New Article Online - Damaged Edges

[John_Clements]

Whoa, whoa, wait now; don’t make that common mistake of equating the parrying styles of 18th century cut-and-thrust fencing---based on the smallsword method---as having anything to do with Renaissance cut-and-thrust ones.

To put it into better context, Zachary Wylde is typical of the forte edge parry made from a rigid blocking position (arguably a “degeneration”) when in his 1711, "English Master of Defence", wrote: “That which is call’d a Guard or Defence at Broad-Sword, is the same and equivolent to a Parry at Small-Sword; Broad and Small-Sword hath a certain dependance one upon another, in refference to the Guard, Parr[y] or Defence…” (Wylde, p. . Wylde also noted: “I have made it plainly appear, that Small-Sword and Broad-Sword, hath such a dependance one upon another, in sundry Respects ought to be linckt together.” And Wylde stated “there’s no difference in the least, as to the Ways of Parrying and Guarding.” (Wylde, p. 30).

JC

[John_Clements]

Casper, you are right about back sword edges and possible damage. In fact, precisely because a back sword ---that is, a blade with only one edge of a much deeper bevel---its edge is by nature more acute and therefore more apt to being damaged by traumatic contact with another edge. Like some katanas, its thicker blunt back side would be used to encounter blows when possible, hence the name "back" sword.

JC

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

I would point out that Wylde is far from either a
If you want such sources that do speak to using "flat" (flech, flaeche) for longsword fighting to do parries and so forth, then one can find such in Liechtenauer & Ringeck, and in Meyer. JH

True, and I never said flat parries weren't used - just that there is evidence for edge-on-edge as well (at least in some systems; don't know about medieval, but certainly in renaissance ones).

Ahh, so a harder edge than a del tin has will not be gouged or chipped to an appreciable degree....I see, hehe

Not in my experience, as long as the unsharpened forte is used. Certainly it depends on the type of parry; an English-style stepping into the opponent's cut and stopping it on the forte before it is in full speed will hardly leave a mark, but a stronger blow will.

Rabbe

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Whoa, whoa, wait now; don’t make that common mistake of equating the parrying styles of 18th century cut-and-thrust fencing---based on the smallsword method---as having anything to do with Renaissance cut-and-thrust ones.

I'm not, aside from the fact that the weapons are somewhat similar.

If I may ask, what makes you think eighteenth-century backsword was based on the smallsword? Wylde's backsword method shows many more similarities to Silver's than to any smallsword text I know... Of course, that is only my opinion, but Silver's Forehand wards seem quite similar to the later Inside and Outside, for example.

Rabbe

[John_Clements]

What makes me ‘think’ smallsword and backsword were later linked, is the large number of 18th & 19th century fencing texts we know of (such as Wylde above) which explicitly state that the method, or that of broadsword sabre, cutlass, etc., is directly based on that of the smallsword. This is a matter of record. The evidence on it is voluminous and unarguable. Odd as it is, the French civilian duelling style foyning fence with the smallsword came to dominate fencing theory even for military cut & thrust play. It is a long understood part of the very history of post-Renaissance fencing---which occurred under a different martial environment than earlier centuries.

Again, to assert as you did above that edge parrying was part of some Renaissance cut & thrust fencing styles is simply incorrect and misleading. Closing in against the opponent's forte with your forte to stifle their cut before it is fully committed (a valid technique described in some texts of the era), is a completely different technical action than holding out your blade to allow the attacker's edge to impact your own as was later advocated in 18th and 19th century fencing. That simply does not exist as a prescribed action in Renaissance styles.

JC

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Unless I've misinterpreted him, I think Wylde is just saying that the backsword and smallsword have certain similarities, not that the method of the backsword is based on that of the smallsword.

By the way, I'm sorry if "what makes you think..." sounded offensive. Certainly wasn't intended to.

Again, to assert as you did above that edge parrying was part of some Renaissance cut & thrust fencing styles is simply incorrect and misleading. Closing in against the opponent's forte with your forte to stifle their cut before it is fully committed (a valid technique described in some texts of the era), is a completely different technical action than holding out your blade to allow the attacker's edge to impact your own as was later advocated in 18th and 19th century fencing. That simply does not exist as a prescribed action in Renaissance styles.

From Viggiani, against a fendente (courtesy of Tom Leoni):

"In this manner, our two swords would meet cross-wise, true-edge on true-edge.

This is the common parry, taught by all Masters and used by most fencers."

Rabbe

[John_Clements]

Rabbe, no offense taken. It’s all just net chat.
The reason Wyled’s statement about smallsword related to back is not unusual is because scores of other writers and teachers in his century and the next one stated the very same thing, that the broadsword, saber, and other weapons derived from or were based upon smallsword theory ---strange as that may seem to us who understand about earlier cut & thrust fencing styles. But at the time that is what they came to believe. The disconnect between earlier systems and post-Renaissance smallsword was that great. You'll just have to investigate it as the evidence is considerable and prevalent.

Re Viggianni, again, his statement is no different form that of Marozzo or Di Grassi and others also saying at times to engage the opponent forte on forte ---but they are all very clear it is not a static "block" (of the kind adapted by the later smallsword and then integrated into the other styles in question) but was a defensive closing action to interrupt and stifle the cut, and executed by traversing or stepping in against the opponent’s strike. This is not the same as the passive double-time edge block of a cut made with any part of your sword that so many keep distorting it into. The two actions are not and never will be equivalent.

[Casper Bradak]

Just a matter of context I think. At that time, the smallsword was their favourite, primary sword, and therefore became their foundational weapon.

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

John wrote:
Rabbe, no offense taken. It’s all just net chat.
The reason Wyled’s statement about smallsword related to back is not unusual is because scores of other writers and teachers in his century and the next one stated the very same thing, that the broadsword, saber, and other weapons derived from or were based upon smallsword theory ---strange as that may seem to us who understand about earlier cut & thrust fencing styles.

That is not what Wylde is saying, in my opinion; I think he just means that the usage of the two sword types is quite similar in some respects. There seem to be many more similarities between his backsword and Silver or Swetnam's, than between his backsword and smallsword.

Re Viggianni, again, his statement is no different form that of Marozzo or Di Grassi and others also saying at times to engage the opponent forte on forte ---but they are all very clear it is not a static "block" (of the kind adapted by the later smallsword and then integrated into the other styles in question) but was a defensive closing action to interrupt and stifle the cut, and executed by traversing or stepping in against the opponent’s strike. This is not the same as the passive double-time edge block of a cut made with any part of your sword that so many keep distorting it into. The two actions are not and never will be equivalent.

Very true. However, my point was that the students of certain manuals do not parry edge-on-edge because of "emotional investment", but because the text in question clearly instructs to do so.

I know this is a tad irrelevant, but forte-on-forte stifling actions were not the only kind of edge-on-edge parries advocated by Viggiani: "...the two swords will clash true-edge on true edge, and since your forte will meet my debole, my sword may actually break" .

Casper wrote:
Just a matter of context I think. At that time, the smallsword was their favourite, primary sword, and therefore became their foundational weapon.

Well, yes and no - the smallsword certainly was a popular civilian sidearm, but sabres, backswords and spadroons were commonly used by armies.

Rabbe

[Erich Wagner]

I know this is a tad irrelevant, but forte-on-forte stifling actions were not the only kind of edge-on-edge parries advocated by Viggiani: "...the two swords will clash true-edge on true edge, and since your forte will meet my debole, my sword may actually break" .

I haven't read Viggiani but it seems odd that a master would advocate a technique that could knowingly cause his weapon to break. Is there an online version of this that we can look at (in English)? I'd like to read the passage in context.

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

The text means that the weapon of the attacker might break, not that of the fellow who parries. *g* I don't know if Lo Schermo can be found online, sorry.

Rabbe

[John_Clements]

Hi

The historical change of backsword and later cutting blades basing their modes of operation on smallsword fencing and not Renaissance styles, is as I said, very well documented.
I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree then, as I 'm not able to delve into the issue with all the accumluated documentaion right now. It's an article for the future.

The issue of "emotional investment" referred to modern sword enthusiasts who misinsterpret and misapply texts to commit blcoking actions that were never advocated. People today often won't change because they are stubborn and unwilling to concede long term error.

On Viggiani and his slender cut & thrust sword, the instruction, which requires the full context of his work to properly evaluate, would seem to be a good reason not to have your blade hit the others edge. Edges do indeed clash edge on edge during fighting, and no one has ever denied this. Intentionally doing it as a preferred defense is the thing we keep providing historical and practical evidence against.

Ciao,

JC

[Matt Bailey]

Well, this was an interesting and elightening article on how damaged a sword could get in battle.

However, in response to the discussion, I feel compelled to quote some passages from the Goliath fechtbuch, as translated by Mike Rasmusson at www.schielhau.org, wherein the author of the fechtbuch repeatedly instructs to displace with the long and short edges.


"When you stand against him in the guard of the roof then strike high to his head, if he then springs from the strike and means to come forward with a traversing (zwerchau) strike by striking to the left side of your head, then let your sword's long edge fall on his sword, if he then strikes across over to the other side, just then strike your sword ahead traversing under his sword to his throat so that he cuts himself with your sword."

"Counter against the Lower Thwart Strike
When he strikes you with a Thwart from his right side high to your head's left, then displace with the long edge and stay with the point in front of the chest, if he then strikes from the sword over with a traverse to your lower right opening, then you also strike a traverse through low between you and also to his right side, and bind thus on his sword and stab just then to his lower opening."

(Note that the second action is low zwerch against a low zwerch, an action which just can't be anything but edge to edge, which essentially makes a parry followed by a thrust)

"if he stands against you as if he would stab: put your left foot forward and stand against him in the guard of the Plough on your right side and give an opening with your left side, if he stabs to that opening then wind the sword onto his stab to your left side with the short edge on his sword, setting it aside, and stride then with your right foot and stab him Just Then to his face or chest."

"How you drive the the first two windings from the Ox only on the right side is thus: When you come to him in pre-fencing, then stand with the left foot forward and hold your sword before your head to your right side in the Ox. If he strikes one high to you from his right side, then wind the short edge on his sword to your left side in his strike into the Ox and stab"

"When you come to him with pre-fencing then stand in the guard of the Ox on the left side, if he strikes one high to you from his left side then wind against his strike with the long edge to your right side on his sword and stab him one high to his face, this is one winding. If he displaces the stab and punches the sword to the side, then stay on the sword and wind the long edge to your left side into the Ox on his sword and stab him one high to the face. These are the four windings from the two upper hangings on the left and right side."


It also seems the only time Silver tells you what part of the sword to use in parrying, it's the back/false edge and the true edge.

"24. If at sword & dagger or buckler he strikes in at the outside of your right leg ward it with the back of your sword, carrying your point down, bewaring you knuckles downward & your nails upward, bearing your sword out strongly towards your right side, upon which ward, you may strike him on the outside of the left leg, or thrust him in the thigh or belly.

25. The like may you do if he strike at your other side, if you ward his blow with the edge of your sword your hand and knuckles as aforesaid, casting out his sword blade towards your left side, this may be used at short or long sword fight."

Now, understand me here. I'm not saying flat parrys aren't used-there's good evidence of them too. Nor am I saying use your sword in the manner of Hollywood heros-no credible person in the Medieval sword community does. And no one can accuse me of being "emotionally attached" to edge parries-My first longsword text was Medieval Swordsmanship, I practice flat parries, and have argued vociferously in the past that they are valid for European swordsmanship. But I'm also a man who can be swayed by evidence, and I can't think of better evidence than the plain words of the historical masters. Disagree with them if you will, but to deny what they set down in plain writing reveals an "emotional attachment" of it's own and is not really worthy of a swordsman.

[JeffGentry]

Het Matt

Counter against the Lower Thwart Strike
When he strikes you with a Thwart from his right side high to your head's left, then displace with the long edge and stay with the point in front of the chest, if he then strikes from the sword over with a traverse to your lower right opening, then you also strike a traverse through low between you and also to his right side, and bind thus on his sword and stab just then to his lower opening."

Well this in no way tell's you to go edge to edge if you do what Meyer say's most of these will be edge on flat, i have done this whole scenario, and it goes edge to flat if you use the right displacement strike's.

Tonight at our practice i was sparring with some of our new people and i did see alot of edge on edge because they don't react very quickly when they try to go to a gaurd, even at a slow speed with the waster's some did edge on edge because they were going to slow to the gaurd and would stop midway and bang edge on edge it does happen.

Jeff

[Matt Bailey]

Jeff,
It's a low targeted zwerch from the left meeting the same. (Notice Mr. Rasmusson translate zwerch as both "thwart" and "traverse, abit confusing, I should have clarified that) In this case, there is no way for it to be anything but long edge to long edge, unless one of you is striking zwerchau with the flat. But the line of attack is closed off and a mortal thrust immediately made, so it fits Lichty's criteria for being a good technique.


Also note that displacing his initial zwerch with the long edge while keeping your point on-line, as the book instructs, nessecitates a more or less edge-to-edge contact. Ringeck, if I remember correctly, specifically tells you to fall on the zwerchau with the zornhau in a similar set of counters, so that clarifies what's happening abit. You COULD hit the flat of a man doing the high zwerch with a movment more like krumphau, but the point would be off-line in that and that's not what the manual calls for.