parry and repost with the single sword

[John_Clements]

Stu,
Don't worry about it. No big deal.
I don't use the message feature on the forum, it's too much effort and email is easier.

As to your friend, his public animosities on SFI and private email belligerences toward myself and our club members are well known, so you'll understand if statements to the contrary are considered insincere. The subject doesn’t need to be raised here and we don’t permit those kinds of post anyway.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “parry” as an “act of warding off or turning aside a blow or weapon by opposing one’s own weapon” as well as describing it as stopping or warding off. The modern meaning of parry as to “obstruct” or directly “block” apparently did not even come about until the late 18th century. Egerton Castle wrote, “It is only about two centuries ago [the 1600’s] that parries began to be considered as essentially different from attacks”. (Schools, p. 9) Castle pointed out “A curious point about all books of fence written during the sixteenth century, is that although the word ‘parry’ is continually used, not a single parry is ever defined. The principle on which the masters of that period founded their practice, was evidently that all attacks, if they could not be warded off by a buckler, a cloak, or a dagger, were to be met by a counter attack, or avoided by a displacement of the body.” (Schools, p. 36). While Castle was writing of the 1500’s, his works could have applied even more so to the methods of the 1400’s.

As to parrying by striking down at the oncoming weapon, this is what is mentioned in Medieval literature as far back as the 11th century, with statements such as teaching warriors the "ways of dealing and parrying blows." No matter how the term was defined after c.1530, any form of parry of an attack (cut or thrust) involves some form of "opposition." Unless its voided entirely, how can you parry without opposing the other blade? –with swords it’s either by receiving the blow on your flat or edge, or setting aside the blow by knocking it on its flat or edge, either a deflection of a direct strike. We could certainly further define those actions. But part of the problem here is that earlier texts did not have definitive meanings for many words, unlike later fencing styles. By trying to speak in technical jargon now rather than plain English means you can't use words like knock, bash, block, dodge, strike, deflect, counter, etc., etc. It's silly. Instead of giving clarity to students and our understanding of the historical methods of the old masters it cloud things by creating a "official" proscribed vocabulary whose doctrinaire definitions are controlled by an all knowing "priest class."

This need to apply 18th & 19th century foyning fence terminology (or technique) to Medieval swordplay may make some classical fences feel more relevant, but it’s impropriate for our understanding of defending against blows by Medieval weapons.

JC

[George Turner]

Steven,

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.

Surely some author in the long trail from Indo-European pera, through Latin and Italian parare and French parez, aside from the authors just listed, uses parry to refer to a counterattack, or another modern dictionary wouldn’t look like this.

parry (noun) – 1. a return punch
Synonyms: counterpunch, counter

If we went with this definition we’d need another word for a defensive action. Of course in the vernacular parry also commonly means void and dodge, so when we see a reference to parry we now know with some certainty that the author specifically meant that we should either block, deflect, counterattack, or evade.

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.

Well, maybe someone was being a bit pickier that you imply. Stu was just saying

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.

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.

He argues that if we’re using the term parry we’ve already adopted classical fencing terminology. Had Vadi adopted classical fencing terminology, too? Just what does he mean by classical fencing?

If we stay strictly with terms from fencing we wouldn't be able to talk about a riposte as something you have to do when your last post was a screw up.

[Guest]

Dear Stewart,

It's not my intention to post on this forum regularly, but as circumstances have led me here, I will post on this subject, at least briefly.

Any action in which your intention is to strike the opponent is an attack. This is regardless of whether it also defends. Any action that is not intended to strike the opponent, in which your blade defends you from your opponent's is a parry, however that is made. Therefore Vadi's parata are parries, despite being made as strikes at the blade. In classical terminology these would be beating parries. In fact Vadi's parries bring up an interesting point as they are almost all examples of what in classical terminology would be called parry en riposte in tempo indivisible, or parry and riposte in indivisible time. What this refers to are actions comprising two distinct parts, a parry, followed by a riposte, but the riposte so closely follows the parry that they are almost indistinguishable and the opponent has no real chance of recovering from his attack in time to avoid being struck. This is a subtle distinction, but a useful one. Knowing whether an action is a counterattack, parry and riposte in indivisible time or a simple parry-riposte tells me a lot about the timing of the action(s). In terms of succesful completion, there is a world of difference between an attack that also defends and a defence that also attacks. Counterattacks only work well if the defensive component is regarded as subordinate to the attack. I have found this to be true with longsword, rapier and with a classical epee. Therefore it makes sense to classify counterattacks as attacks and not defences. Referring to them in this way makes it easier for students (at least my students) to learn how to perform the action.

I hope this helps clarify things.
Regards
Steve

[Guest]

Dear John,

Your post has left me a little mystified. You state "The modern meaning of parry as to “obstruct” or directly “block” apparently did not even come about until the late 18th century." Where does this meaning come from? I've not seen it and certainly not heard it from anyone versed in the fencing of that era. As I stated earlier, the word parry has been used since it's inception to refer to any and all defensive actions with the blade (it's in Fiore BTW, in the form parara, in two places in the armoured section, again there's nothing to suggest that it's used to refer to a counterattack -my thanks to Bob Charron for checking this).

You go on to quote Egerton Castle, with two quotes directly contradicting material from fencing treatises, some of which has already been presented on this thread. You write...

"Egerton Castle wrote, “It is only about two centuries ago [the 1600’s] that parries began to be considered as essentially different from attacks”. (Schools, p. 9) Castle pointed out “A curious point about all books of fence written during the sixteenth century, is that although the word ‘parry’ is continually used, not a single parry is ever defined. The principle on which the masters of that period founded their practice, was evidently that all attacks, if they could not be warded off by a buckler, a cloak, or a dagger, were to be met by a counter attack, or avoided by a displacement of the body.” (Schools, p. 36). "

Castle obviously didn't read Marozzo or Viggiani, both of whom define how their parries were done, which edge to use etc. The last quote you make is contradicted by both Vadi and Silver who have been mentioned in this thread. And as I've stated elsewhere, the very first response to an attack in the very oldest extant fencing treatise is a parry with the sword. It's described and illustrated on plates 3 and 4 of manuscript I.33. Therefore, your statements from a secondary source (ironically one written by a classical fencer) are contradicted by the evidence of the actual treatises.

I find the idea that the technical jargon of fencing somehow clouds understanding to be simply mind boggling. The whole aim of technical terms is to aid in precise understanding. The idea that definitions "are controlled by an all knowing "priest class." " is similarly mystifying. Technical language is developed by teachers to aid in discussing and explaining concepts and actions. Of course teachers define terms. Who else could? John, you are a fencing teacher. I have heard you use technical fencing jargon in classes. Where does this odd idea of the "Priest Class" come from? If fencing instructors are a priest class then you are by definition a member.

Finally you say "This need to apply 18th & 19th century foyning fence terminology (or technique) to Medieval swordplay may make some classical fences feel more relevant, but it’s impropriate for our understanding of defending against blows by Medieval weapons."

Again, you completely misunderstand the origins of the terminology. As has been demonstrated, this terminology did not suddenly appear in the 18th and 19th centuries. Parry was used in the 15th century to refer to the same actions as it describes now. Classical terminology is the end result of hundreds of years of teaching and describing fencing actions. Most of the terminology is not weapon or style specific. In particular, any response with the weapon to an attack can be described as either a parry, a parry in tempo indivisible or a counterattack.

You don't have to use classical terminology. When discussing a single author or system, I far prefer to use the specific terms used by that author or in that system. However, you've chosen not to do that. You are using Classical terminology. But rather than use the actual meaning of the words, you want to change the meanings, meanings that in the case of the word parry, have been in continuous use for over 500 years. That makes no sense at all and can only isolate ARMA still further from the rest of the people out there who are studying this material, by virtue of you speaking a different language to everyone else. I don't understand why you want to do this?

Cheers
Steve

[Brian Hunt]

Dear Steven Hand,

while I realize that your post was directed at John, I must step in and ask you a question about the I33 manuscript. Where do you get the word parry from the latin writings contained in this fascinating work? Which word are you translating to mean parry?

Obbsesseo, or varients thereof, are the only words that I can find that might come close to this and they generally translate, as near as I can tell, to be "blockade,besiege,invest,beset,take possesion of." and have secondary meanings of "sow,plant,cover." (this is of course a simplified translation placed here)

I ask this question because as near as I can tell this manuscript never uses the word parry. It, however has words that can be interpreted in many ways. I would take the above word to mean to beset,set aside or maybe displace, not typically parry as it is used in small sword and epee.

I also find other types of blade contact in this manuscript that I would translate as being binds and bindings (the original meanings generally translate as tie up, moor, bound), thrust (pierce), recieve (as in to recieve the sword and the shield), fall under, bind over or bind under, attack, make a stroke, but I honestly do not find the word parry to be here.

Would you be so kind as to further enlighten me about your interpretation of the actions of the sword {as written in this work} that you describe as a parry? I believe that a parry may be performed differently than say a displacement or a setting aside of the sword. I realize that you could generalize all of these actions as a parry, but that would not really give a true desription of their nature.

I, IMHO, see this whole thread as having become a discussion about the problems of crossover or miscommunication that missapplied termanology can create. My opinion is that no one is saying that the word parry did not exist in previous manuals, ie. Vadi, Silver, Fiore and others mentioned here. The crux of the matter appears to me to be whether or not, for example the 'parara' of Fiore is the same as a parry used by someone like Hope, and has the same meaning and format after time and cultural/socialogical shift has had it way with things.

Having taken Bob Charron's seminar, whom I mention due to your statement about him. I found his seminar to be interesting and well taught. I know he takes pride in studying the specific culture of Fiore in order to better understand what Fiore was saying in his writings. Therefore, IMHO, he stays as specific as he can to the terms used by Fiore, and trys to never stray from them.

It is my understanding that what is being said here is that 19th/20th century terms of fence are not neccesarily the correct terms to be used with manuals from previous centuries and that we need to use the terms as they (the masters) used them, avoiding the hodgepoge of lumping everthing under one set of terms, ie. parry and repost, thus limiting our own knowledge and understanding.

with best intentions ( and you know what can be said about those . . . . <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

Brian Hunt.

[Derek Wassom]

"I, IMHO, see this whole thread as having become a discussion about the problems of crossover or miscommunication that missapplied termanology can create. My opinion is that no one is saying that the word parry did not exist in previous manuals, ie. Vadi, Silver, Fiore and others mentioned here. The crux of the matter appears to me to be whether or not, for example the 'parara' of Fiore is the same as a parry used by someone like Hope, and has the same meaning and format after time and cultural/socialogical shift has had it way with things. "

This is what I was thinking too, Brian. You took the words right out of my mouth.(how rude <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

I would also like to say that using modern fencing terms confuses the heck out of me, because I have no experience in that area.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Steve,

I wanted to comment on 'technical jargon' in general.

You wrote: "I find the idea that the technical jargon of fencing somehow clouds understanding to be simply mind boggling. The whole aim of technical terms is to aid in precise understanding."

The use of technical jargon can clarify IF, and only IF, it is used with people who agree with and understand the specific jargon you are using. For Example: "Our SP is 0500. We will leave AA DOG and move through TCP 13. We will RON at the TTP." Another example: "1-1 cavalry squadron will SCREEN in their sector along the FLOT." "1-2 cavalry squadron will GUARD in their sector along the FEBA. "1-3 cavalry squadron will COVER ....."

My point is, that to many folks this all makes sense. It is military jargon.. but it is operating within a doctrine that identifies the way things are done.. and definitions are accepted by the technical population... and it changes over time as the doctrine shifts and changes.

You wrote: "The idea that definitions "are controlled by an all knowing "priest class." " is similarly mystifying."

I think the term priest class is pretty funny. It isn't accurate in the truest sense, of course, but the point I take from it is that if you are deciding that "this and only this in historical fencing means x,y,z..." then you are making a call and acting as the prophet of the sword. It isn't easy to roll over half a millenia of language use into one word and say, this is what they all meant. Unless you are the chosen one!

You wrote: "Technical language is developed by teachers to aid in discussing and explaining concepts and actions."

Yes - TO A POINT. Is the language you are using to describe what YOU mean? Technical language is only as good as it is accepted by the technicians. Is the goal in its use a simple and convenient categorization of words and terms, or is it for clarifying how to execute a technique? If used to clarify a technique.. it can't be a rigid term... cause not all students will find that way easy to understand.. and may need it broken into a different set of descriptive words to get dynamic actions across. Then you have to leave the 'accepted definitions' to explain it more clearly... like in my mil jargon example above. I would need to break it down into more detail and use different descriptive words to get some people to understand the concepts.

You wrote: "Of course teachers define terms." Right, and should clarify by saying, "this is what I mean when I say "xyz".

Interesting conversation here. I think that it illustrates that things are just not that simple when it comes to discussing combat related topics. That will never change.

"In war, the most important things are simple, and the simple things are hard."

Peace,

[Guest]

Dear Brian,

I am not translating any word in I.33 as parry. The word parry does not appear. The word obsesseo has been translated by Jeff Forgeng as counter, and refers to the counterwards that are adopted to lock down the wards.

The first defensive action in I.33 is made with the sword. The text says "religa &amp; calca", rebind and advance. I normally refer to this action as a bind and I take particular care to define the exact meaning of the word bind in I.33 to any students, because it is related to, but not synonomous with the modern fencing bind. The action performed by the Scholar in the upper portion of plate 4 is to let his blade fall onto the Priest's blade (which is rising to bind the Scholar's blade from underneath, the action referred to as falling under the sword- this is why the Scholar's bind is referred to as religa, rebind), deflecting it aside and then binding it down to the right. This is different to the modern bind which takes place from the engagement, and is not a defence. The action in I.33 is without doubt a defensive action with the blade and hence it is a parry. Note that the bind does not have to be done as a defence. It can be done from an engagement, as shown on plates 12 and 13 against the ward of Langenort.

The fact that the word parry is never used in a work, does not mean that parries are not used, simply that another name is used for them. Remember, a parry is any defensive action with the blade. That's a pretty broad definition. The word parry has been defined that way, precisely because, over the history of fencing, the word has been used by different masters to refer to different actions, stoppes, beats, binds, circular parries, ceding parries, deflections. They have all been called parries. Some masters used one type of parry. Most used several.

The point I was making was not that 19th/20th century terms are "the correct terms to be used with manuals from previous centuries". I believe the best terms to use are the terms in the particular manual. However, what do we all do when we're having a general discussion? We translate into modern terms. I do it, John was doing it, and that's the point. We don't necessarily have to use a modern term, but if we are to use a term like parry, then we must use it correctly. The word parry has been in existence for at least 590 years (as it's in Fiore). In that time it has always been used to refer to defences with the blade (or with the left hand or left hand implement). It has never been used, as John used it earlier in this thread to refer to an attack.

We can choose which terms best describe the actions used by the master we are studying. We can decide, for example that the words absetzen and versetzen are more useful to us than the words parry and counterattack because they carry subtly different meanings, better suited to describing the exact actions of the Liechtenauer system. We can use a modern word in a specific historical meaning, referring to, for example, a Vadi parry. What we cannot do is to take a 600 year old word and radically alter its meaning. The word parry has never been used in fencing to refer to an attack, regardless of whether or not that attack is made with opposition. To do so now is unecessary and will result in confusion.

I am not the one insisting on using modern terminology. John was already using modern terminology. I just ask that if it is used, that it be used correctly.

Cheers
Steve

[Guest]

Hi Folks

We should all be using Defined Technical Terms not Jargon. Jargon is IMHO and others an "elitist tool" to prevent the spread of information. Compare "priest class".

We should if we had the time or the incination define each of our terms as we use them or have a glossary of Defined Technical Terms which we can direct people to before we start to discuss. There must be one of these already established for Classical Fencing.

As long as we assume everyone who is listening to what we say or write understands the words we are using, then these problems will always crop up. We are lucky when we meet we can show and explain. We are unlucky in that on the net we can only explain, which will lead to more and more threads like this unless people Define Technical Terms as they use them.

All the best

Col

[Guest]

Hello folks, one goes to Scotland and finds such a big debate when he comes back <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Thank to everyone who gave suggestions, I'll take a bit of time to study them.
First I'd like to clarify that I was talking about 1700 fencing, no medieval, no renaissance.
Second, for the above mentioned reason I think the ever present Silver does not necessarily apply here, expecially if you consider that I'm studying Mc Bane mainly and this author is not exactly in favour of defensive fighting. Actually, if there is one principle that can be derived from Mc Bane's lesson, it is that of attacking first in any case, getting the control of a line of offence by feinting or battering and pushing hard at the opponent. He seems to promote speed and aggression more than most fencing masters thast preceded and followed him, no suprise he preferred the fast spadroon to the broad sword. Another point in this author is that he expecially seems to recommend cover the most dangerous attacks of a given weapon because in his experience there are wounds one can recover from. So do not get a small sword thrust in the body, do not get a head, wrist, knee cut from a broad sword, if you do get one of them... <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />
As to the parry itself, true not all backsword parries are of the edge banging kind, in Mc Bane the principle seems to be that of "parry with a spring" so edge banging kind, not so in other authors.
Roworth, for instance, proposes an hightly innovative method (I won't use the word style anymore John <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ), that exploits geometry combining some principles to get the offensive line and the defensive line at once, developing also a way to cut strongly and repeteadly from the wrist, this is a very different approach from Mc Bane's one. It does in fact study the photograms of a fightin terms of relative positions of limbs and blades, it's ingenious, cool and difficult to apply <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> Nothing to do with Silver's strategy principles or Mc Bane's tactical advices, you could explain Roworth with pictures alone.
As to the terms themselves, and their applications to the various periods, I think John has a very good point in relating the more modern methods to the small sword one, while I'm not a small sword fencer, I must admit that the advent of this weapon seems to have changed a lot of things not necessarily for the worst <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Actually I find that later methods work better than earlier ones on bad terrain where brillant footwork is not applicable, but you need the ability to hit hard from the wrist and a hand protecting hilt, using 1700 parry and reposte with a medieval sword is an invitation to trouble. I think the medieval kind of one handed (used single) sword requires complex footwork, much less linear and more of the walking kind, get in-hit-go away (very fun and cool).
On bad terrain and confined space such as fighting on a battleship, I think the 1700 spadroon-backsword-sabre methods are the very best and would surpass renaissance single sidesword and rapier, despite the fact that they are seen as less effective by some.
Carlo

[George Turner]

Hi Steve,

We don't necessarily have to use a modern term, but if we are to use a term like parry, then we must use it correctly. The word parry has been in existence for at least 590 years (as it's in Fiore). In that time it has always been used to refer to defences with the blade (or with the left hand or left hand implement). It has never been used, as John used it earlier in this thread to refer to an attack.

If the meaning never shifted, how did the etymologists trace it back to a different word, with a different pronounciation, spelling, and definition?

ETYMOLOGY: Probably from French parez, imperative of parer, to defend, from Italian parare, from Latin parare, to prepare.

And as John showed me, Gaugler also defines a parry as, among other meanings, “5. Italian, the action of deviating the adversary’s steel during the attack, or avoiding it by withdrawing the body. Parries with the weapon are divided into simple, counter, and half counter parries, and these are subdivided into simple, counter, and half counter parries executed in opposition or with a beat.”

So what about the uses of the word parry that refer to parries done without the weapon? What if a period author meant void and counter and you read it to imply blade engagement followed by a counter. Wouldn’t you be screwing it up? Obviously some people are using a looser definition of parry, or we wouldn’t have a dictionary defining it as “a return punch” or as “a dodge”. Where might these old meanings have come from, if people hadn’t been using the word parry in that way? Maybe we should wait until the classical fencing definitions settle down before we start depending on them, since obviously the classical definitions have managed to turn a simple question into a very long convoluted thread on what the meaning of parry is. I would certainly call that "impeding understanding."

[Matt Bailey]

Carlo, you wrote:

"First I'd like to clarify that I was talking about 1700 fencing, no medieval, no renaissance.
Second, for the above mentioned reason I think the ever present Silver does not necessarily apply here,"

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

Seriously, I feel like Silver's three broad options, as well as his explanations of the "times", easily apply to any fight with any weapon.

"I'm studying Mc Bane mainly and this author is not exactly in favour of defensive fighting."

Silver, defensive? I'd say a counterer, rather. Remember, the option I suggested was more counterattacking in response to your opponent's agression.

"Actually I find that later methods work better than earlier ones on bad terrain where brillant footwork is not applicable,"

Really? I do not have an indoor area at my home to with swords, so I have some experience with the vagaries of the outdoors. I find conservative passing steps the securest to practice on wet slippery ground, on overgrown patches where grass might tangle your feet, etc, as opposed to sliding foot steps or lunges.

"using 1700 parry and reposte with a medieval sword is an invitation to trouble."

Well, we've seen that the Medieval single sword DOES use the concept of ward and strike/parry and riposte quite often...

"I think the medieval kind of one handed (used single) sword requires complex footwork,"

Once again, I do not consider the passing forward and back, to be complex footwork, I feel it is the most natural and simple footwork known to man.

"On bad terrain and confined space such as fighting on a battleship, I think the 1700 spadroon-backsword-sabre methods are the very best and would surpass renaissance single sidesword and rapier, despite the fact that they are seen as less effective by some."

I disagree, particularly since Silver is so adamant about sword arts being usefull on the battlefield, and because he teaches so many techniques that would be useful in a close press when no footwork at all is possible (grips, giving the pommel, etc.)

Cheers,
Matt

[Guest]

I see that Silver is indeeed applicable to any kind of sword fight, however the point with Mc Bane is that the guy is very "imperfect" in his fight because he is always set on the offensive. He does recommend defensive guards and parries, but he wants his "disciple" to attack first in any lesson.
In free bouts I do not feel compelled to always use this attitude. However that's the spirit of Mc Bane's method.
"At last I came to a Bouer's house and got a hog...There meets me two Hollanders. They would have half of the hog. I refused. They drew their swords, I drew my spadroon and to it we went. I resolved to die ere I would quit my hog." That's not Silver <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Carlo

[Guest]

I read through the debate now. Sounds like something that came out on SFI time ago. As I see the matter, CF has presently the behavior of a leading paradigm of the kind described by Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", it does translate problems and solutions in it's own terms. As described by Kuhn, the researchers that belong to this paradigm think this is both lecit and leading to progress, as any researcher belonging to a specific paradigm does. However there is an interesting point of vew, belonging to a Kuhn's collegue: Paul Feyerabend, that deems this behavior as actually impediting progress. Feyerabend once took a page from Kuhn, talking about problem solving and the behavior of the scientific community operating under a shared paradigm and substituted "organized crime" to "scientific community", the whole page kept a sense (before anyone doubts it, I'm not saying someone here is a criminal ok? <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> ). What Feyerabend suggested is that the so called "scientific communities" research indipendently from a leading paradigm and STUDY SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS MADE BY OTHERS WITHOUT TRANSLATNG THEM, because translation in the terms of one paradigm means alteration of the sense of the statement. Now, of course this leads to some problems. One is that no leading paradigm would mean a multitude of scientific communities asking money to the governament to work on the same problems, but this is not a problem here because we all ask money only to ourselves and choose the problems we want to work on by personal preference. The second is that without a common language there are difficulties in communication and theories are hard to compare, Feyerabend avices to just study the statements, no translation, one has to get used to the terms the statements are made with. We have a special mean to solve this second problem which is to communicate blade to blade, this washes out most verbal difficulties.
While we see that the situation described by Kuhn is present in many instances, it's propensity to bring progress here is to be doubted, in my opinion, because the reality we call fencing is, in my opinion, an illusion if we mean the totality of fencing methods developed in Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire to the obsolescence of the sword as a battle and duelling weapon with this term.
Regards
Carlo

[Jeffrey Hull]

JC's quoting of Castle and so forth was clear enough to me: there was no nicey-nice "right of way" nor was there even the ridiculous "parry &amp; riposte" in Medieval or later Renaissance fencing, as per the contrivance thereof at much later, effete, and/or sportified times.

How is it that one cannot understand a "parry" being a simultaneous offense and defense, as Castle points out?

Why is it that old terms such as "Meisterhau" or "In Des" were/are are just such a mix of offense &amp; defense, being terms conveying this sense, yet this sense is so vehemently contested?

Does anyone presume that the "Fechter" of the past did not strive to make moves which were a simultaneous offense &amp; defense in order to fight well, simply because one is unfamiliar at sparring with tools and techniques of the long-sword -- which they did, and had to do so to fight for their lives -- unlike the modern naysayer?

Could some of you acknowledge that the small-sword has mostly nothing to do with the long-sword?

Just what do you not get about all this?

JH