Edge to edge, heart to heart

[Greg Coffman]

In response to a discussion at myarmoury.com on this issue, what is the manuscript evidence in support of using the flat to take the blow instead of the edge? What is the manuscript evidence for "parrying" with the flat and for preserving the sword? What other evidence supports this?

[Jason Taylor]

I can't speak to the historical evidence, but there are two reason for which I buy it:

1) Physics. Blocking with the edge concentrates the force, likely nicking the edge of your sword. Though in the heat of a fight, you might not care so much or even notice, remember that many of these techniques were developed for battlefield use. Even if you kill this guy off that parry that nicked your blade, that nick can snag things, get tangled up, etc.--especially of you have lots of nicks in the blade from a long bout of blocking that way. As as you work your way through the rest of the battle, this can become a real problem. Plus, nicks create a stress point in the blade that can be the focus of a break. Also a problem if you're fighting more before you can get it repaired. Plus, many of these battles would take several days, if I remember correctly. So if you aren't first in line at the camp smith (if oyu even have one) you'll end up with problems over the next couple of days of the battle, and possibly even the elongated campaign, if you're involved in one (a la the Crusade s).

2) Evidence from other edged weapons styles. The Filipino arts don't mention it much that I know of, but often those styles were used with sticks and with relatively easy-to construct blades, such as machetes. My experience there is limited. I know for a fact, however, that every blade-based Japanese sword school (and by that I mean non-shinai schools, so not Kendo fencing stuff) tell you to block flat or with the spine of the blade, which for them wasn't sharp. I've gotten this from several sources, all of whom I trust. As the katana is, ion its fundamental design and function, fairly similar to a longsword, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator, as it's unlikely that warriors of different cultures wouldn't have noticed and rectified a problem such as this.

[Mike Cartier]

one word MEYER

[Jay Vail]

In response to a discussion at myarmoury.com on this issue, what is the manuscript evidence in support of using the flat to take the blow instead of the edge? What is the manuscript evidence for "parrying" with the flat and for preserving the sword? What other evidence supports this?

Practical application of the cuts and versetzen also supports the flat-vs.-edge conclusion. If you perform the master cuts appropriately to deflect a strike, you will usually collide with your edge to his flat.

[Shane Smith]

Another thing to consider is efficiency of action. After all, what is the art of combat if it is not efficient elimination of the other guy? Edge to edge parries leave neither edge aligned to hew the foe.

If I throw a zorn into the edge of yours, you'll likely not be properly displaced and even if you are, my edge will not bite flesh because it is not lined up to do so. If I throw a zorn and do not keep the directed edge at you, I will either fail to strike home at all, or strike flat.

Edge parries do happen in freeplay but they are not to be sought. They happen incidentally, but they do happen none-the-less and for me to pretend they don't would be disingenuous. Still, if I parry with a hengen on my flat, my short edge is only a twitch from a good zwerch or shiller. If I parry with my edge in the hengen, I must twist my wrist before I can cut because I must align the edge or strike flat. Efficiency is the evidence I point to. If it's not brutally efficient, it's not martially valid. Any other argument any man may have means little to me if it does not make him more efficient(and therefore effective) as a Swordsman in adversarial fencing. Now, if any man may show how edge parries make him more efficient in offense and defense, I'm all ears. I will gladly learn a lesson at the point of a better mans sword. Long-winded talkers need not apply- I'm impressed by someone who can show me...and if they can, I'll be their biggest adherent.

[Greg Coffman]

My question is for source material depicting some kind of stance refering to edge to edge contact. I understand that hard edge contact may damage the blade. What other martial arts do is not my concern and not a good indicator of what the European fighters taught or practiced, in my opinion. I understand that counter cutting is usually preferable to just taking a hit however their are many techniques which we teach and practice that include taking a hit on the flat: taking a blow in hangenort and then cutting away, taking a blow in pflug and then thrusting.

In ARMA we have a pretty firm stance on taking the blow on the flat instead of the edge. We have two online articles that state this. This was an early concept that I accepted. However, in light of new period evidence which I have been exposed to, I am reconsidering the validity of this position.

On myarmoury.com I have been arguing for the flat being used to receive blows because this has been the opinion and teaching or ARMA. However, I need evidence to support my belief in this claim beyond the opinion of ARMA. What I mean is, I was taught this and I took it on faith, but now in light of evidence to the contrary I need real evidence to support this claim if I am going to go on believing and practicing this.

[Shane Smith]

My question is for source material depicting some kind of stance refering to edge to edge contact. I understand that hard edge contact may damage the blade. What other martial arts do is not my concern and not a good indicator of what the European fighters taught or practiced, in my opinion. I understand that counter cutting is usually preferable to just taking a hit however their are many techniques which we teach and practice that include taking a hit on the flat: taking a blow in hangenort and then cutting away, taking a blow in pflug and then thrusting.

In ARMA we have a pretty firm stance on taking the blow on the flat instead of the edge. We have two online articles that state this. This was an early concept that I accepted. However, in light of new period evidence which I have been exposed to, I am reconsidering the validity of this position.

On myarmoury.com I have been arguing for the flat being used to receive blows because this has been the opinion and teaching or ARMA. However, I need evidence to support my belief in this claim beyond the opinion of ARMA. What I mean is, I was taught this and I took it on faith, but now in light of evidence to the contrary I need real evidence to support this claim if I am going to go on believing and practicing this.

Rule number 1 in my book on rugged individualism states that we take in all available input and decide for ourselves. If you're doing anything just because someone else says so, you're not being true to yourself. I have heard all of the evidence presented to me over the years and arrived at my own conclusion based on reason and common sense drawn from intense training,research of the source texts and extensive experience. My sincere conclusion coincides with ARMA's position on this matter. That being so, I don't waste breath debating the issue among those who disagree with me but offer no new real evidence anymore. I am too busy training. I will however make every effort to cross swords and be shown the merits of a theory. A man can talk you into believing anything but he can't make it so; he can only make you perceive it as such.

Make up your own mind and don't be afraid to go against any party line in good natured open debate on this or any other issue. I have been where you now are in your journey for knowledge and I have no more time for looking back. My way forward is my own and you owe it to yourself to think for yourself. Others will disagree and I'll lose no sleep.

[Greg Coffman]

Rule number 1 in my book on rugged individualism states that we take in all available input and decide for ourselves....I have heard all of the evidence presented to me over the years and arrived at my own conclusion based on reason and common sense drawn from intense training,research of the source texts and extensive experience....I have been where you now are in your journey for knowledge and I have no more time for looking back. My way forward is my own and you owe it to yourself to think for yourself...

This is exactly what I am trying to do. I am looking for information, "research of the source texts," that is availible so I can make up my own mind. What are the sources that have been instrumental to your opinion on this matter? What are the sources from which ARMA has based it's opinions? Where in Meyer, if that is one place? So far, I have received more information from the myarmoury.com discussion that I can find through ARMA sources. I understand the need...I am asking for senior members of ARMA, like yoursef, to point me in the direction of the "all availible input" part.

[Mike Cartier]

In Meyer you need look at the blade position of the Pflug Parry. Its the way it is specifically for flat parrying.

In addition the Zornhut guard has a device (1st oir 3rd i think) that brings the sword over the head to parry with a hanging Point parry, its described explicitly to use your thumb on the blade and parry with the flat specifically so that you can slide into a winding attack.

Not saying Meyer doesn't have non flat parries but it is the prefeerred manner when you are not striking. if you blade is intended to strike (hanging point strike for example) then you lead with the edge for obvious reasons but when recieiving you offer up your flat.

Now my personal reasons for flat parries is to offer less of my blade to be bound by the opponent. Flat leaves less traction for the opponent.

Also Meyer uses flat strikes and uses them not only to smacl the opponent but also to smack away the ooponents blade for a duplieren (doppelhau) type of blade attack. He does this with the flat for a reason, most especially in the bounce (prellhauw) strike so that the energy of the blade that attacks is used by you to speed up the trajectory of the blade. Its a concept also used in Filipino martial arts.

Thats my Meyer perspective on this issue and i have read every Flat vs Edge argument over the last 5-7 years and none of them have shown me any evidence to counter balance the evidence i have found just within Meyer. In addition i think is good sound common sense not to wreck your blade.

Hope that is of some help.

[John_Clements]

Greg, for a pretty thorough holistic approach to the topic see the various articles & essays here on parrying, on edge damage, and then the members area Di Grassi study guide.

JC

[Gene Tausk]

My question is for source material depicting some kind of stance refering to edge to edge contact. I understand that hard edge contact may damage the blade. What other martial arts do is not my concern and not a good indicator of what the European fighters taught or practiced, in my opinion. I understand that counter cutting is usually preferable to just taking a hit however their are many techniques which we teach and practice that include taking a hit on the flat: taking a blow in hangenort and then cutting away, taking a blow in pflug and then thrusting.

In ARMA we have a pretty firm stance on taking the blow on the flat instead of the edge. We have two online articles that state this. This was an early concept that I accepted. However, in light of new period evidence which I have been exposed to, I am reconsidering the validity of this position.

On myarmoury.com I have been arguing for the flat being used to receive blows because this has been the opinion and teaching or ARMA. However, I need evidence to support my belief in this claim beyond the opinion of ARMA. What I mean is, I was taught this and I took it on faith, but now in light of evidence to the contrary I need real evidence to support this claim if I am going to go on believing and practicing this.

Greg:

First, never take anything "on faith," especially when it comes to historical fencing.

Second, hard edge-on-edge contact will DEFINITELY chew up a sword. There is no "maybe" about it. If the sword in question is a $200 blunt, well, so be it. However, if the sword in question is a $4000 model, then we are talking serious issues. Now, place yourself back in the middle ages when such a weapon is the equivalent of a brand new Bentley automobile. Even a wealthy "lord" will have issues with this.

Third, you are referencing conversations you are having with people on another forum and asking us to validate the ARMA position on our forum. Why don't you do this - why not tell us what others are saying on the other forums on this forum so we can evaluate their claims and make a rebuttal? Seems fair to me, especially since this is the ARMA forum.

Fourth, when you say "you were taught this and you took it on faith," who taught you this and told you to take it on faith? The sparring I have done (and continue to do) and moves and countermoves I use from manual interpretations have consistently demonstrated to me that flat-edge "parrying" works well in sparring situations. When I have inadvertently used the edge in parrying (as will happen in situations such as sparring), I have found my wasters will get chipped on the blade and my reaction time is slower. No ARMA member of whom I am aware will ever say "take this on faith." They will tell you to try it out in a sparring environment or two-person drills with intent and proper speed to demonstrate what works and what does not.

Fifth, the edge/flat and edge/edge "parrying" debate is the biggest waste of time for historical fencing practitioners of which I know. As Shane said earlier, if someone can show me that it works, I am 100% with them. If someone tells me that standing on my head while holding a sword is the best defensive position available AND can demonstrate this, then I am a convert. But, it has to work while sparring and it has to work in a 2-person drill situation where the participants are drilling with intent and proper speed. Anything else is just so much hot air.

[Jon Pellett]

Hey all

The original myArmoury topic was with regard to the essay "On Damaged Edges". That article in my opinion has quite a few flaws (and this forum is the best place to bring it up), that detract from the main argument.

In response to a discussion at myarmoury.com on this issue, what is the manuscript evidence in support of using the flat to take the blow instead of the edge? What is the manuscript evidence for "parrying" with the flat and for preserving the sword? What other evidence supports this?

In terms of evidence from manuals, I don't know of any that say to parry with the flat in order to preserve your edge. They very rarely say anything about blade damage at all. A number of texts do say to make certain parries with the flat (Meyer has been mentioned, and flat parries are also described in Codex Wallerstein, and undoubtedly in many other texts). Of course many also say to make parries with the edge, sometimes even explicitly edge to edge. It depends on the style, the weapon, and so forth.

As far as I understand this debate, no one disagrees that some styles use flat parries, and that some use edge to edge parries. The disagreement is rather about whether certain styles used edge parries or not, whether certain techniques should, when performed properly, result in direct edge to edge contact or not, and whether preserving the edge while parrying was an important consideration for the swordsmen of old.

Gene: though I have to agree with almost everything you just said, swords in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance really weren't that expensive. In the Migration Period they may have been horrendously costly (though I wonder if the non-jewel-covered ones were really that outrageous), but in the period we study they were far cheaper. According to 'Technology and Military Policy in Medieval England, c.1250-1350' by Randall Storey (PhD Thesis, University of Reading), in a table of Prices of English Arms for AD 1294-1339, the average price of a sword (out of 15 samples) was 41 d., the lowest was 2 d. (!), and the most expensive was 120 d; for comparison the daily wage of a craftsman was 3-4 d, of labourer half that much. Other cources confirm that an inexpensive sword in the mid-14th century could be had for a few day's wages. I haven't dug up anything for later periods, but I very much doubt the relative cost rose - more likely the opposite. Overall I think the cost was in the same ballpark for them as for us today.

Also, though the evidence is hardly abundant, it seems that most of the time people practiced with wasters or blunts (though some did use sharps).

Cheers

[philippewillaume]

Hello.
If we want to be really anal, we could say that the sheil or the absetzen from the krump into the shrankhut are edge to edge parry, as our short edge will be in contact of their long edge.
But really this is pressing down on a cut that is going down and both are done on the strong (and this is where linear velocity is much lower than at the tip.
We could also argue that we do not have a way to prevent our opponent to parry edge to edge. (it is not because Darwin was not born that there was not already recipients for the award)
And of course a dent on your edge is better than a dent in you.

All that being said the way I would construct my argument against intentional edge to edge on opposition in Ringeck, Von dantzig,/lew and Von speyer as follow:

The whole point of Ringeck’s (lew VD or VS) is to gain a clear line of attack, should we be in the situation where we need to “parry”. (The moto of Ringeck is strike “so that his point falls and yours hit”)
Edge to edge opposition can not reliably and consistently bring you in that situation. In fact direct opposition edge to edge is much more likely to end upi in either:
Being tied in the bind which we are warned against letting that happening.

Or in a situation where we can not keep the point in line with our opponents and we are given a plethora of examples on what to do if someone parries us and does not keep the point in line (the texts on the bad versetzen).

Furthermore Ringeck clearly tell use to use the master strike in defence and provided that you use the right strike against the right attack (which is nothing taking one of the 4 position aggressively), the likelihood of having an edge to edge opposition is minimal to no inexistent.


phil

[Tony_Indurante]

I've always found that the best proof is in actually using both methods.

When you use edge-on-flat, your opponents blade slides right off and keeps your blade in alignment to strike at your opponent.

When you use edge-on-edge you bind.

And considering that you can move the blade's alignment to go from a flat parry to an edge on bind I can't see a tactical advantage to using the edge for a parry.

Additionally, when you parry you aren't really stopping your opponent's blade so much as you are redirecting it. The flat is hands-down better for that.

I really don't even see why this arguement keeps coming up- the flat is a better choice for a parry.

[Gene Tausk]

Hey all

The original myArmoury topic was with regard to the essay "On Damaged Edges". That article in my opinion has quite a few flaws (and this forum is the best place to bring it up), that detract from the main argument.

In response to a discussion at myarmoury.com on this issue, what is the manuscript evidence in support of using the flat to take the blow instead of the edge? What is the manuscript evidence for "parrying" with the flat and for preserving the sword? What other evidence supports this?

In terms of evidence from manuals, I don't know of any that say to parry with the flat in order to preserve your edge. They very rarely say anything about blade damage at all. A number of texts do say to make certain parries with the flat (Meyer has been mentioned, and flat parries are also described in Codex Wallerstein, and undoubtedly in many other texts). Of course many also say to make parries with the edge, sometimes even explicitly edge to edge. It depends on the style, the weapon, and so forth.

As far as I understand this debate, no one disagrees that some styles use flat parries, and that some use edge to edge parries. The disagreement is rather about whether certain styles used edge parries or not, whether certain techniques should, when performed properly, result in direct edge to edge contact or not, and whether preserving the edge while parrying was an important consideration for the swordsmen of old.

Gene: though I have to agree with almost everything you just said, swords in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance really weren't that expensive. In the Migration Period they may have been horrendously costly (though I wonder if the non-jewel-covered ones were really that outrageous), but in the period we study they were far cheaper. According to 'Technology and Military Policy in Medieval England, c.1250-1350' by Randall Storey (PhD Thesis, University of Reading), in a table of Prices of English Arms for AD 1294-1339, the average price of a sword (out of 15 samples) was 41 d., the lowest was 2 d. (!), and the most expensive was 120 d; for comparison the daily wage of a craftsman was 3-4 d, of labourer half that much. Other cources confirm that an inexpensive sword in the mid-14th century could be had for a few day's wages. I haven't dug up anything for later periods, but I very much doubt the relative cost rose - more likely the opposite. Overall I think the cost was in the same ballpark for them as for us today.

Also, though the evidence is hardly abundant, it seems that most of the time people practiced with wasters or blunts (though some did use sharps).

Cheers

Hmmm....I guess I was using a bit of hyperbole for the Bentley part.

But, even at a few days wages, a sword was not a common object that could be routinely damaged. Also, it is clear that a well-made sword would have been more expensive and thus could not be routinely abused for edge-on-edge bashing. If I were to casually destroy a $200 sword every time I had a sword workout with edge-on-edge bashing (and I emphasize that the sword would be destroyed or badly damaged), my ability to stick with this pursuit would be severely limited, if for no other reason than my eventual appearance in Family Court (!)