New Article Online - Damaged Edges

[Randall Pleasant]

Matt wrote:
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.

Matt

It just happends that the DFW Study Group was practicing some of these very techniques today. Not once did we experience an edge-on-edge impact of our blades, nor were there any damage to them. I'll leave the Silver stuff to those who actually know it. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

"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)

Actually both of these techniques end in a Zwerchau countering a Zwerchau which <u>never</u> results in an edge-on-edge impacts of the blades. Note that since the counter Zwerchau is cut very low the edge of the other blade impacts upon the upper flat of your blade. Also note that in the first technique the adversary’s first Zwerchau comes at you on horizontally (zero degrees) on your left side. Your counter the Zwerchau with a long edge verticle (90 degrees) cut. This results in your long edge hitting the adversary's upper flat and his false edge hitting your lower guard. Again, althought you are using you long edge there is no edge-on-edge impact.

"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."

Edge-on-edge if not an issue when setting aside a thrust since the blades are not traveling at high speed. I have no problems with <u>rubbing</u> my edge agains the adversary's edge since it causes no damage to my blade.

"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."

Although you do wind with your long edge you actually set aside the cut with the flat of your blade. This makes a natural flow from one guard (Left Ochs) to another (Right Ochs). Again, we practiced this technique today without any edge-on-edge impacts.

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.

I have no doubt that you have no emotional attachments in regard to this issue. Our comments about emotional attachments were actually in regard to some other people in the WMA community who really should know better. In regard to ourselves, we do focus very hard on the written words of the masters. However, as you well know there can be many interpretations of a technique as there are interpreters. Therefore, we take our research one step further by added a check on our interpretations. We require our interpretations to not only be historical valid (do what the masters said to do) but also martially sound. If an interpretation is not martially sound then we can only conclude that our current interpretation is wrong, thus we start over with a blank slate.

If you ever get over to Dallas or Ft Worth feel free to drop by one of our practices.

[Casper Bradak]

Yeah, I've never had an edge on edge issue with any of those techniques. But the big thing is, many of them often do hit edge on edge if you're using little or no intent, and have no experience seeing them how they turn out with it. It changes dramatically when you do use intent.
Another thing I've noticed about a few techniques, is that when they say to use one edge or the other, sometimes they're just talking about which edge is facing where, even when using the flat. That's just a theory though.

[Ryan Ricks]

i have noticed that several techniques don't work at all without intent. i was practicing krumphaus with hugh long up in DC, and they didn't work until we started putting some pepper on our strikes

ryan

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

John wrote:
On Viggiani and his slender cut &amp; 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

Actually, according to Tom Leoni, Viggiani recommends this action (ascending riverso) against a mandritto fendente.

Rabbe

[Matt Bailey]

"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."

Um, okay, are you sure you're not confusing this one with the counter where you come up under the opponent's zwerch? The first involves a zwerch from your right against a zwerch from the opponents left, and yes, the blade's edges don't meet. What's being described above though is a zwerch against the lower right opening against the same, basically making a point-down parry from which you thrust.

Randall, describe to me in clear simple words, or better yet post a picture, of how this technique can be done without blades meeting edge-to-edge.

"Edge-on-edge if not an issue when setting aside a thrust since the blades are not traveling at high speed. I have no problems with rubbing my edge agains the adversary's edge since it causes no damage to my blade."

Okay...so the Plow-thrust technique cannot be used against blows?

"Although you do wind with your long edge you actually set aside the cut with the flat of your blade. This makes a natural flow from one guard (Left Ochs) to another (Right Ochs). Again, we practiced this technique today without any edge-on-edge impacts."

And yet the book says nothing about meeting the blow with your flat. The Germans are very clear about displacing blows wth the flat when they want you to do so...Codex Wallerstein and Meyer for example. You don't get much clearer than "wind against his blade with the long/short edge". (The word "wind", in the German fencing parlance, does not nessecarily mean prior-blade contact, as I'm sure you know.) Also Danzig and Goliath are fairly clear that the Ox is framed with the short or long edge facing out-not the flat. Finally, consider that the angles and position reached when you thrust from the Ox against a high blow this way are almost identical to those reached when striking zwerchau...do you strike your opponent's sword with the flat, THEN wind your edge towards his head, or do you just strike zwerch with the short edge like the fechtbuchs say?

We require our interpretations to not only be historical valid (do what the masters said to do) but also martially sound. If an interpretation is not martially sound then we can only conclude that our current interpretation is wrong, thus we start over with a blank slate.

Great, I'm sure that's true of everyone researching the fechtbuchs. But in the techniques I've discussed, the simplest possible interpretations are martially valid, IF we give up "the swords' edges must never meet" as a criteria for martial validity.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Matt
The ochs are not done edge out, they are done flat out.

If you think the gaurd's are done with the edge you are mistaken, i'm pretty sure of were the ochs with edge out idea is coming from and i don't want to bash or attack people on here it is not what i am here to do, i had one of my training partner's do that on his left ochs i hit his sword with the flat of mine and it spun the sword out of the front hand and he hit himself in the head with his own sword, that is all i will say about it.

That may be why you see the edge contact as being the right way to block and gaurd, you never intentionaly block with your edge, you dull the edge you might as well fence with a piece of flat bar stock it is the same thing, it will not cut, it is then a club.

Jeff

[Randall Pleasant]

Jeff

In the Ochs guard most of us hold our blades at about a 45 degree angle. This very natural position leaves us with both an upper &amp; lower edge as well as an outer &amp; inner edge. Thus we match all of the historical descriptions and presents the flat of the blade to protect us against blows to the upper opening.

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Von Danzig specifically instructs us to hold the thumb *under* the blade, which would certainly seem to indicate that the edges were presented outwards in his Ochs.

Jeff,

Exactly why will the edges get dull if they are used in parrying? Admittedly, I'm not much of an expert in German longsword, but parries are rarely made with the foible, at least in the systems I've studied.

Rabbe

[Randall Pleasant]

Matt wrote:
Great, I'm sure that's true of everyone researching the fechtbuchs. But in the techniques I've discussed, the simplest possible interpretations are martially valid, IF we give up "the swords' edges must never meet" as a criteria for martial validity.

Matt

First, who is and who is not martial sound is really just an opinion. But it is my opinion that many other (but definitely not all) researchers are not as martial sound as they might be. It is the opinion of many of our members that if our sword was to break in an actual swordfight we would most likely be killed before we could escape or grapple. Thus, protecting the usability of your weapon will always be part of my view of what is martially sound. Again, just my opinion but one I feel is very justified

Second, you seem to be mis-understanding the real issue we have against edge-on-edge. We <u>never</u> say that the edges must never meet. Rather, we say that the edge must never meet head on (appx. 90 degrees) at high speed. Most of the time, if not all, as we cut into the flat of another blade it is the edges that make first contact. This type of edge contact at very small angles (less than 10 degrees?) does not cause major damage since the edge are not able to bite into each other. And as I said earlier, during blade actions at slow speed, such as during a thrust, I have not problems rubbing my edge directly against the edge of the other blade since it does not cause damage to my edge. Of course, if someone was about to kill me I would indeed stick my edge in the way of the incoming blade - but only if I could not perform a proper counter technique.

[Randall Pleasant]

Rabbe wrote:
Von Danzig specifically instructs us to hold the thumb *under* the blade, which would certainly seem to indicate that the edges were presented outwards in his Ochs.

Rabbe

In the Ochs guard my thumb is always on the underside of my blade/sword. I would have to rotate my hand on top of my sword in order for my thumb to not be on the underside. You might ask youself what "thumb under the blade" actually means. Does it mean just on the underside or out on the flat? Likewise, does it mean the blade must be completely hortizontal or can it be a a 45 degree angle? All of us have to watch that we <u>don't read too much meaning</u> into what the masters wrote.

[Casper Bradak]

Actually, according to Tom Leoni, Viggiani recommends this action (ascending riverso) against a mandritto fendente.

Sounds like yet another common, non-edge on edge technique.

[John_Clements]

Matt, displacing with either edge is not about hitting the attacker's own edge. This is pretty easy to establish and easily demonstrated. It has nothing to do with the issue really. If you try to displace by cutting forcibly at the other's oncoming edge both swords will not only be quickly ruined but your displacement itself will not be performed properly. We demonstrate this phenomena all the time.

Re Silver, this not a static parry but a striking away of their attack meeting it at their ricasso (near the hilt where the blow has much less force). Silver never instructs anywhere in all his words to block the strong portion of a sharp edge’s cut with your own sharp edge, he only gives examples of where you can close and use the forte, which is nothing anyone has ever maintained wasn’t done. Taken with Silver’s teachings as a whole, this is not an instruction to perform passive rigid blocks of strong cuts anywhere on your edge. But from this kind of example, many people today go on to do all kinds of passive edge on edge parries which were not what pre-18th century cut &amp; thrust styles describe.

Describing a method suited to any cut-and-thrust sword, Silver in his, Bref Instructions stated in Rule 3 from his “Certain general rules which must be observed in that perfect use of all kind of weapons”, that: “the warder has true space before the striker or thruster is in force or entered into his action. Therefore always do prevent both blow &amp; thrust, the blow by true space, &amp; the thrust by narrow space, that is true crossing it before the same come in to their full force…”. By this he means a defender can step in to close the distance against a cutting blow and stifle its force before it is fully in motion, and to do this by opposing (crossing) your sword against his –something ideally done forte to forte (ricasso to ricasso). Notably, in all of his writings describing the use of short swords English master George Silver speaks only of “warding blows” and the “breaking of blows”. His specific use of the back of the backsword is also quite telling, since this is exactly the correct thing to do to preserve the sharp forward edge. With a back-sword---it is thicker and has no sharp edge on its back.

It’s one thing to argue from the masters words and another to misunderstand and misapply those very words. We have to be careful.

JC

[John_Clements]

Try this: Perfrom the counter Zwerch strongly with good time by traversing forward without regard for striking against his weapon, but with the intetion of cutting him, and you will hit your opponent while impacting his forte with your own (which is pefectly acceptable).

[John_Clements]

Casper, you are absolutely right on this. Having taught this for a long time now, there is no question in my mind that when you perform moves without sufficient intent --meaning energy and speed---the result is very different than when you strike forcibly to actually attempt to impact. I have seen many practitioners and some instructors out there, bash edges when displacing or counter-cutting precisely because their timing and body mechanics were horribly off (and I don’t mean to be critical when I write this, since it’s an observable fact). You can see this sort of thing in their classes and their online videos too. What can you do to help? We show better examples and display it in person all the time. So, I don’t know. Some will just not be able to process the proper actions, I suppose. It's the same way in Asian martial arts, I've noticed. All you can do is move on and continue trying your best to improve your own skill.

[John_Clements]

Matt, no one in ARMA is saying "sword edges must never meet." Rather we are saying, "stop the useless insanity of intentionally bashing edges".

The inferior post-17th century style of smallsword derived passive parry-ripose double-time edge on edge blocking of cuts is really not part of the Renaissance tradition of defense, in the same way that the earlier method of displacing blows by counter-strike was not really used in later swordplay.

To digress a moment here, in my exprience, too many people ("trained" from TV &amp; movies) want to do the "modern fencing" kind of parry with any type iff sword they get in their hands. They've been doing it so long they resist looking at the historical methods from a fresh perspective (and sometimes even from a rational perspective). Instead, they keep looking for any scrap or clue they can interpet or twist to justify continued edge bashing (and typically they've never seen senior ARMA fencers show the obvious clarity of things in person). I'm personally really not interested in arguing with any of them, but I certainly will continue documenting and sharing whatever I find that improves my understanding of the issue.

Ciao,

JC