parry and repost with the single sword

[John_Clements]

No is "bickering" here. We're having a conversation.

I use the term "parry" all the time. Everyone understands it.
But there are plenty of times when I refer to parrying by displacing with a counter blow for instance and must use other terms. Same for when receiving a blow on the blade itself or closing in to press and stop it. These differ from deflecting cuts or thrusts by setting them off with a redirection. But they are all forms of "parries." The questions some of us are trying to answer are what meandings did the old masters give to their terms and what terms can we use to communicate clearly with one another what we are doing in our practice and study today. It's a fair subject to discuss with pros and cons from all sides.

JC

[Randall Pleasant]

Matt Bailey wrote:
I do not understand this bickering over parry and riposte.
...
I'd argue that Silver's parries aren't nessecarily all stoppes all the time.

Matt

There is no "bickering", only discussion. As we see in your message, there is debate on what Silver was actually saying in his writings. The point George made was that you, John Clements, George Tuner, myself, or anyone else living today cannot be 100% sure how George Silver's techniques were executed - there are years of debate ahead of us. However, when you use modern terms it implies that you are 100% sure how a technique was performed, thus modern terms tend to kill or limit debate.

Remember, no one living today can speak for the masters, the masters spoke for themselves in their writtings, and they did so with their own terms. Who are we to <u>edit</u> their work?

[Matt Bailey]

Stewart, you wrote:

"Because the original terms you cite Silver as using--Ward and Strike--have other meanings associated with them."

Well, Silver seems to use "ward" to refer to both guard positions and the act of parrying, but its not hard to sort out which he means in context...is there any other English swordmanship definition of "ward" I should be aware of?

Strike...well, I'm assuming, it means, hit the other fellow with the sword, and has nothing to do with organized labor at all.

"Don't try to stop your opponent's strike, or try to deflect it, but rather try to completely displace his attack so that he has minimal chances of ever recovering to a guard, and so that you close off the line of attack."

Okay. Now I'm confused. I'm I'm not stopping my opponents blade or deflecting it (either by letting it slide/glance off my flat or striking against it), what kind of defensive blade contact do you have in mind?

"breaking the parts down too much you get hit because your strike doesn't follow the ward quickly enough, or your opponent is able to jump back in time to be safe"

To me, to parry and riposte does not mean to parry an attack and then return the favor slowly or awkwardly without flow, in the manner of the bad robotlike karate you see in movies. Flowing from one to the other would be a given in a fighting art, remember how I mentioned that all parries with the short sword need to "cock" the body if you want to riposte with a powerfull blow.

[Brian Hunt]

Hi all,

The problem with this type of a debate is that it crosses language barriers that are obscured in the mists of time. Heck, a parry can mean two different actions when compared to foil or sabre in modern sport fencing. In foil it can mean to redirect a thrust made by your advasary, and in sabre it can mean to redirect a thrust, or intercept a cut. Both weapons are used differently, but the same word is used to describe the intercepting of an attack even if the attacks are completly different by nature. ie. A cut verses a thrust. The same could be said about repost (which by the way when used as a latin word means "behind (space), after (time); subordinate to (rank)" ) We know what the modern usage of repost is meant to be in modern fencing, but when we get back to a dead language and culture, it could ipso facto not be the way we think of it.

When you are studing a language, you must also study the shift in meaning that each word has taken over the years. Language is the tool we use to exchange concepts and knowledge pertaining to our own views and culture. As these cultures change, or die off their words and language change, or even their meanings are lost. There are entire cultures that used words to describe concepts that we don't even have or think of.

We can have problems with language just moving between modern day societies that use the same language. For instance "placing a jerk on the fire" is a fine thing to do in England, but could get you 10 to life in the United States. For that matter in the Western United States, we "turn" the lights or water on and off, when I was in the Southern United States, they "cut" the lights or water on and off. Same language, same country, different word uses due to cultural and societal shift.

So conversely in order to study these manuals and get the correct interpretations out of them it also means an indepth study of their cultural norms and their world views as well as their words. Which is why it may not be a good idea to try to apply modern fencing termonolgies to manuals or treatises written in a earlier culture. It is hard enough not to filter them through our own biases without obscuring their meanings with modern concepts and ideas. I mean, is a ward a parry (as we think of it), a displacement, or just a defensive or offensive position? It might be all, or none depending on the master's meanings or thoughts when he wrote his treatise. The trick is to truly understand what he is saying to us and not what we think he is saying. After all, truth is subjective.

just my 2 cents worth

Brian Hunt.

[TimSheetz]

HI all,

Interesting conversation! However we interpret the terms, I think discussion illustrates that it is not just a simple thing to verbally communicate an action, even if we use a common term in modern fencing.

Communication is a complex task without visual cues.

Best regards,

[John_Clements]

I agree. Silver does seem to use "ward" to refer to both guard positions and the act of parrying, but yes, its not hard to sort out which he means in context, and this is the definition of "ward" I use myself. Your ready stance is itself a defense.

Questions arise when we try to understand the actual mechanics employed by the old masters in the warding of blows.

JC

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Guys,

Sorry, I have been out of this one for a while.

John said:

I use the term "parry" all the time. Everyone understands it.
But there are plenty of times when I refer to parrying by displacing with a counter blow for instance and must use other terms.

If you are displacing with a counterblow you are NOT making a parry. This is an incorrect use of the word. You are in fact making a counterattack with opposition here.

I assume that as one of the contributors you have read SPADA. If so, my teacher Stephen Hand has written an article that covers this nicely.

If you are using the term parry in your "fencing language" you have in fact adopted classical fencing terminology already. I am now wondering what we are arguing about.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Randall Pleasant]

You might want to ask John if he's read my paper on the subject in SPADA. That's sure to infuriate him.

Stuart

Until this point this thread seem to be a very nice and productive discussion. However, the posting of the quote from you teacher has greatly change the tone. Such statements are best left to other forums. Amoung ARMA scholars respect is earned, quotes like the one above is why your teacher is not respected by ARMA members. Saddly, the posting of your teacher's statement reflects upon you. I invite you to continue the disucssion in the manner of a scholar.

[John_Clements]

No. I don't believe it is at all incorrect to describe it as a form of "parry". Prior to the 16th century, chivalric literature is resplendent with descriptions of knightly warriors "parrying" by "striking down his blows" or “warding off his blows with strength,” etc. While it can be described technically as a counter-strike with opposition, and we all know this is just what it means, it can just as easily be called a displacement which is also a historical term and more fitting for pre 16th century fencing. For that matter, it might even a master-cut if it simultaneously parries and hits back. We don't always know what they meant.

So, why exactly would we want to use 16th century rapier terms (or 18th century smallsword terms) for the fighting methods of 15th &amp; 14th century weapons?

And I concur with Randall's comments. Those comments are unproductive and meaningless.

[Stuart McDermid]

Dear All,

I sincerely apologise for the latter contents of my last post.

Those statements were never meant to become public and you will notice that the former part of my post was a respectful attempt at rational debate. I have removed the offending passage and humbly ask for forgiveness.

The reason my teacher was brought into this is due to my double checking with him that my terminology was correct before proceeding.

I wish to take no part in deliberately upsetting anyone, I merely wish to make sure of my facts and present arguments rationally and carefully. This is why I consult those with more experience and knowledge than myself where possible.

I have enjoyed my time here on the ARMA forum and hope that we can put this little event behind us to continue what I hope has been a learning experience for us all.
Regards,
Stu.

[Stuart McDermid]

John,

I tried also to send you a PM. You are not accepting.
Once again, my sincerest apologies.
Stu.

[George Turner]

Hi Stu,

Your post had all the hallmarks of cut and paste stuff hidden down below the bottom of the window! It eventually happens to everybody. But as to the use of classical fencing terms, it's illustrative.

If the correct classical and never varying definition of the parry, wherever and whenever it appears, decides all arguments then we’ve hit the heart of the reason not to use classical fencing definitions. If we have to go by the narrow meaning arrived at through the diligent research of Hutton, Burton, and any other paragons of classical fencing who were off searching central Africa for the homeland of the Irish people, we’re all screwed. What if earlier masters didn’t have time machines to see future meanings of the terms and lacked a succinct way to say, “counterattack with opposition”? Here we have a perfect example of how the modern, narrow definition of “parry” would lock us into reinterpretting medieval swordsmanship as fencing as practiced by those whose peers fought with machine guns.

This is one basis of our argument that using fixed modern terms can cut off understanding and insight. By taking a position that parry can’t mean counterattack with opposition, any period author who used terms more loosely can’t be correctly understood. What if period authors didn’t use the tight later definitions, and wrote in the vernacular of period swordsmen? In that case, we’d all be as lost as someone who used book translations of terms like ukenagashi (parry), mikazuki (cresent moon parry), iwao (hard blocking technique and immediate counter) and assume that Japanese techniques are basically the same as modern fencers, and that a good grounding in fencing would be a prerequisite to studying Asian sword arts. Then we'd have people doing linear saber fencing with katanas, just like the samurai of old. We would also be ridiculously wrong, while screaming “But a parry is a parry!”

[Guest]

Hello,

I have been made aware of Stuart McDermid's inadvertant posting of a conversation we had clarifying points of fencing theory. Stuart periodically seeks clarification on such subjects from me, which is natural, as he studies fencing with me. In our discussion, I specifically commented on John's statement that...

"I use the term "parry" all the time. Everyone understands it.
But there are plenty of times when I refer to parrying by displacing with a counter blow for instance and must use other terms..."

I replied to Stuart,

"Of course he must use other terms, because this action is not a parry. It is an offensive action that closes the opponent's line of attack and displaces his sword (called creating opposition). An offensive action is by definition not a parry, it is an attack. An offensive action made in the same fencing time as an opponent's attack is a counterattack. You might want to ask John if he's read my paper on the subject in SPADA. That's sure to infuriate him."

I stand by these comments, although the last line was not intended for public consumption. It was, rather, a reflection on John's attitude to people mentioning non-ARMA publications on this forum, and perhaps my frustration at the fact that despite having a copy of the book containing it, John has either not read my paper or has not understood it.

To clarify something that Stuart said. I do not have any animosity towards John. I choose not to associate with John because of the way he has behaved at times, but animosity is entirely too strong a word.

Now that I have clarified this position, a word on the use of the word parry. Parry comes from the Italian parata and was first used to my knowledge in Vadi (c.1482-7). Vadi uses it in the classical sense of a defensive action with the blade. I am not aware of any author who uses the term any differently. Specifically I am not aware of any author who uses the term parry to refer to counterattacks. Therefore, throughout its 500 year history in Italian and nearly 400 year history in English, the word parry has meant the same thing, a defensive action with the blade.

Now George Turner stated "By taking a position that parry can’t mean counterattack with opposition, any period author who used terms more loosely can’t be correctly understood." Which would be a valid point if the meaning of the word had changed, if one or more authors had used the word to refer to an attack. I don't know of any evidence for this being the case, so unless someone can produce evidence, the point is irrelevant. There is a modern meaning of the word parry, which is the same as the Classical meaning, which is the same as the 15th century meaning. Parry is a word that has a known meaning. To use the word to mean something else is to promote confusion.

George Turner then brings up the point of translations, citing the translation of certain Japanese terms into English as parries and the apparent danger of assuming that they're just like modern fencing parries. Why would someone reading the word parry assume that it meant a modern fencing parry, unless that person was unaware of the meaning of the word? The word parry has no such baggage. Any attempt to suggest that it applies only to certain types of defence with the blade, or to certain weapons or systems is made in ignorance of the true meaning of the word. A parry is any one of a broad set of actions which defend you with the blade. It is independent of any weapon or system. That is the beauty of the Classical terminology. It is not weapon or system specific, and so carries no baggage with it. Many period terms are specific to a particular master, or are used by different masters to refer to different actions.

As Stuart said, if you are using the word parry, you are using classical fencing terminology. You must therefore use the word correctly. Failure to do so will result in confusion and in the assumption that those misusing the word are ignorant of its true meaning. If the term parry does not describe the action you wish to describe (as for instance an attack with opposition), then you must use a term that does adequately describe that action. Might I suggest the German term versetzen as a useful word that does not distinguish between a blade being set aside in an offensive or a defensive action. Just don't translate versetzen as parry.

In short, if you don't like Classical terminology, don't use it, but above all don't use it with your own definitions. There are plenty of fine medieval and renaissance terms, without insisting on changing the meaning of a word that has meant the same thing for 500 years.

Yours Sincerely
Steve Hand