New Article Online - Damaged Edges

[John_Clements]

HI again,
I've been indisposed, but had some time to break away. Here is what we know of the matter as related by Sydney Anglo:

The relevant passages occur towards the end of the Third Part of Viggiani's book (fols.81-82v of the 1588 2nd edition) where the Conte d'Agomonte is discussing with the master, Rodomonte, the best way to defend the head against a mandritto descendente. The Count describes how he would raise his sword against his opponent's as if to deliver another mandritto (but, of course, ascendente), with the point of his sword higher than the pommel, and with the arm well extended. In this way the swords will be joined together, edge to edge, in the form of a cross ["a questo modo si aggiugnerrebbono le spade insieme, dritto filo, con dritto filo, a guisa di Croce"]. (Note this engagement would occur at the forte of each). Rodomonte remarks that (for defending this cut) this is the usual defence which all the masters teach, and the greater part of combatants use ["Questo è lo schermo commune, che insegnano i Maestri tutti, & la maggior parte de combattenti usano"].

But, maestro Rodomonte then goes on to say that this is NOT good fencing technique for defending the head ["ma questo non e il buono schermo per difendervi la testa"].

There is, furthermore, a marginal comment to the effect that, when defending oneself from a mandritto descendente with a mandritto ascendente, one cannot attack the enemy in any way without great danger; and there follows a series of feints which may be used by the enemy against a fencer who tries to defend himself in this way (i.e., it’s an inferior and vulnerable defense, just as I wrote in my books). According to Rodomonte (and therefore according to Viggiani) the best defence is to meet the descending blow with a semi-circular horizontal reverse stroke, mezo rovescio tondo (starting from a position as though drawing your sword). The swords will still meet dritto filo con drito filo, but the forte of your blade will strike the debole of the enemy's and thus break his sword point.

Thus, the specific technqiue above regards a counter striking action, not an edge parry, and the matter is one that would seem to illustrate the very problems involved with the edges of such blades clashing on sharp edges. Make sense?

gotta run,

JC

[John_Clements]

I thought I would add something related to this thread. As a highly skilled martial artist, one of the most experienced historical European style swordsmen in the world, who has handled and cut with far more sharp cutting swords, both authentic and replica, than the vast majority of readers out there, it continues to perplex me how some students of this subject, misguided by the methods of modern sport fencing and the practices of reenactment, trained from television and movie sword fights, insist upon the mantra that sharp steel edges in cut & thrust fencing can be haphazardly bashed on one another at will without terrible damage to the blades. That they continue to deny the mounds of historical evidence and the physics before their very eyes, stretching the obscurest pieces of evidence into unrecognizable fragments to bolster their prejudices and misconceptions, is sad and pathetic. It underscores how much ignorance there still is out there and how much ARMA has to do to educate the role-players and stunt-fighters with their beaver-chewed blades. I’ve traveled Europe and America for years now demonstrating with speed and force the simplicity and undeniable efficacy of so many techniques on this matter of displacing with blows to the flat and setting aside cutting blows with the flat, convincing countless practitioners and having yet to encounter a single person who could competently dispute any of it. But still, monthly I read of some bozo on an e-group or forum somewhere who has a fraction of my knowledge and experience, who possesses a fraction of my research materials, (and who’s never seen any senior ARMA fighter perform or teach) deny the reality of the whole thing. We continue to spar with energy and strength using techniques from the Fechtbuchs, clashing forte on forte as needed, yet our steel edges come through unscathed or nearly so. If others can’t duplicate these feats it’s not for want of our tying to educate them. After all, there are all sorts of lame beliefs in the martial arts out there that people have emotional attachments to, from katanas that cleave through machine gun barrels, to magical chi powers, 40-pound swords, and rapier blows that chop off limbs, to people sparring on their knees or denying that grappling was ever used effectively in rapier fencing. No wonder there was for decades virtually no progress in reclaiming this subject or revising this craft as a historically sound and martially viable fighting skill until ARMA came along to jump start with a badly needed kick in the ass.

JC

[JeffGentry]

Hey John

I know i get frustrated at time's trying to tell people how thing's were actualy done, i think Meyer has put into word's the exact thing that has come to pass, here is the quote from Meyer.

Firstly attain your target for comprehension and skill to present, then from Mastering this art move with diligence to seek on, that one balances habit thus with curiousity to learn more shortly the fighting one wishes to understand.


Then thirdly, achieve the ability to extend the art in your own right, and from your clarity attain and exude the proper judgement in Stance and Strikes so that Youth will not have to learn this art unguided and, because of your unspoken word, ill is wrought and they thus learn wrongly to the detriment of the art. Once achieved, we need your words and thoughts in this art, first from notes you would clarify, then onto subjects important to read in training, then to other subjects you want to develop further, so that the discipline of fencing grows on properly understood principles you have contributed to, rather than relying on mindless juggling, thus greater the difference between juggling and fencing will become, and the Knightly art of Fencing will grow from Warriors far and wide, particularly to Citizens at large, but beware the Juggler, to whom the unseemliest losses are and who is found everywhere in the world, until all are put away.

This is exactly what has happened the actor's(jester's) and such have become the one's relied on instead of the warrior's who were silent.

Jeff

[Chris Thompson]

I don't see how descriptions of edge damage from Viking sagas prove that edge parries weren't used. Logically it would seem to prove the exact opposite- a parry was made with the edge, and the edge was damaged. But I realize that Viking swords were rarely used to parry in the first place, so I'll leave it at that, as it's not my area of specialization.
18th -century Highland manuals are very clear on this matter: “receive your Adversary's Sword with a proper Guard upon the Edge of your own Sword.” (Thomas Page, 1746)
As for the idea that these later broadsword systems were based on the smallsword, that was not the opinion of the Scottish masters of defence. To quote Archibald MacGregor (1791): "I now go on to describe the broad sword, as I take it to be the mother of all true defence with weapons."
Sir William Hope, in 1707, said: "For here both their arts, which have been of a long time most unreasonably, as well as unluckily separate, and in a manner rent asunder, are by the improvement of the following guard, and parade naturally flowing from it, join'd and reunited."
In other words, the arts of backsword and smallsword were totally separate until he combined them into one art (his New Method) *based on the method of the backsword*.
Hope also stated that the backsword was the basis of fencing, and the smallsword a branch of the art.
Now, I won't deny that later broadsword systems were influenced by the smallsword (and vice versa) but I think it's too much to claim that these broadsword systems were based on the method of the smallsword. In any case, the Scots fencing masters didn't think so.
Either way, they definitely used edge-to-edge parries on the fort as their preferred parrying method. Was this because their weapons weren't sharp, or because they knew they'd never have to use them in real battle? Not if you believe the numerous accounts in "Highland Broadsword" by Paul Wagner and Mark Rector, where Highland soldiers trained in this method defeated adversaries of every conceivable nationality in single combat with the sword, through the 18th century and well into the 19th. If the swords weren't sharp, I very much doubt Willie MacBean could have slain 11 Indian soldiers with his broadsword at the battle of Lucknow, or that Aylmer Cameron of the 72nd Highlanders could have killed three Indian rebels in single combat in 1858. I accept that other types of parries were used with other weapons, but when using my Highland broadsword, I parry with the edge on the fort. This is not because of an emotional attachment, but for a few simple reasons-
1- It's what the Highland broadsword manuals say to do in clear and unambiguous language.
2- It worked on the battlefield and in the duel for the 200 years that this system of broadsword play was in use.
3- It doesn't damage the part of the blade you use for cutting.
4- You cannot parry with the flat from the guard positions used in the broadsword manuals. The St George's guard could never be anything but an edge-to-edge parry, and trying to do a flat parry from the inside or outside guards would be senseless.
I realize this isn't Renaissance, but a number of comments have been made about the later broadsword/backsword systems which in my opinion are unfounded. The evidence shows clearly that edge parries were used with these weapons, that they were sharp enough to kill, and that they were used successfully in battle. Are they as effective as earlier systems? I'll leave that question to those of you with time machines.
Respectfully,
Chris Thompson

[JeffGentry]

Well Chris convict's make shive's out of spoon's and kill each other with a stab doesn't mean it will cut your head off, talk to anyone one who sell's high quality kitchen knive's they say to put a cover on them, putting them in a drawer with other knive's will damage the edge.

so how is it ok to parry on the edge of a sword?

I think a sword is more durable, it still require's some common sense in it's use and care.

Jeff

[Chris Thompson]

>so how is it ok to parry on the edge of a sword?>

I addressed this in my original post- the manuals for the weapon I use all say to do it this way, it works because you parry with the fort and cut with the feeble, and it was used successfully in battle on a number of documented occasions.

>Nice of you to register and talk smack, and inform us how ignorant we are and not have a thing in your profile>

Since when does a polite and properly sourced statement of opinion constitute "talking smack?" I didn't call anyone ignorant, nor do I believe you are ignorant. I just don't agree with you, and I have specific reasons for not agreeing with you, as outlined in my post. If you think I'm wrong, address the points I made with points of your own.
I'm sorry I haven't posted more details in my profile yet, but my name is Chris Thompson, I run an organization called the Cateran Society that practices historic Highland broadsword fencing according to the methods of Hope, MacBane, Page, MacGregor, Sinclair, Angelo and Mathewson, and I'm the author of "Lannaireachd: Gaelic Swordsmanship." I'm 32 and live in Portland, Maine. Was there anything else you wanted to know? BTW, I've had a few e-mail conversations with Mr. Clements and found him to be cordial and polite. I don't believe differences of opinion are inherantly offensive, and I hope that's not the general view on this forum.
-Chris Thompson

[JeffGentry]

Chris

it's just nice to know who we are talking to, i didn't say i didn't believe you, even before i came to ARMA i never agreed with parring with the edge of a knife, sword, or any other weapon that should have a sharp edge, i realy know nothing about broadsword's or how the scottish teach there use, it might be interesting to try.

Jeff

P.S. we get people on occasion who do come in and just run there mouth and leave they usualy have nothing in there profile, my apologies i went off half cocked.

[Chris Thompson]

Jeff,
No problem, and no offense taken. The edge parry of opposition with the broadsword is probably something that developed after the basket hilt was created to protect the hand, but it's hard to say for sure. Page's method of Highland sword and targe has the targe held forward far enough to protect the sword hand, meaning that it could have been used with older Highland medieval swords which don't have basket hilts. However, when the sword is used to parry he still uses the edge. His sword and targe method seems to be a hybrid of earlier and later styles of swordplay.

I don't think people would usually have practiced with the same weapon they'd go into battle with. Gaelic lore describes singlesticks or wasters being used for training (the term they use is "claidheamh maide"= literally, sword stick). So any given blade might only have been used in actual combat a handful of times. But that's just a guess.
-Chris Thompson

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Hello Chris, I am a Policeman in Appleton WI, any chance you could send me your e-mail on my personal section, I have a freind who is a Scottsman, and Dept. Bagpiper, he has been to Scottland, and is starting to get into the Scottish broadsword. He would be thrilled to talk with you a little.- Thanks Aaron

[John_Clements]

Hi Chris,

The point of the article is to document and prove that sharp edge on sharp edge impacts are destructive. It accomplishes that objective.

Offering numerous historical examples of sharp swords being damaged by edge parries and their users then complaining about them, as the article did, is a pretty obvious open and shut case that such actions were not preferred or good things to do. What more do you need, man?

The article did not dispute any examples of 18th & 19th century methods specifically and explicitly saying to use the forte / ricasso (it in fact gave example and there are many more that could be added). But, as the article gave proof of, even such examples are not uniform for the period. More importantly, they can not be used to argue for ANY kind of edge parry made ANY where on the blade against ANY kind of cut ---which is precisely what many enthusiasts continue to argue. The article makes the point clealry---as have so many others here---that defense using the forte is not equivalent to receiving a cut anywhere along the blade and teh wto should not be intentionally confused. Nor can such 18th & 19th century examples be used to assert that earlier systems of Medieval and Renaissance swordplay (our sole concern of study here) which do not give such instructions used the same method. (For example, can you find confirmable evidence for a horizontal St. George Guard prior to the late 1500s or early 1600s?) Make sense?

Further, can you consider the possibility that in the 18 & 19th century, with fewer swordsman using fewer kinds of swords against fewer kinds of opponents under fewer and fewer circumstances of close combat, that the methods of swordsmanship of the time may have in fact degenerated and declined rather than improved? The critical evidence for this, from the drill books and fencing literature of the time, is worth looking into…

Regards,

JC

[Chris Thompson]

Hi John,

>The point of the article is to document and prove that sharp edge on sharp edge impacts are destructive>

I won't argue with that. It chips the edge and that's obviously a fact. It's just that there are ways to minimize the damage and some styles of swordplay use those methods effectively.

>Offering numerous historical examples of sharp swords being damaged by edge parries and their users then complaining about them>

I would take a slightly different inference from the same evidence. It seems to me that their attitude was "you don't parry with the sword, but if you have to you can use the edge, but your blade might get damaged and that sucks."
However, it's not my period so I don't claim any expertise.

>More importantly, they can not be used to argue for ANY kind of edge parry made ANY where on the blade against ANY kind of cut>

Agreed. I parry cuts on the fort and only on the fort, except when I mess up of course. Against a cut from a heavy weapon like a Lochaber ax I probably would slip and counter rather than try to parry.
I know a lot of people see the later broadsword styles as degenerate. There's no way to really prove or disprove that sort of thing. They saw a lot of action against a wide variety of enemies (everything from Native American tomahawks to Japanese katanas from what I understand) and held up pretty well. But in the end I don't really care that much whether they're more or less effective than earlier styles. I just happen to love the Highland weapons, and all the surviving manuals happen to be 18th century or early 19th century, so those are the manuals I work with. I've found the system to work well against all sorts of other systems, and it's a fun style to practice. That's all I ask from it really. Anyway, I don't intend to monopolize your Renaissance sword list when the style I practice isn't even from that period. I just wanted to put my two cents in since I am coming from a different perspective.
Thanks,
Chris Thompson

[John_Clements]

Hi Chris,

I have great respect for the 18th and 19th century systems, and I appreciate those who work diligently now to explore them and advocate their effectiveness, since these methods have sometimes been unfairly denigrated. They were products of their environment and fulfilled the needs they were required to.

So, I would not dispute that 18th & 19th century swords or swordsman could kill opponents in combat. But, do consider Captain Nolan’s report from the 1840s on the fearsome blows of the Nizam, wherein they said they didn’t even teach any method because “a sharp sword will cut in anyone’s hands”. As well, writing in 1854, the battle experienced English military officer John Jacob rightly noted, “Great mistakes exist regarding the respective powers of the edges and points of swords” adding of well-made English blades that, “The things cut of themselves, however unskillfully handled.”

Anyway, I’m not sure why you can’t employ your St. George guard using the flat? Holding the weapon with the forward edge aimed back and the thumb & palm supinated upward achieves this quite well. But, nevertheless I still see it find as inferior to a hanging defense.

Curiously, there is no St. George’s guard mentioned in the many late 17th century cut & thrust fencing texts, such as the backsword writings of Sir William Hope nor in the 1747 text of John Godfrey. Donald McBane, going on experience in battles and duels from the late 1600s, but having been taught a French smallsword method as his foundation, used the St. George guard as a reactive position against high cuts, calling it the “most securest.” Further, the anonymous Highland Officer author of one 1790 fighting treatise, Anti-Pugilism or The Science of Defense, described the St. George’s Guard in Lesson VI, stating: “Is seldom used but in order to prevent being broke in upon by common cudgel players, or for show.”

In his 1805 Scotch broadsword treatise, Lt. Thomas Mathewson wrote of “receiving and giving blows with the edge” (forte) and in his introduction he wrote, “Nor do I speak of the St. George guard, half hanging guard, and others, which are found obstructive to the proficiency of the learner, and which the ancients used only for ineffectual shew, and [to] lengthen their lessons.” ( p. 9).

The Art of Defence on Foot with the Broadsword and Sabre in 1804 also stated, “It must be observed that the St. George’s guard is not intended to lie under, but only to stop a blow at the head, when your antagonist advance so closely upon you, that the hanging guard Is not sufficiently secure.” (p. 61-62).

So, it seems there was no consensus of the utility of the St. George guard/parry, (and it surely wasn’t employed as seen in countless movies and television and stunt-fighting shows where a cut straight down the middle from a two-hander is ridiculously taken on the edge right in the center of the blade).

I think it’s worth repeating once again that, yes, most all systems of fencing from the 18th and 19th centuries relied on double-time parrying actions that passively take cuts on the edge of the blade closest to the hilt. Yet, this was not a significant part of Medieval and Renaissance traditions of cut and thrust fencing.

So, why when it comes to edge damage from parrying do we see such a discrepancy between earlier Medieval and Renaissance fencing methods and those of the 18th and 19th centuries? We can note that the environment and circumstances under which later methods existed did not reflect the degree of challenge faced by Medieval and Renaissance methods. They certainly faced little to no armor, shields, or pole-weapons, for example, and no real hazards from either two-handed or double combinations weapons. The later styles were also clearly not influenced as much by Medieval and Renaissance systems, as by the civilian smallsword, which many even called the basis of their teachings. Hence, the later styles relied for defense, not on displacing blows and deflecting actions as did the earlier ones, but invariably upon rigid guarding positions for receiving cuts on the forte/ricasso. Further, once firearms became the dominant military weapons, schools of fence focused not on battlefield utility but almost exclusively upon defense in personal duels of honor. As a result, swords were less prized and military blade quality declined (especially for mass produced regulation swords), and was often criticized at the time. Thus, fewer kinds of swords being used by fewer swordsmen under fewer situations against fewer types of threats, naturally results in changes to the practice and performance of any fighting art. I think in that regard they can be held as a “degeneration,” but no more than say, a modern lion is a “degenerate” version of a saber-toothed tiger, if you follow my meaning.

Cheers,

p.s.
can you give me any details on that combat encounter with the Native American Indians?

JC

[Jeffrey Hull]

JC:

I know that you did not ask me for the Native American reference, but I do have one which would give a differing point of view (presumably) from that of CT's reference, regarding Euro vs Native bladed conflict:

CHEYENNE DOG SOLDIERS; Afton; Ellis; Halaas; Masich (edit); University of Colorado Press; 2000 (from 1869)

What I mean by "differing" would be congruent with the idea of "degeneracy" of Euro-American swordsmanship by the 19th CentAD. This book is a facsimile, translation, and interpretation of a source text by Cheyenne warriors, which, among numerous subjects regarding Plains warfare of the 1860s, refers to sabre-fighting.

Although both sides preferred to kill each other with rifles (for obvious reasons) there were still enough chances in this combat for some bladed struggle, be it tomahawk, lance, bowie, or sabre. What this book presents seems to suggest that the US Army was not training its soldiers to fight well with their own sabres (if at all), and indeed, that Cheyenne were more willing to rush up (either afoot or ahorsed) to Soldiers and strike them with a standard-issue sabre than to receive such in return.

JH

[Casper Bradak]

I can tell you from handling antique american cavalry sabres of the type used in that situation, that they didn't suit themselves to sophisticated swordplay. They handle like clunky replicas, and dull themselves in their metal scabbards. They're best for solid downright blows, especially from horseback. That's my impression.
If the art degenerates, so will the weapons of the art, not the other way around.

[Matt Bailey]

Chris et al.
Leaving the specific issue of edge vrs. flat aside, I think the difference is probably in facing an opponent throwing smaller wrist or elbow cuts from a right-foot-forward stance and wishing to riposte with that same. Less force to the cuts=less damage to the sword from rigid edge-to-edge, and less chance of the opponent cutting through the parry or otherwise ruining your day. And it's easy enough to riposte with a wrist or elbow blow from such a parry. When the opponent is throwing blows on the pass from the shoulder or above his head though, the last thing you want to do is use, for a number or reasons, a simple saber tierce or carte.

I also think the style used by Gaelic tribesmen pre-1745 was basically Medieval and looked more like Silver than later backsword masters. See the article on Highland Swordsmanship in "Spada" for a better argument than I can give.

Degeneration, superioty/inferiority? I have to admit, I like the more Medievalesque style of cutting swordsmanship better, especially when you consider versatility and stopping power. But it's kind of like guns, a 1911 is usually a better fighting weapon than a .38 snubby, but not nessecarily easier for beginner to learn, and both can certainly kill you in the right hands.