counterattack. But that makes it seem like it is better to stand your ground and attack or displace, rather than void backwards. In my experience, the backwards void is by far the best manoeuvre in my repertoire. I can't imagine not relying fully and wholly on it carrying me through the fight. Is this merely because I lack the skill? Would a medieval master forgo backwards voiding in favour of other manoeuvres?


Regarding the edge on edge thing, then.
Am I to understand that whenever this does occur, it helps tremendously that the distance travelled is nowhere near as great as during a sword strike, and that the angle at which it is done has an impact (bad pun) as well?

But frankly, the half-sword thing was just an example. Look at this in stead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXbZqKnw ... ed&search=

The guy doing the techniques is obviously very good, but unless my eyes are decieving me, he is going quite forcefully edge on edge with his opponent at first. And I've seen things to this effect on many of the period drawings in the different essays around here, and it doesn't mesh with the whole "no edge on edge, displace rather than oppose" -things I read. Insight appreciated.

[Greg Coffman]

On the vidoe you posted the action is edge on flat. I went ahead and looked at the other three videos posted by the same person and only one was edge on edge and it was on the strong of both blades within about 6 inches from the cross guard. In the video you posted, the action is a zornhau to zornhau. The edges of both swords are oriented towards the person but themselves meet at oblique angles. In fact the blades don't meet edge on at all. It may be a hard thing to see and pick up on unless you've spent some time actually practicing it.

This zorn to zorn is a counter tehcnique where as the opponent strikes at you, you strike at your opponent in such a way that you displace the opposing sword and still hit, or at least put yourself in a very good position to hit. This is called a versetzen, from what I understand. Ringeck teaches to "strike when he strikes, thrust when he thrusts." Absetzen, as I understand it, is a more general way of displacing and setting aside the opponents sword and may include versetzen.

Voiding directly backwards is just one way to void. If you step back out of range and stay there then you have not accomplished anything more than not getting hit. You could do this all day but it would then equate to running away one step at a time. Traveling after is voiding just long enough for the opponent to miss and then coming back into range with a strike. As his strike passes, your stirke travels at him in the wake of his strike. There are also ways to void and cut at the same time so that his strike falls short but yours lands. For example, if someone strikes directly down at you, you can move to the side, which is voiding, but stay in range to strike him.

[Michael Navas]

Complicated stuff.

The line between an edge on edge parry and an edge on flat one seems to be extremely narrow, then. Am I to understand that only a 90 degree edge on edge is truly nono? Everything else goes, as long as there is something to win from it?

Makes me wonder how unrealistic those Hollywood movies really are in this regard.


While I am on a YouTube spree, could you point out what, by ARMA standards, is wrong (if anything) with the parry/block technique being used in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTtyZ0PDSHg

[Greg Coffman]

It's not so much that the line is thin between edge vs. flat contact, but that the dynamics are hard to grasp without picking up a sword and getting a feel for it. It's not that only 90 degree blocks are to be avoided.

This vidoe is from a different martial tradition and so should not need to conform to WMA conventions. However, what I see is that the contact seems to be mostly edge on flat. Also, when the fighters get into the bind they don't seem to activly try to continue to fight but rather just stay in the bind. Of course the video is described as a "sequence of movements" instead of actual sparring. The participants are going through a pre-set of movements. In WMA I believe this is called a "set play" and is likewise used to teach certain techniques. We then apply these techniques to un-structured sparring and feeplay.

[Michael Navas]

But there is nothing inherently wrong with their technique? Hmmm.

I'm a sucker for fast fights with minimal blade contact, so when I read that the Hollywood approach was extremely unrealistic, I was quite pleased. But from what I'm learning, there is room for quite a bit of back and forth swordplay in accordance to realistic methods, as long as these are performed in a certain fashion, rather than just banging away on the other persons blade.

I'm just trying to see where the line goes between mindless banging and martially sound parries, to use as guidelines for my training. Thanks a bunch for all help.

[Greg Coffman]

I think a good fight with someone who knows what they are doing should be over quickly without much back and forth. At least you shouldn't stay in range exchanging blows for very long. Enter into range, fight, and then withdraw successfully.

[JeffGentry]

But there is nothing inherently wrong with their technique? Hmmm.

I'm a sucker for fast fights with minimal blade contact, so when I read that the Hollywood approach was extremely unrealistic, I was quite pleased. But from what I'm learning, there is room for quite a bit of back and forth swordplay in accordance to realistic methods, as long as these are performed in a certain fashion, rather than just banging away on the other persons blade.

I'm just trying to see where the line goes between mindless banging and martially sound parries, to use as guidelines for my training. Thanks a bunch for all help.

Hey Mike

there are a miriad of way's to void a strike and not move straight back, the biggest thing in my mindand i feel the german tradition is to never do anything that doesn't give you an advantage hence the Lichtenauer saying "Before displacing, gaurd yourself set your self for advantage" so if the void doesn't bring you to a more advantageous position you should reconsider the manner in which you void ie do not void the body if moving the front foot back 2 inche's is all you need to do.

As for blade contact it can be advantagous for you, because you then know where your opponent's blade is and what he is doing(feeling) whether he is gathering for a strike or pushing forward to attack, remember you are also giving this information to him, I would not go out of my way to achieve a bind, striking at his sword in stead of his body/head, if it happen's it can be beneficial.

In Doebringer he admonish's too "Strike threefold and hard therein , Rush in regardless if you hit or miss, so that in understanding this you will be kown as a wise man.", We have three attack's(Dre Wunder/three wounders) the big full arm cut, the thrust, and the slice, I am of the opinion that this is refering to controling distance and using these three to end the fight and maintian the vor.

I hope this help's and i didn't just muddy the water's I have a little trouble seperating thing's because this is a system and one thing alway's lead's to another.

Jeff

[Michael Navas]

Ok, help me out here with this scenario:

I have a buddy who insists on doing the same bloody horizontal full-arm strike at my chest every time we fight. Usually, I just step back, not really seeing what else there is to do, but what alternatives can you suggest?

I realize such a simple description is not easy to give advice on, but ignore the delicate nuances of combat for a moment and just focus on the strike itself. Horizontal. Full-arm. Chest-height.

Stepping back gains me nothing, so what else could I do?

I'm nowhere near good enough to step into his strike in time to cut him or his arm, so that isn't an option.

Should I use the flat of the lower portion of my blade to simply stop his attack head on, and then follow up with a counterstrike? Or should I step back a few inches, beat his blade from behind as it passes by, and use the resulting opening to attack? Or do you have any other suggestions?


Internet sword-lessons. Yay.

[Greg Coffman]

There are lots of options against that strike. I'll try to go through some of the more straightforward ones.

You can void. Step back with your back foot only and shift your weight to that foot almost like you are leaning back. This should put you just beyond his reach. As his blade misses, spring back and strike him. It kind of functions as a jump back, jump forward.

You can counter cut. This is a versetsen. Strike with a right zornhau (diagonal strike) at him so that your sword meets and stops his at your strong and hits his head/shoulders or arms, depending on range, with your weak. This is not as hard as it sounds. Even if you react after his strike you can still get there. If you know ahead of time that he is going to do it then use that to your advantage. If you don't hit with this, go for the thrust. If that doesn't work, wind up to left ochs and go for the thrust. To work on this technique, practice drilling with a partner at slower speeds and work up to faster speeds. This builds muscle memory and timing.

You can counter cut with a right underhand. This works about like the zornhau and should also be practiced. Go for a thrust if the strike doesn't land.

You can take the blow on your flat in left pflug or left ochs. These are the hanging guards. You shoulf be able to get a thrust or quick slice after initial contact.

You can set aside the blow with a krumphau. If you don't know how to do this strike look at the "Mastercut" article on this website. This should defeat his strike and set you up for a quick follow up strike.

You can also set his blow aside from alber. From this guard, cut up into his blow so that it passes above you to over your right shoulder. Then bring your sword down onto his head. I think this is what I am most used to doing.

Just some ideas...