# Sparring with sharp swords



## Tony Dismukes

(Actual sparring begins at about 8:04 into the video.)

Detailed explanation and conclusions here: We Fought with Sharps (So You Don't Have To!)


----------



## drop bear

screw that.


----------



## DanT

Why not practice gun disarms with a loaded gun?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

There actually is a reason for training with live blades besides machismo. A significant amount of technique in HEMA swordplay involves the "bind", where two swords meeting blade-to-blade with sufficient pressure sort of lock together. Unsharpened blades don't do this and so behave differently in certain situations and techniques. I can see why sufficiently advanced practitioners would want to get experience working with this factor in a live situation. From what they've written, they feel their protective gear and their experience allowed them to do so (relatively) safely.


----------



## Buka

I think they did a fine job. They're experienced, prepared well, they were careful and seem to have reported accurately on the experience.


----------



## MrRazot

I understand that in a few of the old Kenjutsu schools, that for one of the dans, your grading requires you to do Kumitachi with live swords. I was told it's recommend you take your best friend and train with him for a few months before trying.

Not sure if to argue that safety is a silly concept or that people are silly for not exercising safety.
badass tho


----------



## Chris Parker

MrRazot said:


> I understand that in a few of the old Kenjutsu schools, that for one of the dans, your grading requires you to do Kumitachi with live swords. I was told it's recommend you take your best friend and train with him for a few months before trying.



Er.... no.

The "old school kenjutsu schools" don't use Dan gradings in the main... and none require you to do kumitachi with shinken that I've ever come across. It's not uncommon for high ranking kendoka to use shinken when doing Kendo no Kata, shinken are pretty much the norm in Iaido above Sandan, but... no... what you've written is more in the realm of urban myth than anything else...


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> Er.... no.
> 
> The "old school kenjutsu schools" don't use Dan gradings in the main... and none require you to do kumitachi with shinken that I've ever come across. It's not uncommon for high ranking kendoka to use shinken when doing Kendo no Kata, shinken are pretty much the norm in Iaido above Sandan, but... no... what you've written is more in the realm of urban myth than anything else...


It occurred to me the other day that I've never seen discussion of the bind in Japanese sword arts, although it's a significant subject in European sword arts. Are there kenjutsu schools where the topic comes up or is there something about the Japanese approach to swordsmanship which makes it less relevant?


----------



## Chris Parker

Tony Dismukes said:


> It occurred to me the other day that I've never seen discussion of the bind in Japanese sword arts, although it's a significant subject in European sword arts. Are there kenjutsu schools where the topic comes up or is there something about the Japanese approach to swordsmanship which makes it less relevant?



No, it's quite relevant... it's just considered a part of the way swords behave when engaging with each other. It's a part of the waza of a number of schools that I'm familiar with, including ones I train in. That said, the bulk of swordsmanship (Japanese) is centred on "evasive cutting"... avoiding contact with the opponents weapon in the first place, and just trying to get the sharp side and pointy stabby bit in the soft, squishy parts of the other guy...


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> No, it's quite relevant... it's just considered a part of the way swords behave when engaging with each other. It's a part of the waza of a number of schools that I'm familiar with, including ones I train in. That said, the bulk of swordsmanship (Japanese) is centred on "evasive cutting"... avoiding contact with the opponents weapon in the first place, and just trying to get the sharp side and pointy stabby bit in the soft, squishy parts of the other guy...


For those schools which do address it, do they ever train with live blades (partnered sword-to-sword, not cutting drills) to get a feel for the actual experience of the bind? From what I gather, that's the primary reason why some HEMA practitioners do these sorts of experiments - unsharpened blades just don't act the same way.


----------



## Chris Parker

No, not really.... HEMA is figuring things out.... we rely on remembering how things work.... so we don't feel the need to test something we already know.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> No, not really.... HEMA is figuring things out.... we rely on remembering how things work.... so we don't feel the need to test something we already know.


I guess it depends on what you mean by "already know." You may have documents and traditions which explain a given phenomenon. That's not the same as having first hand personal tactile experience of that same phenomenon.


----------



## Chris Parker

Yeah.... I suppose what I mean is that the waza are designed with the knowledge of the behaviour of the swords... it's already there... there are certain movements and methods that employ, or take advantage of the bind occurring in order to control the opponent's weapon. And they're described as such... it's just that we don't risk damage to either the practitioners or the weapons, so we do it with bokuto. The movements are there, the methods are there, the action is there, the knowledge of what is happening is there... we know from experience (in the art) what happens. So there's no point actually using live blades for that.


----------



## Langenschwert

Good stuff. I've done some paired drilling with sharps, and it's educational. Just gotta find some cheaper ones to grind the points off of for this.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Tony, remind me some time to tell you of my experiences with live blade partner training.  I have a great story but one I cannot share openly here due to some trust in a personal relationship.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> screw that.


Scared?

Me, too. Definitely NOT something I want to try to do.


----------



## pgsmith

Tony Dismukes said:


> It occurred to me the other day that I've never seen discussion of the bind in Japanese sword arts, although it's a significant subject in European sword arts. Are there kenjutsu schools where the topic comes up or is there something about the Japanese approach to swordsmanship which makes it less relevant?



  In addition to what Chris said, it has to be pointed out that Japanese swords are built quite a bit differently than European swords. The cutting edge of a Japanese sword is *very* hard, so any hard contact takes a chance on taking a chip out of your edge. This is why, as Chris pointed out, most koryu sword schools are more oriented toward deflection and evasion rather than binding.



Chris Parker said:


> The "old school kenjutsu schools" don't use Dan gradings in the main... and none require you to do kumitachi with shinken that I've ever come across. It's not uncommon for high ranking kendoka to use shinken when doing Kendo no Kata, shinken are pretty much the norm in Iaido above Sandan, but... no... what you've written is more in the realm of urban myth than anything else...



  Toyama ryu is pretty big on using live swords for kumitachi at embu and such, but I've never heard of it being required, and they're definitely not "old school".


----------



## oftheherd1

I hadn't seen this before.  But I have always been interested in what old swordsmen did with the inevitable nicks as shown at the end of the video?


----------



## geezer

oftheherd1 said:


> I hadn't seen this before.  But I have always been interested in what old swordsmen did with the inevitable nicks as shown at the end of the video?



I'm guessing that while of course, small nicks can be filed out, larger ones would have to be filled or worked out by a smith at the forge. That would require re-tempering the blade as well. A laborious and expensive proposition. And another good reason to avoid edge to edge contact when possible. 

On the other hand, if you only use a good, sharp-edged sword in actual combat, that wouldn't be so much of a problem. Even professional soldiers weren't actually engaged in blade to blade fighting that often. A single practice session probably involves more blade contact than a lot of battles. You know, like the old idea that you train for hundreds of hours for a few moments of actual fighting.


----------



## Anarax

Tony Dismukes said:


> (Actual sparring begins at about 8:04 into the video.)
> 
> Detailed explanation and conclusions here: We Fought with Sharps (So You Don't Have To!)



If you're going to practice with live blades you need to at the very least wear the right equipment. The face mask with the white bib is a Sport Fencing mask. Sport fencing is done with very light single handled blades. I've seen the same used in Kali/Escrima sparring(not at my school) and the guy head was busted open, mask offered little to no protection.The other guy in the video has on sweat pants, which can easily be sliced even by a glancing blow. Training like this is something I personally wouldn't do, but if I did I would at least invest in appropriate protective equipment.


----------



## Langenschwert

oftheherd1 said:


> I hadn't seen this before.  But I have always been interested in what old swordsmen did with the inevitable nicks as shown at the end of the video?



Also, swords are perishable. There cones a time when you just throw it out. If the sword functioned well enough to save your life, then it served its purpose. If it's still in great condition, bonus. If after the fight it's no longer serviceable, that's ok. Go get another. It's better than dying.


----------



## Langenschwert

oftheherd1 said:


> I hadn't seen this before.  But I have always been interested in what old swordsmen did with the inevitable nicks as shown at the end of the video?



Also, swords are perishable. There cones a time when you just throw it out. If the sword functioned well enough to save your life, then it served its purpose. If it's still in great condition, bonus. If after the fight it's no longer serviceable, that's ok. Go get another. It's better than dying.


----------



## pgsmith

Langenschwert said:


> Also, swords are perishable. There cones a time when you just throw it out. If the sword functioned well enough to save your life, then it served its purpose. If it's still in great condition, bonus. If after the fight it's no longer serviceable, that's ok. Go get another. It's better than dying.


  Since you've just defeated another swordsman, you get to pick whether your sword or his is better and in better shape.


----------



## noname

Tony Dismukes said:


> There actually is a reason for training with live blades besides machismo. A significant amount of technique in HEMA swordplay involves the "bind", where two swords meeting blade-to-blade with sufficient pressure sort of lock together. Unsharpened blades don't do this and so behave differently in certain situations and techniques. I can see why sufficiently advanced practitioners would want to get experience working with this factor in a live situation. From what they've written, they feel their protective gear and their experience allowed them to do so (relatively) safely.



Let me predicate my thoughts by saying that I'm not a medieval European knight, so I could be totally wrong.    

Having said that, I have to respectfully disagree. "The bind" is something to be avoided. It damages the blade - which requires money to fix - and leaves you open to other combatants while you're busy trying to unbind.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

noname said:


> Let me predicate my thoughts by saying that I'm not a medieval European knight, so I could be totally wrong.
> 
> Having said that, I have to respectfully disagree. "The bind" is something to be avoided. It damages the blade - which requires money to fix - and leaves you open to other combatants while you're busy trying to unbind.


From what I understand, the majority of period manuals on European swordsmanship disagree with you on this. Unlike Japanese sword styles, European methods made significant use of the bind.


----------



## Dirty Dog

noname said:


> Let me predicate my thoughts by saying that I'm not a medieval European knight, so I could be totally wrong.
> 
> Having said that, I have to respectfully disagree. "The bind" is something to be avoided. It damages the blade - which requires money to fix - and leaves you open to other combatants while you're busy trying to unbind.



Every surviving European manual of arms I'v ever seen (and I've read most of them) disagrees with you. What makes you think a bind would damage a blade?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

noname said:


> Let me predicate my thoughts by saying that I'm not a medieval European knight, so I could be totally wrong.
> 
> Having said that, I have to respectfully disagree. "The bind" is something to be avoided. It damages the blade - which requires money to fix - and leaves you open to other combatants while you're busy trying to unbind.


A bind is a quick movement, that you do not have to 'unbind' from. As the person performing the bind it's easy to break contact


----------



## noname

Not sure how to attach an image file to a post, but if you look at the last little bit of the video clip in the OP, you'll see why one should not parry with the edge. Not sure if "parrying with the edge" is the definitive definition of "bind" as it is used in Medieval manuals, but it seems to be the definition used in this thread, so I'm working with that definition.

I think there's a difference between addressing something within an art form, and advising in favor of it. I believe that Meyer addresses the issue of parrying with the edge (and its downsides), but we're sort of swamped with children at the moment so it's hard for me to get a peaceful moment to double check that, LOL.


----------



## lklawson

noname said:


> Not sure how to attach an image file to a post, but if you look at the last little bit of the video clip in the OP, you'll see why one should not parry with the edge. Not sure if "parrying with the edge" is the definitive definition of "bind" as it is used in Medieval manuals, but it seems to be the definition used in this thread, so I'm working with that definition.
> 
> I think there's a difference between addressing something within an art form, and advising in favor of it. I believe that Meyer addresses the issue of parrying with the edge (and its downsides), but we're sort of swamped with children at the moment so it's hard for me to get a peaceful moment to double check that, LOL.


Both edge parry and the bind were dirt common in European swordsmanship. Examples abound.








 



 



 

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## Dirty Dog

noname said:


> Not sure how to attach an image file to a post, but if you look at the last little bit of the video clip in the OP, you'll see why one should not parry with the edge. Not sure if "parrying with the edge" is the definitive definition of "bind" as it is used in Medieval manuals, but it seems to be the definition used in this thread, so I'm working with that definition.
> 
> I think there's a difference between addressing something within an art form, and advising in favor of it. I believe that Meyer addresses the issue of parrying with the edge (and its downsides), but we're sort of swamped with children at the moment so it's hard for me to get a peaceful moment to double check that, LOL.



The notion that parrying with the edge is bad has long been debunked.
And, again, there is no reason whatsoever to think that binding your opponents blade will in any way damage your weapon.


----------



## noname

I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In my view, the last bit of the video illustrates quite clearly why one should not form a habit of parrying with the edge.....Unless of course you have the money to continuously replenish your armory. No sweat if that's the case.

Cheers, and Merry Christmas!


----------



## Dirty Dog

noname said:


> I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In my view, the last bit of the video illustrates quite clearly why one should not form a habit of parrying with the edge.....Unless of course you have the money to continuously replenish your armory. No sweat if that's the case.



If you're fighting with an edged weapon, and your biggest concern is some trivial nicks in the edge (it might take me ten whole minutes to have the cheap swords used in that video sharp again), you're worrying about the wrong thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

noname said:


> I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In my view, the last bit of the video illustrates quite clearly why one should not form a habit of parrying with the edge.....Unless of course you have the money to continuously replenish your armory. No sweat if that's the case.
> 
> Cheers, and Merry Christmas!


There's a difference between training to survive and training as a hobby. For training as a hobby, you are entirely correct.


----------



## Flying Crane

lklawson said:


> Both edge parry and the bind were dirt common in European swordsmanship. Examples abound.
> 
> View attachment 21981
> 
> View attachment 21982
> 
> View attachment 21984
> 
> View attachment 21985
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)


Did these have descriptive captions?  Because simply as an observer, it is not obvious to me that theses are edge-on-edge parries or binds.  Those pictures look to me like they could be flat-on-flat or edge-on-flat parries or something, or at least angled enough so if it is edge-on-edge, the angle of impact is diminished.


----------



## lklawson

Flying Crane said:


> Did these have descriptive captions?  Because simply as an observer, it is not obvious to me that theses are edge-on-edge parries or binds.  Those pictures look to me like they could be flat-on-flat or edge-on-flat parries or something, or at least angled enough so if it is edge-on-edge, the angle of impact is diminished.


It's Messer. A good but of it is Talhoffer. There are any number of translations.

That aside, flat parries are mechanically inferior. Ever try to hammer a nail with the flat parry method, by flipping the wrist at the palm?  Of course not. You hammer to the edge/nuckles because that's where you're strong.

Very seriously, try out those parrys for yourself. Try any of them as a flat parry with the hand orientation shown and not only will the attack blow through the Parry but in at least two of them you risk having the blade knocked out of your hand.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## Dirty Dog

lklawson said:


> It's Messer. A good but of it is Talhoffer. There are any number of translations.
> 
> That aside, flat parries are mechanically inferior. Ever try to hammer a nail with the flat parry method, by flipping the wrist at the palm?  Of course not. You hammer to the edge/nuckles because that's where you're strong.
> 
> Very seriously, try out those parrys for yourself. Try any of them as a flat parry with the hand orientation shown and not only will the attack blow through the Parry but in at least two of them you risk having the blade knocked out of your hand.
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)



Agreed 100%. The flat of the blade is an excellent choice for redirecting another blade. It's generally a crappy choice for blocking one.


----------



## noname

Dirty Dog said:


> If you're fighting with an edged weapon, and your biggest concern is some trivial nicks in the edge (it might take me ten whole minutes to have the cheap swords used in that video sharp again), you're worrying about the wrong thing.



One such engagement is probably fine, but repeatedly using the blade in such a manner will result in the sword becoming somewhat disfunctional over time. 

All those nicks will cause the blade to get caught (on armor, etc), which leaves you open to counter-attack by another foe (longsword is a war sword, not a dueling weapon). Repeatedly removing such nicks and re-sharpening the blade will over time remove enough metal to weaken the blade and make it unusable as a weapon of war.

Fair enough if you can easily refurbish and/or replace your blade (money, labor-saving technology, etc). Not sure the same can be said of Medieval persons.


----------



## noname

gpseymour said:


> There's a difference between training to survive and training as a hobby. For training as a hobby, you are entirely correct.



There is also a difference between being a modern person with easy access to financing, materials, and labor-saving technologies, vs. being a Medieval person without such massive advantages. Absent these massive advantages, it becomes that much more vital to take good care of your weapons and armor.


----------



## noname

lklawson said:


> It's Messer. A good but of it is Talhoffer. There are any number of translations.
> 
> That aside, flat parries are mechanically inferior. Ever try to hammer a nail with the flat parry method, by flipping the wrist at the palm?  Of course not. You hammer to the edge/nuckles because that's where you're strong.
> 
> Very seriously, try out those parrys for yourself. Try any of them as a flat parry with the hand orientation shown and not only will the attack blow through the Parry but in at least two of them you risk having the blade knocked out of your hand.
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)



I have parried and blocked many forceful blows during sparring, so I will respectfully disagree. One does not need to break the line of the wrist in order to make use of the flat, because one's grip need not be static.


----------



## noname

I will also point out that the damage sustained by the edge of that blade was from only a few minutes of light sparring. Imagine what it would look like after an hour of battle.

I'd rather practice in such a way as to try to minimize the damage sustained. It's not a guarantee, but every little bit counts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

noname said:


> One such engagement is probably fine, but repeatedly using the blade in such a manner will result in the sword becoming somewhat disfunctional over time.
> 
> All those nicks will cause the blade to get caught (on armor, etc), which leaves you open to counter-attack by another foe (longsword is a war sword, not a dueling weapon). Repeatedly removing such nicks and re-sharpening the blade will over time remove enough metal to weaken the blade and make it unusable as a weapon of war.
> 
> Fair enough if you can easily refurbish and/or replace your blade (money, labor-saving technology, etc). Not sure the same can be said of Medieval persons.


You're leaving out the option of a practice weapon. I don't know if that was common back then, but it's an easy answer to the problem of needing to practice things that will definitely damage the weapon.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

noname said:


> There is also a difference between being a modern person with easy access to financing, materials, and labor-saving technologies, vs. being a Medieval person without such massive advantages. Absent these massive advantages, it becomes that much more vital to take good care of your weapons and armor.


I think you missed the point of my post, entirely.


----------



## noname

gpseymour said:


> You're leaving out the option of a practice weapon. I don't know if that was common back then, but it's an easy answer to the problem of needing to practice things that will definitely damage the weapon.





gpseymour said:


> I think you missed the point of my post, entirely.



I'm not leaving the option out. I'm just not forgetting that such training is practice for the unfortunate realities of protracted combat in a Medieval setting (including relatively severe limitations on resources, technology, etc.), not light sparring for five minutes after which one may retreat to the comforts of modernity to replenish one's arms....precisely because I do not treat my practice as a "hobby".

It was your point that missed me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

noname said:


> I'm not leaving the option out. I'm just not forgetting that such training is practice for the unfortunate realities of protracted combat in a Medieval setting (including relatively severe limitations on resources, technology, etc.), not light sparring for five minutes after which one may retreat to the comforts of modernity to replenish one's arms....precisely because I do not treat my practice as a "hobby".
> 
> It was your point that missed me.


No, you did miss it. Nothing I posted has anything to do with retreating to replenish arms nor modernity. An armory could keep a small supply of beat-up practice swords for teaching and practicing. That has zero impact on the availability of other weapons for battle.

Sword practice is, by a reasonable (though not the only reasonable) definition. You're not training for sword battles, because those don't actually happen. You may be highly serious about it, and may be quite good at it, but you're not training to be a soldier on a battlefield with a sword. I'd actually argue that under that condition, there's little reason to practice binds with your expensive sword - you'll never actually need to use that bind in battle, and there's little chance of finding an armory with a number of swords recovered from a battlefield you can damage with impunity.


----------



## noname

gpseymour said:


> No, you did miss it. Nothing I posted has anything to do with retreating to replenish arms nor modernity. An armory could keep a small supply of beat-up practice swords for teaching and practicing. That has zero impact on the availability of other weapons for battle.



You perform as you practice. If you practice in a manner that needlessly degrades your weaponry, be prepared to deal with the consequences. Just don't fool yourself in to thinking their aren't consequences.



> Sword practice is, by a reasonable (though not the only reasonable) definition.



???



> You're not training for sword battles, because those don't actually happen. You may be highly serious about it, and may be quite good at it, but you're not training to be a soldier on a battlefield with a sword.



I don't need to be an active Medieval soldier or knight in order to practice in a manner that prolongs the functionality of my weapons. It's the same reason I oil my swords (or at least the good ones, lol). It's the same reason I try not to strike the floor.



> I'd actually argue that under that condition, there's little reason to practice binds with your expensive sword - you'll never actually need to use that bind in battle, and there's little chance of finding an armory with a number of swords recovered from a battlefield you can damage with impunity.



???


----------



## CB Jones

@noname 

Just curious, is this just your personal opinion that they did not use the edge of the blade in defense or do you have historical evidence of this?


----------



## Flying Crane

lklawson said:


> It's Messer. A good but of it is Talhoffer. There are any number of translations.
> 
> That aside, flat parries are mechanically inferior. Ever try to hammer a nail with the flat parry method, by flipping the wrist at the palm?  Of course not. You hammer to the edge/nuckles because that's where you're strong.
> 
> Very seriously, try out those parrys for yourself. Try any of them as a flat parry with the hand orientation shown and not only will the attack blow through the Parry but in at least two of them you risk having the blade knocked out of your hand.
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)


From looking at the pictures, the odd wrist configuration looks very similar to what happens when we use an extended upward cut with the dao (Chinese saber), a single-edged weapon somewhat similar to those depicted in the pictures, that requires that position in order to line up the edge for that particular cut.  From my experience, I don’t see that wrist position as being at all necessary to parry with the flat of the blade.  So I would say that without some sort of caption explaining otherwise, my personal interpretation of those pictures is that the fellow with the odd wrist position is attacking with an upward cut, and the other fellow is deflecting/ parrying with a downward motion that very easily could avoid edge-on-edge contact.

It also seems to me that the artwork is far from perfect, so the intended representation of what is happening may be represented simply to the best of the artist’s ability.

If there is more to the story to indicate otherwise, it is not my intention to dispute it.  I have not made a study of European swordsmanship. However, it is simply my observation that from the example of those pictures, it is not at all clear to me that they would be blocking or parrying edge-on-edge.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

noname said:


> You perform as you practice. If you practice in a manner that needlessly degrades your weaponry, be prepared to deal with the consequences. Just don't fool yourself in to thinking their aren't consequences.


Yes, you do perform as you practice. So, if you want the advantage of binds, you practice them. Thank you for following my point about the consequences of not practicing them.



> ???


Sorry - left a phrase out at the end when editing: "Sword practice is, by a reasonable (though not the only reasonable) definition, a hobby."




> I don't need to be an active Medieval soldier or knight in order to practice in a manner that prolongs the functionality of my weapons. It's the same reason I oil my swords (or at least the good ones, lol). It's the same reason I try not to strike the floor.


I never said you did have to be. In fact, I made the argument that it's more reasonable to do so if you are not. You're now starting to argue my point.



> ???


I'm entirely unclear which word you didn't understand in that paragraph.


----------



## lklawson

noname said:


> One such engagement is probably fine, but repeatedly using the blade in such a manner will result in the sword becoming somewhat disfunctional over time.
> 
> All those nicks will cause the blade to get caught (on armor, etc), which leaves you open to counter-attack by another foe (longsword is a war sword, not a dueling weapon). Repeatedly removing such nicks and re-sharpening the blade will over time remove enough metal to weaken the blade and make it unusable as a weapon of war.
> 
> Fair enough if you can easily refurbish and/or replace your blade (money, labor-saving technology, etc). Not sure the same can be said of Medieval persons.


Prior to The Black Death, personnel were one of the most available renewable resource.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

noname said:


> There is also a difference between being a modern person with easy access to financing, materials, and labor-saving technologies, vs. being a Medieval person without such massive advantages. Absent these massive advantages, it becomes that much more vital to take good care of your weapons and armor.


Huh?  Steel making was a huge industry in medieval europe.  They deforested the countryside using wood to make charcoal for the steel making industry.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

noname said:


> I have parried and blocked many forceful blows during sparring, so I will respectfully disagree. One does not need to break the line of the wrist in order to make use of the flat, because one's grip need not be static.


Huh?  Are you saying that you rotate the grip in your hand so that you change the alignment of the edge?


----------



## lklawson

noname said:


> I will also point out that the damage sustained by the edge of that blade was from only a few minutes of light sparring. Imagine what it would look like after an hour of battle.


What?  No one had a continuous 1-hour blade engagement.  Most of it was maneuvering and engagements with other weapons, notably spears, lances, and arrows.  Axes and pole-arms were popular too.

That said, if the thesis about protecting the edge is right, how do you rectify that with attacking armor?



> I'd rather practice in such a way as to try to minimize the damage sustained. It's not a guarantee, but every little bit counts.


Staying alive while killing the other guy is more important.


----------



## lklawson

gpseymour said:


> You're leaving out the option of a practice weapon. I don't know if that was common back then, but it's an easy answer to the problem of needing to practice things that will definitely damage the weapon.


Written sources seem to indicate that wasters were common as was disposable steel weapons.


Flying Crane said:


> From looking at the pictures, the odd wrist configuration looks very similar to what happens when we use an extended upward cut with the dao (Chinese saber), a single-edged weapon somewhat similar to those depicted in the pictures, that requires that position in order to line up the edge for that particular cut.  From my experience, I don’t see that wrist position as being at all necessary to parry with the flat of the blade.  So I would say that without some sort of caption explaining otherwise, my personal interpretation of those pictures is that the fellow with the odd wrist position is attacking with an upward cut, and the other fellow is deflecting/ parrying with a downward motion that very easily could avoid edge-on-edge contact.
> 
> It also seems to me that the artwork is far from perfect, so the intended representation of what is happening may be represented simply to the best of the artist’s ability.
> 
> If there is more to the story to indicate otherwise, it is not my intention to dispute it.  I have not made a study of European swordsmanship. However, it is simply my observation that from the example of those pictures, it is not at all clear to me that they would be blocking or parrying edge-on-edge.


Sure.  I've had a chance to train with several instructors who make medieval swordsmanship their martial art.  Sparred against several of them.  These are the guys who learn medieval German and Italian so they can read it in the original language.  All I've read are the English translations.  The most effective way to make the techniques work is not to worry about edge engagement.  For several techniques, the only way to make the technique work is to not worry about edge engagement.  Tafel 224 is an example of the latter.  It actually shows up in most systems that have a single handed sword or machete-like weapon.  I've seen this in FMA and CMA.  Rising cut to the attacker's blade with the left arm under the "roof block" which parries off the attack, then the left arm circles and snares the attacker's weapon limb, while the defender's weapon continues the cut in a circle to attack the body, or sometimes drawing back into a thrust.








You can see the same motion and knuckle/edge orientation here at 4:12





If you really need, I can get out my copy of Talhoffer tonight and give you the translated text.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Flying Crane

lklawson said:


> Written sources seem to indicate that wasters were common as was disposable steel weapons.
> Sure.  I've had a chance to train with several instructors who make medieval swordsmanship their martial art.  Sparred against several of them.  These are the guys who learn medieval German and Italian so they can read it in the original language.  All I've read are the English translations.  The most effective way to make the techniques work is not to worry about edge engagement.  For several techniques, the only way to make the technique work is to not worry about edge engagement.  Tafel 224 is an example of the latter.  It actually shows up in most systems that have a single handed sword or machete-like weapon.  I've seen this in FMA and CMA.  Rising cut to the attacker's blade with the left arm under the "roof block" which parries off the attack, then the left arm circles and snares the attacker's weapon limb, while the defender's weapon continues the cut in a circle to attack the body, or sometimes drawing back into a thrust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see the same motion and knuckle/edge orientation here at 4:12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really need, I can get out my copy of Talhoffer tonight and give you the translated text.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


I agree with the premise that in the midst of combat, worrying about edge damage is the wrong thing to dwell upon.  You made another good point in that much of a battle would be dealing with other weapons, and not two swords going edge-to-edge.  Your point about swords vs armor is less potent to me as it seems the edge of the sword would be striking against a curved (plate) or rounded (maille links) surface, which would be less damaging to the edge than would striking another edge head-on.

I wonder if you could explain a bit more about something you said, as I may be simply missing your meaning.  Regarding the turning of the wrist in the earlier pictures, are you saying it is an awkward position to put the wrist in, and that is what is required in order to parry with the flat?  Something else?  I’m realizing that I am unclear on what you were saying there.


----------



## lklawson

Flying Crane said:


> I wonder if you could explain a bit more about something you said, as I may be simply missing your meaning.  Regarding the turning of the wrist in the earlier pictures, are you saying it is an awkward position to put the wrist in, and that is what is required in order to parry with the flat?  Something else?  I’m realizing that I am unclear on what you were saying there.


Sure thing.  Yeah, for many of the techniques, trying to turn the hand holding the weapon so that the flat is presented would be both awkward and extremely week.  Take, for example, the first: 





Grab your Doa and step into this position then, with the edge aligned with your knuckles, try to turn the hand so that the impact of the opponent's blade hits the flat of your sword.  If if you pronate your hand so that the back of the hand is forward in order to deflect with the flat on the outside line, then you end up pointing your elbow at the opponent and extending the elbow past the protection of the blade parry.  If you supinate the hand, and face the "palm" upward in order to deflect with the flat on the inside line, then you've bent your hand at a 90 degree outward from the wrist and have no strength in the hold.

On the other hand, if you allow the edge to lead, such as a parry in Sixte, or in a sort of sixte where the point is directed more at the attacker, then you get a strong parry with sufficient bio-mechanical strength to counter very powerful attacks.






[Standard parry in Sixte]




[Hutton's parry in sixte]

I've done steel-to-steel drills this way.  Edge engagement works and keeps you safe.  Trying to defend with the flat is suicide.


Or take the following example (the second one I posted).






From this example the only possible "flat" parry is with the hand pronated (leading with the back of the hand) and parrying with flat on the outside line of the blade (which is turned over).  Again, grab your Doa, point it at the floor, then turn it so that your palm is down and the back of your hand is up, the raise it sharply to intersect an incoming attack (to simplify the movement a tad).  In order to get the point directed forward as in the image, you have to break your wrist line to your outside, taking an already questionable grip and making it weaker.  How much confidence do you have in the power of this movement, rising with the flat?

One alternative which I've seen suggested is that the defender starts with his blade at the low right hand side of his body and sweeps it to the high left hand side, kind of "swatting" the flat as it passes by and using the momentum of the blade in movement as the parry.  I've tried this.  It pushes the blade directly against the weak of the thumb, disarming the defender.

So, yeah, for the examples I've shown, trying to parry flat does put the hand in an awkward and weak position.  Parrying edge, while it could possibly lead to edge damage, is the only reasonable interpretation.

See any similarities?





How to survive a machete attack








Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Just for fun, I stumbled across these looking for something else:











Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones

noname said:


> There is also a difference between being a modern person with easy access to financing, materials, and labor-saving technologies, vs. being a Medieval person without such massive advantages. Absent these massive advantages, it becomes that much more vital to take good care of your weapons and armor.



Wouldn't most medieval soldiers be provided swords by their nobleman's armory and have access to the nobleman's smiths and amorers for repairs and replacements. Would replacing a sword be that difficult in those days.

And seems like swordsmiths would be much more common in those days and there would be easy access to them.


----------



## lklawson

CB Jones said:


> Wouldn't most medieval soldiers be provided swords by their nobleman's armory and have access to the nobleman's smiths and amorers for repairs and replacements. Would replacing a sword be that difficult in those days.
> 
> And seems like swordsmiths would be much more common in those days and there would be easy access to them.


More likely they'd be issued pole arms like a Bill or a spear.  Sometimes they'd remount a pruning or harvesting tool.  

15th Century Polearms

And then there's this:













Too big?








Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Langenschwert

Lordy, I can't belive we're still having this discussion in 2018. Some techniques require the use of the edge, others the flat. Different systems have different ideas about how to solve problems based on time period, weapons, and the preferences of the individual master.

The sword was almost never a primary battlefield weapon. It was a backup sidearm, and a dueling weapon.

Leckuchner has some very definite flat parries, as does the Codex Wallerstein in its messer section. However, the typical response in the Liechtenauer tradition (of which Leckuchner was a part), was to respond to cuts with cuts, and thrusts with thrusts. If an opponent cuts at me, I should cut at him in such a way as to keep myself safe and hit him at the same time if I can. Most of the time this involves blade contact, and edges can be damaged.

Every manual in the Liechtenauer tradition prioritizes working from the bind, and this school was quite dominant in the HRE for about 200 years. Thinking that the bind is bad because it damages the blade counters the teachings of the greatest masters we have records of from that period.

Source: 14 years of HEMA in the Liechtenauer tradition.


----------



## dunc

Langenschwert said:


> Some techniques require the use of the edge, others the flat. Different systems have different ideas about how to solve problems based on time period, weapons, and the preferences of the individual master.



This is identical to my experience of the Japanese systems

I’d add that the Japanese systems also cover sword vs wooden weapons where the blade cuts into the wood & issues associated with blades bending or breaking when impacted on the side are considerations


----------



## Flying Crane

lklawson said:


> Sure thing.  Yeah, for many of the techniques, trying to turn the hand holding the weapon so that the flat is presented would be both awkward and extremely week.  Take, for example, the first:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grab your Doa and step into this position then, with the edge aligned with your knuckles, try to turn the hand so that the impact of the opponent's blade hits the flat of your sword.  If if you pronate your hand so that the back of the hand is forward in order to deflect with the flat on the outside line, then you end up pointing your elbow at the opponent and extending the elbow past the protection of the blade parry.  If you supinate the hand, and face the "palm" upward in order to deflect with the flat on the inside line, then you've bent your hand at a 90 degree outward from the wrist and have no strength in the hold.
> 
> On the other hand, if you allow the edge to lead, such as a parry in Sixte, or in a sort of sixte where the point is directed more at the attacker, then you get a strong parry with sufficient bio-mechanical strength to counter very powerful attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Standard parry in Sixte]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Hutton's parry in sixte]
> 
> I've done steel-to-steel drills this way.  Edge engagement works and keeps you safe.  Trying to defend with the flat is suicide.
> 
> 
> Or take the following example (the second one I posted).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From this example the only possible "flat" parry is with the hand pronated (leading with the back of the hand) and parrying with flat on the outside line of the blade (which is turned over).  Again, grab your Doa, point it at the floor, then turn it so that your palm is down and the back of your hand is up, the raise it sharply to intersect an incoming attack (to simplify the movement a tad).  In order to get the point directed forward as in the image, you have to break your wrist line to your outside, taking an already questionable grip and making it weaker.  How much confidence do you have in the power of this movement, rising with the flat?
> 
> One alternative which I've seen suggested is that the defender starts with his blade at the low right hand side of his body and sweeps it to the high left hand side, kind of "swatting" the flat as it passes by and using the momentum of the blade in movement as the parry.  I've tried this.  It pushes the blade directly against the weak of the thumb, disarming the defender.
> 
> So, yeah, for the examples I've shown, trying to parry flat does put the hand in an awkward and weak position.  Parrying edge, while it could possibly lead to edge damage, is the only reasonable interpretation.
> 
> See any similarities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to survive a machete attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


This can be difficult to discuss adequately in an Internet forum.

In those drawings, you are assuming the man on the left attacks, and the man on the right defends?

If so, I think I see your point.  The wrist position of Right can defend off the edge from that position.  To try and deflect off the side would require additional twisting of the wrist, which would become awkward.  Is that what you are saying?

If we turn this around and make Right the attacker, his stance would change and he would extend forward more, but would attack with a rising cut,  Left could defend with a downward motion that glances the two blades along their sides, avoiding the edge-on-edge impact.  That would require no contortions in the wrist or grip.  The defending motion would be very nearly identical to a downward cut, just slightly angled to deflect the side of the attackers blade off the side of defenders blade as the two blades sweep past each other.

I think my position would be that some circumstances make avoiding the edge-on-edge impact easy and natural, while others do not.  When In battle, don’t worry about preserving the edge.  But I would not say that either way is absolute.  Like most things in life, it depends.


----------



## lklawson

@Flying Crane
As promised, here is the sequence with the accompanying text.  I'm using the Rector translation.





[Here they fight with messers. God help them! The swordsman on the left cuts from above. The swordsman on the right is going to set aside his opponent's stroke by cutting strongly upward into it from below.]





[The swordsman on the left completes his cut. The swordsman on the right sets aside the cut and steps in to grapple his opponent.]





[The swordsman on the right envelopes and locks his opponent's sword arm and cuts him across the head, completing the attack and counter-attack.]

The text for the first plate makes it clear, parry by cutting.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Flying Crane

lklawson said:


> @Flying Crane
> As promised, here is the sequence with the accompanying text.  I'm using the Rector translation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Here they fight with messers. God help them! The swordsman on the left cuts from above. The swordsman on the right is going to set aside his opponent's stroke by cutting strongly upward into it from below.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [The swordsman on the left completes his cut. The swordsman on the right sets aside the cut and steps in to grapple his opponent.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [The swordsman on the right envelopes and locks his opponent's sword arm and cuts him across the head, completing the attack and counter-attack.]
> 
> The text for the first plate makes it clear, parry by cutting.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Thank you, that is very clear and gives contex to what is happening.  And I agree, in this melee it would be dangerously awkward to attempt to defend against the flat.


----------



## noname

I think perhaps I have not explained myself well. I certainly was not saying that one should worry during an engagement about the health of one's sword. That would indeed be unadviseable.

What I was saying is that edge to edge opposition is very bad for your blade because it degrades your blade much more quickly than need be. Because it is natural and logical to take extra care of tools that are used in high intensity situations - whether you're the one whose life depends on the tool functioning properly (the guy swinging the sword) or the guy footing the bill for replacing it (the lord) - it thus makes sense to train techniques that help prolong the blade's useful life as best as possible. Receiving blows on the flat is one such method. It's not something you think about after you've done it 10,000 times.

I think the pictures that have been posted are instructive. It is to the form shown in the machete picture to which I direct my comments. That is the direct edge to edge opposition of which I speak. The Medieval pictures do not often look like that (nor in my view do the texts often describe it). The angles are far more oblique, and I don't think that is simply a result of their lack of artistic ability. Take for example that last sequence posted above. I've received blows in such a manner many times. "Cutting strongly upward in to it" does not, in my view, mean "block their edge with your edge". Looking closely at the picture, it appears to me that he is not receiving the blade in the same manner as shown in the machete picture. Again, the angles are far more oblique. It looks much closer to receiving on the flat than it does to the edge to edge opposition shown in the machete picture. In fact, to pull off that technique efficiently, it's necessary that the opponent's blade slide (rather than stick/stop as in edge to edge opposition).

That is not to say that edge to edge opposition does not exist in the old forms. It clearly appears in some techniques, but I don't think it was as widespread as some believe.

The nail and hammer analogy is apt, I think. One does not strike a nail with another nail. One strikes a nail with a broader surface: the hammer.

If anyone should wish to discuss this further, do feel free to PM me.


----------



## lklawson

noname said:


> I think perhaps I have not explained myself well. I certainly was not saying that one should worry during an engagement about the health of one's sword. That would indeed be unadviseable.
> 
> What I was saying is that edge to edge opposition is very bad for your blade because it degrades your blade much more quickly than need be. Because it is natural and logical to take extra care of tools that are used in high intensity situations - whether you're the one whose life depends on the tool functioning properly (the guy swinging the sword) or the guy footing the bill for replacing it (the lord) - it thus makes sense to train techniques that help prolong the blade's useful life as best as possible. Receiving blows on the flat is one such method. It's not something you think about after you've done it 10,000 times.
> 
> I think the pictures that have been posted are instructive. It is to the form shown in the machete picture to which I direct my comments. That is the direct edge to edge opposition of which I speak. The Medieval pictures do not often look like that (nor in my view do the texts often describe it). The angles are far more oblique, and I don't think that is simply a result of their lack of artistic ability. Take for example that last sequence posted above. I've received blows in such a manner many times. "Cutting strongly upward in to it" does not, in my view, mean "block their edge with your edge". Looking closely at the picture, it appears to me that he is not receiving the blade in the same manner as shown in the machete picture. Again, the angles are far more oblique. It looks much closer to receiving on the flat than it does to the edge to edge opposition shown in the machete picture. In fact, to pull off that technique efficiently, it's necessary that the opponent's blade slide (rather than stick/stop as in edge to edge opposition).
> 
> That is not to say that edge to edge opposition does not exist in the old forms. It clearly appears in some techniques, but I don't think it was as widespread as some believe.
> 
> The nail and hammer analogy is apt, I think. One does not strike a nail with another nail. One strikes a nail with a broader surface: the hammer.
> 
> If anyone should wish to discuss this further, do feel free to PM me.


Nah, you're overthinking it. Edgd edge contact was the norm and they trained it that way. Sometimes they'd use wasters or rebated steel or disposable weapons, but they trained it none the less. The history, manuals, and context are pretty clear. Just accept it.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## Langenschwert

lklawson said:


> Nah, you're overthinking it. Edgd edge contact was the norm and they trained it that way. Sometimes they'd use wasters or rebated steel or disposable weapons, but they trained it none the less. The history, manuals, and context are pretty clear. Just accept it.
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)



Yeah, one rapier master said to have your sword as sharp as possible, not for cutting, but so you could get a better, stickier bind. I can't remember who, as I'm not a rapierist. 

Now, you can do parries with the flat. Leckuchner and Meyer both have them, and Paurnfeyndt has a krumphau (crooked strike) with the flat vs an incoming strike.

Now a counterstrike can impact the flat, and often impacts a good portion of the incoming flat, and it's better if it does, but sometimes doesn't. 

In Liechtenauer's longsword, the counter to the lower Zwerch is very edge to edge. So much so it's jarring. Likewise, the crooked strike against an incoming rising strike is often edge to edge. But a zornhau-ort can be edge to flat.

Leckuchner"s hanging parry (the Bogen) is with the flat.

@noname What art do you practice, and are there any videos we can see to get an idea of where you're coming from?


----------



## Langenschwert

@noname The video you posted seems to have disappeared before I had a chance to comment on it.

There's nothing wrong with the technique as you performed it. It's a perfectly fine hanging parry with a followup cut. I do it all the time. 

However, not every technique in the manuals uses the edge to flat or vice versa. Most do have a somewhat oblique intersection, but not all. 

If you reread the initial article, you'll see the fencers noted that the bind worked best when the blades were less oblique. And, even after all the edge damage, one blade was able to be resharpened and used in a cutting class. The fencers surmised that they fought the equivalent of 80 fights during their experiment. If a blade lasts for 80 duels, that's a bargain! Note that they were using textbook longsword techniques. 

There are schools of Japanese swordsmanship who sometimes drill with sharps, and their blades get damaged as well. It's part of the use of the tool... they are perishable. 

It's not always "flatofmystrong".


----------



## noname

Langenschwert said:


> @noname The video you posted seems to have disappeared before I had a chance to comment on it.



Hmmm. Not sure why that would be the case. It's still there.



> There's nothing wrong with the technique as you performed it. It's a perfectly fine hanging parry with a followup cut. I do it all the time.
> 
> *However, not every technique in the manuals uses the edge to flat or vice versa. Most do have a somewhat oblique intersection, but not all.*



I completely agree. It was never my intention to suggest that edge-to-edge "binding" does not exist in the texts. It's certainly there, just as unarmed defense against weaponry is readily observable throughout many martial arts. For me, both of those scenarios (edge-to-edge "binding" and unarmed defense against weaponry) exist in the realm of "let's make the best of a bad situation".



> If you reread the initial article, you'll see the fencers noted that the bind worked best when the blades were less oblique. And, even after all the edge damage, one blade was able to be resharpened and used in a cutting class. *The fencers surmised that they fought the equivalent of 80 fights during their experiment. If a blade lasts for 80 duels, that's a bargain! *Note that they were using textbook longsword techniques.



I think that within a dueling context there aren't any disincentives to edge-to-edge "binding" because the conditions are subject to a far higher degree of control. It's only the one fight with the one person, at a predetermined time and place, with predetermined arms and armor. There'll be plenty of time after the fight to repair the weapon, and there is no second opponent to flank you when your blade sticks.

Perhaps I'm just coming at this from a different perspective.



> *There are schools of Japanese swordsmanship who sometimes drill with sharps, and their blades get damaged as well. It's part of the use of the tool... they are perishable. *
> 
> It's not always "flatofmystrong".



I completely agree.

In fact, I would say that I believe as I do precisely because they are perishable.


----------



## StellarAevum

geezer said:


> I'm guessing that while of course, small nicks can be filed out, larger ones would have to be filled or worked out by a smith at the forge. That would require re-tempering the blade as well. A laborious and expensive proposition. And another good reason to avoid edge to edge contact when possible.
> 
> On the other hand, if you only use a good, sharp-edged sword in actual combat, that wouldn't be so much of a problem. Even professional soldiers weren't actually engaged in blade to blade fighting that often. A single practice session probably involves more blade contact than a lot of battles. You know, like the old idea that you train for hundreds of hours for a few moments of actual fighting.



It is important to keep in mind that in European society that swords have more often been for self-defense, dueling, or symbols of station than weapons of war. The spear was much more common on the battlefield during the era of the longsword.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

StellarAevum said:


> It is important to keep in mind that in European society that swords have more often been for self-defense, dueling, or symbols of station than weapons of war. The spear was much more common on the battlefield during the era of the longsword.


This is actually true of Japan (and most of the rest of the world) as well. Spears and polearms and bows were primary battlefield weapons. Swords on the battlefield were typically backup secondary weapons. (Excluding certain really big swords that functioned more like polearms.)


----------



## lklawson

StellarAevum said:


> It is important to keep in mind that in European society that swords have more often been for self-defense, dueling, or symbols of station than weapons of war. The spear was much more common on the battlefield during the era of the longsword.


So this thread has hit the loop.

Most of it was maneuvering and engagements with other weapons, notably spears, lances, and arrows. Axes and pole-arms were popular too.



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## donald1

I don't mean to brag or anything but I've never sparred with swords before. Do you know what that means? I'll probably have a whole lot of beginners luck and be super good.


----------



## Deleted member 40306

Good times!


----------



## Razznik

Spears beat swords by a long shot as they use the rule "an inch longer, an inch stronger"


----------



## Dirty Dog

Dark Sovereign 193 said:


> Spears beat swords by a long shot as they use the rule "an inch longer, an inch stronger"



You've obviously never fought sword vs spear.


----------



## lklawson

Dark Sovereign 193 said:


> Spears beat swords by a long shot as they use the rule "an inch longer, an inch stronger"


Zombie thread


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lklawson said:


> Zombie thread


I looked back and was thinking, "What? The previous post was just back at the end of January."

I think I need more sleep.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Many year ago I was a t a friends wedding (to happen in their backyard in Texas). The Groom needed a little distraction , and we started talking about swords and styles. 
We went to his study and he handed me a sabre and he took a rapier. We discussed the subtleties and similarities between FMA and Western Fencing. 
As things will happen with two guys and live blades we were moving them around in a slow controlled manner and talking through preferences and ideas. 
...
In walks the Brides father, "If either of you guys get cut, I am not going to stop my daughter from killing each or both of you." 
We both smiled and put them up and found a different distractions.


----------

