parry and repost with the single sword

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Carlo,

Please excuse anything here that doesn't make sense. I typed this up late last night.

As for parries with the backsword always being stops, this is not IMHO the case. Most systems also describe a slapping parry where the false edge/spine of the sword is used (particularly against "outsides" to beat the incoming sword away. This isn't usually a primary parry although it is of great use due to it's speed. It is fast because you do not need to reorient the hand to make it. Example: Imagine you attempted a parry with a inside but have been deceived and must deal with an outside. Rather than turn the wrist back to terce, you leave it in carte and simple beat hard with the false edge. This parry is very fast but is vulnerable to being undercut to the leg.

I have viewed the videos and here is my take on your backsword problem.
Note that the solution I give will be heavily "Wyld" influenced however I don't think most of the English backsword systems are all that different in any case.

Your method of fighting in general IMHO is just way too linear and too much based on running away out of distance. Are you a modern sabre fencer? What you are doing looks more like late period military (Angelo type stuff) sabre than backsword. You should be constantly circling to the left, especially when parrying. Moving to the left gets you "outside the arch" of an opponent's blows and to a position of safety. It also protects you from leg attacks.

Your outside guard is far too vertical and held too close to your centreline. The arm should be held straight out from the shoulder (or perhaps even a little further out) and the sword should be sloping across protecting your outside line and crossing your head. Your body should be inclined forwards to protect your low line and to try and engage weapons.
Also, when standing in an outside guard your feet should be wide apart in a left/right axis but narrow in a forward/backward axis. Imagine a "tennis stance" with the right foot advanced 6 inches and you have it.

The hanging guard in both seconde and prime use this same foot placement as does the George.

The other footwork position is essentially a modern fencing posture. The heel of the right foot is in line with the arch of the left. This footwork is adopted when lying in the inside, low inside or portuguese/lazy guards.

Now, these foot positions aren't just for lying in, they are adopted as you make a parry. Example: If you lie upon an outside and someone cuts inside at your open line then both right hand and right foot move across into the inside guard position. If you move only the sword then the other guy can uncross and press the attack with an outside.

If you move the foot across, you "choke up" the blow and force him well off line. This allows you time to regain the initiative. If you are lucky, you can "whirl" his blade into the low line after the parry or perhaps even cut behind his sword onto the arm.

Now against repeated attacks, the following may occur. If you lie on the outside and someone cuts inside then you bring the right hand and foot across as described above. If he then cuts an outside, you move the left foot to the left to regain the outside guard foot posture. Hence we get a situation where you move left, right, left, right, left, right.

Moving in this way protects you against feints by buying you time to parry. For example. You are engaged upon the outside guard. Your opponent disengages over your point and feints an inside cut/thrust. You move your blade to cover but he continues in a clockwise circle and ends up cutting you with an outside. If you stay where you are, you will most likely be hit as a clockwise movement of the blade is much faster than a parry to both the outside and inside. If however you make your initial inside guard on the correct footwork (bringing your right foot over in line with the left) then you buy time to make your second parry by essentially moving away from the attack but without moving out of distance. If you were to parry on a retreat, you would also be safe but your riposte would be done in the time of the hand and foot rather than in the time of the hand alone. If you are attacking in the time of the hand and foot then an opponent can evade your parry by making a foot movement of his own. If you attack in the time of the hand, he must parry as a foot movement is too slow. Your method of constantly retreating (not *always* a bad idea) is what is IMHO stopping you from landing ripostes.
Cheers,
Stu.

Also, regarding the "what is a parry-riposte debate", Shane sums up my argument nicely.
Cheers,
Stu.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Shane,

Agree with your example... because it is two separate actions in close succession, not a single action with multiple components.

Peace,

[John_Clements]

To digress for a moment, I disagree that CF terminology should be used for discussing Renaisance or Medieval martial arts --skills incolving two-hand weapons, polearms, grappling, shields, armor, facing multiple opponent, and so much more well outside of CF's universe. It's a bit like using ping pong to describe a tennis match. While the ping pong may serve as a point of referrence for some, why not just study and use the terms from Tennis in the first place?

JC

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi John,

To a large degree I agree with you here. Period terminology should be used where possible. The trouble is, that like medieval and renaissance fencing, terminology from these periods is *a probable interpretation* rather than documented fact.

Where CF has the advantage is that CF terminology is not subject to misinterpretation as the terms are still in use today.
Cheers,
Stu.

[John_Clements]

Yes, the terms are in use for their own sphere...but not in use for Medieval & Renaissance weaponry and fighting skills, for which they were not devised to explain or teach. So using them I think can lead to unecessary clouding. We should instead use the historical terms or ---dare I suggest ---when necessary invent modern generic ones?

[George Turner]

To a large degree I agree with you here. Period terminology should be used where possible. The trouble is, that like medieval and renaissance fencing, terminology from these periods is *a probable interpretation* rather than documented fact.

Where CF has the advantage is that CF terminology is not subject to misinterpretation as the terms are still in use today.

There lies the crux of the problem. If period terminology is a probable interpretation, then obviously the author could mean one of several things, or we wouldn’t call the interpretation probable. If we stick with period terms our statements might be open to some interpretation, but everyone will keep wrestling with the possible meanings till we slowly home in on what they must have meant. If we substitute modern terms then we’ve locked ourselves into the modern meaning, and our discourse is limited to the single vocabulary of motion still in use. If the period term means something different from parry/riposte, and we keep talking about parry/riposte, we’ll all happily and unanimously misinterpret everything from then on. The use of such terms will just convey to fencers that they already understand how the older weapons were used, and keep us locked into the situation of fencers trying to use older weapons with modern techniques. We may as well just pretend that the period authors were talking about modern fencing.

[John_Clements]

Nicely put, George. Interesting perspective. I will remember that. Thank you.

JC

[Matt Bailey]

Carlo:
The other guys have already given you good advice. Just a few additional suggestions, that may or not apply to your case.
As Silver said, there are really three options for when the opponent attacks. Hit whatever opening you can when he first moves toward you, ward and riposte, or slip back a out of the attack and strike after whatever you can hit (usually the hand or arm.)
To my mind, if you're opponent is sure in the knowledge that you are going to use only one option, that of warding his attack, he doesn't have to respect your distance, he can double and false more easily, etc. OTOH, if you keep all three options in play, life is alot less comfortable for him, he tends to have to make a committed attack from longer range, which is in turn easier to parry and riposte. Convoluted thought, hope it makes sense.

Its hard to parry and riposte faster than he can fly out. You have to make sure with your parry, whether hanging, outside, or inside, but especially the latter two that you have a feeling of rather "cocking" for an immediate and fluid riposte. Practice and more practice are required to make it as reflexive as blinking. A standing pell with a long stave lashed or attached to it somehow, so you can have feel of parring something then hitting the pell with your riposte, has helped me.
Finally, if it happens that when you block you are close enough to take the grip of the opponents hilt, hand or arm, do so and quickly give the sword, which you can do in security. Grabbing his blade with a gloved left hand or batting it aside with a thickly clothed left arm is also an option, and even easier to pull of than grabbing the hilt.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi John, George,

This sub-debate is probably going to go nowhere due to our very different approaches to the subject of HES. (I think this is a good thing btw, the more approaches, the better).

I would like to point out in closing though that CF terminology wasn't invented in the 19th century. It is the culmination of 300 or so years of quibbling over fencing terminology and is not weapon or system specific.

Words still used today in CF are found in old texts in a similar form with a similar spelling and pronunciation. A good example of this is the word "parere" in Pallas Armata. IMHO this word in every way has the same meaning as the modern form "Parry".
Cheers,
Stu.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Carlo,

Matt gives some good advice. He is right that it is often hard to get a parry riposte to work as an opponent can often fly out before you make your riposte. An important part of making parries work is to committ to them. You must move well left and beat strongly with your sword for if you don't you will be deceived and hit.
Interestingly, I find that I must "sell" a parry in much the same way as I "sell" an attack that I intend to be a feint. If I don't take every attack seriously I *will* be feinted out or have a tentative parry blolw straight through. By making a strong parry, you at least know that the obvious line of attack is closed even if you are not sure of the intention of the attack. If you are tentative then you could easily be attacked on either side of your sword.
Cheers,
Stu.
Cheers,
Stu.

[John_Clements]

Stu, in firearms, the same terminology originally invented for early cannons and arquebuses are often used in modern handguns. But this does not mean they have the same meaning, connotation, or even technical definitions. The same is true for fencing, as the weapons and conditions for using them changed. If this were not true, then there never would have been any differences between 16th century rapiers and 19th century epees. So, as George said, the terms cannot always be cut and pasted because they are not always equaivalent and can mislead. Make sense?

JC

[George Turner]

We already have to cope with a host of problems stemming from later words and assumptions, with terms like broadsword, cross-guard (the OED traces it all the way back to 1874), and distal taper thrown in. Proximal thickening might be a better term, since the word distal wasn’t coined until the 1800’s, and proximal at least gets us back to the 16th century. At least we didn’t get saddled with talking about ventral and dorsal edges. Not to mension the whole screw-up over what the term center of percussion means. The concept from the 1600’s, still the modern physics and engineering definition, and what fencers were thinking are unrelated, though they used the same term.

Some words are even trickier, since their meaning has shifted. The word staves is an example, currently meaning the piece of wood made into a bow, but formerly just being the plural of the word staff. No archer can read the word staves without having the modern definition cloud the meaning, so the armoury records that list x number of "staves, ready for war" would now seem to mean they engaged in combat by going onto the battlefield and holding a bow tillering contest. Any bowyer well knows what bow staves are, which unfortunately might not be exactly what was meant back then.

Insisting on using a word that’s had its meaning subtly shifted ensures that most people will miss the conceptual shift, and temporary confusion will be replaced by very mistaken and unjustified certainty.

[Matt Bailey]

I do not understand this bickering over parry and riposte. <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

Here is a modern fencing definition of parry:

"The parry is the defensive action made with the weapon to prevent an offensive action arriving"

The definition of riposte:

"Riposte: an offensive action made immediately after a parry of the opponent's attack. "

Heres a passage from our old friend Silver:

" your enemy lie aloft, either in the open or true guardant fight, &amp; then strike at the left side of your head or body your best ward to defend yourself, is to bear it with true guardant ward, &amp; if he strike &amp; come in to the close, or to take the grip of you, you may then safely take the grip of him as it appears in the chapter on the grip.

2. But if he does strike &amp; not come in, then instantly upon your ward, uncross &amp; strike him either on the right or left side of the head, &amp; fly out instantly."

That is the only example I will quote. (If I quoted every place where Silver advises to "ward and strike", I'd end up pasting like a third of Brief Instructions here.)

How does this NOT fit the definition of a parry, and a riposte?

Of course, if you want to argue its better form to use "ward and strike" as Silver did, when practicing Silver, I'll agree wholeheartedly! I do not think it nessecary that a man doing historical swordsmanship style xyz needs to know classical fencing or it's terminology to study xyz style properly.

However, those who say that Silver teaches plenty of what Modern Fencing calls parry and riposte are using the terminology correct.

Stu: I'd argue that Silver's parries aren't nessecarily all stoppes all the time. If you ward True Guardant while traversing sideways, it will in my experience be more of a deflecting action, indeed sometimes your traverse alone will be sufficient and blade contact will not occur...of course, if pass directly in it will certainly be a stop, and this ain't a bad technique either, particularly if you want to take the grip...

Cheers,
Matt

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Matt,

Agree 100% with everything you just said. I also agree with you that Silver's parries aren't all "stops". I would argue though that they are best done with force.
Cheers,
Stu.