parry and repost with the single sword

[Guest]

Hello, how well does parry and repost work for you with the single sword?
It does work poorly for me, I end up using the guards for line covering and offence preparation, I get hits attacking or timing my opponent or slipping and countering, rarely do I manage to get a hit with parry and reposte.
What's wrong with me? <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
When I parry my opponent usueally escapes the riposte, so I must hit him when he comes in range exploiting his guard's openings, attack him first or void and counter (which becomes difficult when my opponents have too long a reach).
Strangley the vast majority of my hits are cuts.
Carlo

[TimSheetz]

Hi Carlo,

Isn't the concept of 'parry and reposte' a later development of rules-based fencing? I mean why parry and reposte when you can deflect and counter virtually simultaneously?

Any time I've had success with single sword it has been with that sort of movement.

Best,

Tim Sheetz

SFS

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Carlo,

Here are the possibilities as I see it. In actuality, this may be a combination of the above. I am assuming you are bouting with steel here. Single sword just doesn't work as well with boffers as Longsword does. Is this the source of your problem?

Anyway. Here are the least likely ones.

1. The other guy has a much lighter or heavier sword than you.
2. He has vastly more reach or is faster than you.
3. You are parrying too early.
4. You are not making proper stops when parrying. For a parry/riposte to work you must parry hard and with the edge to regain the initiative. Trying to use Longsword type "deflect and hit" stuff with single handed sword doesn't work very well.
5. As you get better, you do parry less and countercut more. Is this the case? Did you used to parry more often?

These are just a few. Information on the particular parries you are using and the attacks you are using them against would be of value.

The other biggie is whether or not you are "choking up" the blow on your opponent's attacks. If your opponent takes one step in to offend you and you take one in and left to engage his sword on the strong, a single step of his backwards after an attack should take him to a perfect distance whereby you can attack in return.

I speak the language of pretty much all the English systems so feel free to talk in jargon if that helps.

Also, why do you think it strange that most of your hits are cuts? An English one handed sword is primarily a cutting weapon unless it is a sidesword or smallsword.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Guest]

Thanks Stu.
I bout with wood or padded swords, the latter being thinner, harder padded and blade lighter than Arma project.
I used to parry a lot when I begun, but even if now I'm a bit better, the problem is that most of the time I do not parry fast enough against those who are really good at making fast deceptive attacks. I have much more success in timing them, but this leads to double hits sometimes.
I rely on classic English backsword and spadroon guards and parries, I like outside, low outside hanging more than other guards. I must use TG or St george with tall people, I'm learning to fight from St G. because I study Mc Bane.
I have special problems in seeing and parrying head cuts in time against skilled fencers, this is bad <img src="/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" /> .
Most of my hits are arm cuts, I can deliver head cuts and face thusts, but my usual bouting pard does not want to use a mask! So I have to pass them by often <img src="/forum/images/icons/mad.gif" alt="" /> .
My worst probelm is defending the head, maybe because I bouted maskless for years.
Anyway even when I parry, my reposte is not fast enough unless the whole combination was a planned one or along the same line (parry outside-head cut left to right).
You're already right on one point: I do not parry hard enough, but I'm working at it, because another English stylist noticed it.
One problem is I train every day alone and once in no less than 10 days with a partner, this slows my blade to blade work learning, while I progress in attacking and counterattacking.
Carlo

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Tim,

There are parry riposte's in just about every system of fencing I have ever seen.

Talhoffer's messer most definitely contains parry-riposte's. Plate 223 (from Memory) shows a hanging parry that is then turned over into a cut. This is by definition a parry-riposte.

The one place you won't find many is in systems that use Longswords that are over Silver's perfect length or in long rapier manuals.

These weapons are capable of parrying and hitting at the same time due to their great length. Weapons that are close to or the same length as the users arm cannot really be used in the same way except in specific circumstances.

Example. Ringeck's Longsword. We both lie in Vom Tach. You cut with great force from the right at my head. I counter with shielhau which in one movement engages your sword and hits on on the head or neck. You can alter your attack so that we end up in a bind.

Example: Talhoffer's fechtmesser

Both are lying Vom Tach You cut as in the last example. I attempt a shielhau counter only this time, my blade isn't long enough to both threaten you and protect me. I can choose between hitting you and losing my arm/head in the process (perhaps even before I hit you if I am not quick about it) or I can keep my hilt back to protect my head, bear your cut on my flat and crossguard (this is done so the parry is deliberately weak I make you miss me despite the weakness by raising my hand high and moving into the blow) . From here my weapon twitches around to the outside line and if accompanied by a left foot pass, I complete what is by definition if not by early terminology, a parry-riposte.

I would like to point out that the world's oldest existing fencing manual 1.33 also contains parry-riposte's The "priest's special longpoint" ward (rather like bastard guardant and safe to lie in due to the buckler being present to guard the high line I digress <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />) Is designed so that any attack can be born on the sword, the buckler can then bind and the sword is then free to attack.

To be bluntly honest Tim, whomever told you that parry-riposte's didn't exist before a certain date has a poor understanding of basic fencing theory and the large number of period fencing treatises ARMA has to work from.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Carlo,

I edited my post whilst you were typing yours. There is some extra stuff there now.

When doing late style backsword, you will find most authors say that the outside guard is the primary ward. I like outside, hanging prime and hanging seconde. I have a fondness for the "cheeky" factor inherent in McBane's Portuguese guard too. Wyld uses the guard but I can't think what he calls it off the top of my head.

Also, if you are lying in St George, it is little wonder you don't parry much. You can beat and countercut nicely from here but unless Someone cuts straight into your guard, parries are unlikely.
Cheers,
Stu.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Stu,

I would not call either of your examples a "parry-riposte". That is not how I'd describe it. Hence my question of CARLO about what HE meant.

I see a parry and reposte ( and I may be wrong) as a PARRY - a "block" if you will - and then an attack. That is not a hengen and counter, which is really all one flowing action.. not two separate actions done in quick succession.

You wrote: "To be bluntly honest Tim, whomever told you that parry-riposte's didn't exist before a certain date has a poor understanding of basic fencing theory and the large number of period fencing treatises ARMA has to work from. "

Well I always think honesty is a good goal... but I think seeking clarification is often a better choice before making replies that seem snotty. I never said any one told me that, but many who have used the term "parry and riposte" do so with something utterly different in mind than the actions you describe - the very sort of actions I was referring to in my original post to CARLO.

"Parry-riposte" for me, carries a connotation of two separate actions done in quick succession... like a static BLOCK, followed by a strike or thrust. Using that example, it would be easy to see why making it work would be difficult... cause it is generally not efficient.

Comments?

[Guest]

Tim, I meant "block and attack" with the edge of the forte the firrst, with the foible the latter, as done in backswording from late 1600 on. It worked against me <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> , but I'm not good at it, yet <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> .
Carlo

[TimSheetz]

Hi Carlo,

Thanks for the clarification.

Since you are forced to train alone often, me too these past two years, I'd work on exercising these actions until you can do them without thinking, one flowing into the other. It'll reduce your reaction time.

To work on avoiding the receiving end of the techniques I'd work exercises that increase your speed of your follow-on attacks. If your initial attack is thwarted (and, hey, it often is for everyone) your faster second attack can take place before your opponent's riposte.

Also, get your partner to wear headgear. It is OK every once in a while, but it is lazy training. Getting into the rut of ignoring head defence (which happens if it never is attacked) is just a bad idea. He should not fail you this way.

I think I know something about training on my own, but in the end, it is just my opinion!

Best,

[Guest]

"Also, get your partner to wear headgear. It is OK every once in a while, but it is lazy training. Getting into the rut of ignoring head defence (which happens if it never is attacked) is just a bad idea. He should not fail you this way." This guy was quick to adopt a glove and a basket hilt (he used a long sword in the past) because he plays classic guitar and cherishes his hand, how do I make him understand he needs his head too <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" /> ? He tells me I look like Dart Fener with the mask <img src="/forum/images/icons/mad.gif" alt="" /> . Are there good alternatives to the fencing mask?
Carlo

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Tim,

I am sorry to sound snotty but the hengen and counter is by definition a parry riposte. As you can see by his follow up post Carlo and I are in agreement as to what this constitutes.

The decision to use classical fencing terminology in historical fencing is a good one IMHO as these are well defined terms understood by anyone with modern or classical training. I have personally found it most useful to garner a rudimentary understanding of classical fencing vernacular despite never having trained in modern fencing as it is the best means we have of communicating difficult concepts clearly. What I would really like to do is take some Italian epee lessons as I have it on good authority that the method bears a useful resemblance to 17th Century rapier methods.

Anyway-
Any time you put the blade in one position to receive a blow and then carry through to a counter of your own you are making a parry-riposte.
Only methods where you cut or thrust directly at an opponent and where the parry is a "by product" of the angle/timing/position of the counterattack you are making do not fall under the heading of parry-riposte. This applies whether the parry is a smooth deflection and counter or a hard stop and counter.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Guest]

The reason why I did not define the term is that there seems to be a certain number of terms related to English backsword fighting of post renaissance that are shared by modern practitioners. I should have remembered Arma area of study is medieval-renaissance, where often a term is to be defined any time it is used and put in the proper context. Late backsword researcher's life is easier in this aspect, actually I would put in the late 1600 the main change of fencing, styles became much more alike one another.
I would not bet for the reason of above that Italian epèe is that much like rapier.
Carlo

[TimSheetz]

HI Stewart,

You wrote: "hengen and counter is by definition a parry riposte."

Who's definition?

Not by Carlo's... He was referring to an action (the type of action I suspected he meant using the term "parry and riposte".. A two step action, a block, then a thrust. A "parry", then a "riposte."

If he was working a technique that simultaneously contacted an incoming blade WHILST also counter thrusting would not, to me, be a parry and riposte.

He was describing a two step action, not a single action with two components blended together.

You wrote: "The decision to use classical fencing terminology in historical fencing is a good one IMHO as these are well defined terms understood by anyone with modern or classical training."

Well, I have modern fencing training and I understand what a parry and riposte is, but I also know what it is not.. at least not when done as a single action as opposed to two separate actions... actions that when using an extremely light and modern weapon can be extremely fast.. but using a historically accurate (Medieval/Renaissance) weapon, I think it is generally impractical.

I expect that Italian epee will be very dissimilar to Renaissance Fencing... The two weapons have differing weights to a factor of 3 or 4 times... at least no epee I ever saw was remotely close to the size and bulk of even a light rapier.

I guess it boils down to our differing opinions: you wrote, "This applies whether the parry is a smooth deflection and counter or a hard stop and counter."

I count these things as separate, certainly the principles behind them are very different. The physical training required to execute them are very different. I think things that are very different should not be lumped under the same name.

If there is a medieval/Renaissance source that proves I am wrong I will change my mind.


Thanks,

[Guest]

Yes, I'm definitively talking about two separate actions and of a unique kind. The parry of a cut with the backsword is a direct block into the blow, into it's path, that should have the effect to stop the blow and make the opponent's blade jump back. It is something similar to what seen in the movies. It is a shock for the hand and for the blade (it must be done with the forte). The reposte is a cut or thrust performed after the mentioned parry, the blow must be cocked and delivered quickly. A parry and reposte is not an action that does two things with harmony, it's two actions that are of a certain stress for the arm because you suddenly break the opponent rithym and suddely restart a new rithym from. My sidesword trained arm had difficulties in understanding and performing it. First of all cuts are either snapped by the wrist and elbow with a modarate assistance from the shoulder or the result of a circle effected by the wrist and elbow (they come out powerful enough only after considerable practice), then parries are the defensive use of certain positions that are both guards and blocks, thrusts are deflected, but cuts are often directly opposed absorbing all their energy (that's why it's a stress for the arm and the sword, and that's why some say to parry into the blow, before it becomes powerful).
This is different from what I saw in earlier periods fencing demos, outside some renaissance work, and also from later fencing where blades became lighter and blows less powerful.
I have snapped a few padded swords using spadroon-backsword styles because of the direct parries and the powerful batters used.
Carlo

[Shane Smith]

I would add that some of Liechtenauer's absetzen followed by the thrust could loosely be deemed parry-riposte if one was motivated to use the later term to describe earlier methods.