Poll: Popular opinion: Swordplay

[Daystar Clarion]

Doesn't blocking an attack waste a hell of a lot more energy than a parried attack?

A thrown punch will waste more stamina if it misses than if it's blocked, so isn't it more effective to parry a move, letting your opponent's momentum continue so they waste more energy?

 

[thedoclc]

To the best of my knowledge, most surviving illustrations and images from that time period show the weapons parrying or blocking with the flat first along the blade, or trapping with the edge and guard. I do not claim to be an expert.

Arguments:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/parry.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm

The swords had ricassos - for the lay folk, that's a thicker, unsharpened section right by the crosspiece or quillons - for two reasons. First, you could grab your own weapon by the cross piece and use it to half-sword, or wield it in a choked-up grip that helped it penetrate armor or thrust more effectively. Second, it reinforced the forte, or "strong", of the blade.

If we look at both the wood cuts and the photos, and buy the author's arguments, we see the blocks are done with the flat or else are using a trapping motion where the opponent's sword is captured between the blade and the guard and controlled. (What rapier/Olympic fencers would call a "pris de fer", a press of iron.)

Now, rapiers and their kin (smallswords, clichemarde, etc) do parry edge first, but only because such swords are rarely swung and do not deliver a significant impact. The parry should be directed at a thrust or lunge to turn aside the attacker's weapon, keeping in line for the reposte (counter) to immediately follow. As soon as armor was off the table, these swords replaced cutting swords in almost all uses except cavalry. Simply put, thrusting swords literally killed off the cutting sword users about that time. But that's what -rapiers- do and not related to what you'd do with an arming/broadsword.

Edit: After a quick consult with a friend who practices kenjutsu and a trip to google, the Japanese sword was similarly wielded. Just like Western swordsmanship, the you preferred deflecting and coming off line to an attack and used the flat to do so. Speaking of, that general principle holds in all martial arts. Deflect and come off line. Kenjutsu, boxing, all martial arts, European historical sword, judo, wrestling, modern self defense...

Now it may seem weird to make an argument from analogy from the katana, but the dark-high middle ages swords had more in common with the katana than they did the rapier. Japan did have straight swords, and the usage of those blades certainly had mechanics which were more closely related than the arming sword and the rapier. Additionally, the katana was a weapon of war as were the swords discussed by the OP. Rapiers and kin were dueling swords used in urban conditions when swords and guns were used together.

 

[Zantos]

I did the stupid thing and said "A hurdy gurr, I'm gonna block with the flat!", but then reading through I realise that the edge is the better choice. Though I'm still holding out for the idea that I'll never have to use this information.

 

[Muphin_Mann]

So, having some experience with swordplay and this being a somewhat controversial topic in that field, I thought it'd be interesting to see what people think of this.

Now, I like to avoid selection biases if I can, so if you please don't read what's in the spoiler tags until after you've voted.

So, how do you think you should block with a Western/European (for the purposes of this discussion, think of a typical cross-hilted medieval sword, be it a single sword or longsword)

Spoiler

So, in the historical fencing community, the vast majority of people (including myself, however I am relatively new to it) believe that you should block with the edge of your sword. There are several reasons for this; doing so means that when you block, you have the strength of your wrist and arm behind it (i.e. you have a biomechanical advantage). Similarly, if one blocks on the edge, you have the entire width of the blade behind it, lending it both strength and greater mass along the direction of motion.
Blocking with the flat has none of these advantages, and the only argument I have ever heard in favour of it is that blocking with the edge ruins the edge (which is true, however not enough to render it useless).
Historical accounts of battles also tend to mention notched blades; some see this and go 'See! It ruins the edges, I told you so! Personally, to me this says that if the edges were notched, it's because they were using them to block.
However, I am not an authority on swordplay, and I'd like to hear opinions on this.

EDIT:

So I think I wasn't quite careful enough with my terminology, so I'll define some terms;
Blocking - pretty much what you think it is, this is when you STOP a blow (be it with a blade or a shield)
Parrying - parrying is bit of a broader term, which some feel includes blocking, but it also includes things like deflecting a blow
Deflecting - pretty self explanatory, redirecting a blow without taking the full force of the attack

What sort of sword? A rapier? A cutlass? A gladius? A claymore?

Im a foil fencer, so i dont "block" blows very often. You parry with your blade and the few parries that are also flat out "blocks" tend to involve guiding the oponents blade down yours to your guard such as when you turn your blade so its pointed across your chest and raise it, forcing the opponents lung high and to the side.

 

[Owen Robertson]

I prefer the Indiana Jones technique of swordplay:

 

[ElPatron]

Youre kidding right? You think the techniques youd use for a curved sword with a fuller would be the same as a straight sword?

I never implied that. You're implying and assuming stuff on your own again.

What I got from the picture was the position of the hand. The kind of blade went totally over my head.

I did roll my wrist, not turn my arm. It still felt awkward as hell, I think a baby could defeat my block with such a weak wrist posture.

 

[Wyes]

Try to keep it civil please.

le snip

First of all I'm going to say, if I recall correctly, John Clements is one of the minority of people who support blocking with the flat, most historical fencing schools do not agree with him (in fact my experience has been he is usually (gently) mocked). However, I could be mistaking him for someone else.

Secondly, of the historical images provided on those pages, only a few show a 'regular' parry (and these ones are all braced with another arm), by which I mean all the others look to me to be the next step of a counter, or a bind. Now, I'm actually learning longsword at the moment (though I'm learning English, and not German, yet), and I can tell you that one of the ways to defeat an opponent is attacking the flat of their blade if they expose it to you ,which is why horizontal cuts done at belly height don't work, because it is supremely easy to turn them away by striking the flat. In fact, this is how to defeat a medium guard as well (where they hold the sword in the middle of their body, at waist height, tip pointed at you), by striking at the flat to get it out of the way and following up with another attack. However, this can be stifled by turning the edge to meet the blow. Edge blocks and parries are just stronger, requiring less effort on your part, to me there cannot be any argument against this, regardless of whether one believes parries on the flat to be useful or not.

Of particular note with longswords, is that they tend to have a lot more flex than single handed blades, meaning blocking or parrying with the flat is going to result in a lot more vibration of the blade and jarring of the hands. The same is true of single swords, but to a lesser extent. This can be minimised by using the forte, but only minimised, not prevented. In fact, that is one of the main drawbacks of using the flat, is you must ALWAYS use the forte, even against relatively weaker blows, and there are no guarantees you'll be able to stop or deflect a strong blow. With systems using smaller blades, like smallsword and sabre, this doesn't matter very much and one can parry with the flat quite handily.

Yes, the preferred method of dealing with an attack is coming off line and deflecting, there is no dispute there.

A few other points; swords were rarely used against heavy armour, because one does not cut through most armour, one must pierce it. Heavier swords like claymores and the like didn't cut through this armour but ended up bludgeoning. The ideal weapon against heavy armour was always a mace (in single combat).

I will concede that my familiarity with swordplay is mostly in the English systems ,particularly single sword/backsword and longsword, though I have also done German Sword&Buckler (I.33) and am currently learning the Bolognese system for sword and buckler/dagger/offhand object. That said, in all of these systems one parries edge to edge or the parries don't work.

What sort of sword? A rapier? A cutlass? A gladius? A claymore?

Im a foil fencer, so i dont "block" blows very often. You parry with your blade and the few parries that are also flat out "blocks" tend to involve guiding the oponents blade down yours to your guard such as when you turn your blade so its pointed across your chest and raise it, forcing the opponents lung high and to the side.

And to be honest, I don't like modern fencing =P it's much more of a 'sport' than a martial art, and I've been shown ways to defeat fencers and those using rapiers with single swords. I won't deny that it takes skill though. The discussion is primarily geared at either medieval single swords, longswords, or backswords (so, basically broadswords and longswords).

I do have a friend who practiced Japanese swordsmanship before moving on to European historical fencing (and he has been at it many years longer than I, and has done many more styles), and he greatly prefers European historical fencing and finds it to be much more useful.

 

[Offworlder_v1legacy]

I do Aikido sword work and blocking with the edge, but that's only with the katanas and bokken, and the way the blade is held and blahdy blah, is the only logical way to block, plus it adds to the fact you can then manoeuvre into an attacking position with the training I do.

I have no idea how western swords work, or how to use them, but blocking with the flat seems stupid. Not only would it disarm you/brake sword it would put you in a bad position and well, you'd die and such.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'm not sure what you mean by "block". For the most part, in my experience at any rate, the goal is not to halt a blade but rather redirect it. For this purpose, at least with various dueling weapons (sabre for example) the parry takes place using the forte of the blade. In most of the common sabre parries, the edge of the defending blade meets the edge of the attacking blade.

The reason is simple enough: the close to the hilt of my weapon (or rather, my hand) that I can catch an incoming blade, the easier it is to redirect. The closest move to a "block" I can think of is a particular overhead parry using a sabre. And against a thrust, the odds of effectively stopping the attack entirely, even if incredibly skilled, are slim.

For my money, I'd expect that the smart thing to do with most blades then is to parry. It takes less effort to achieve and it leaves the defender in a better position to riposte.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

And to be honest, I don't like modern fencing =P it's much more of a 'sport' than a martial art, and I've been shown ways to defeat fencers and those using rapiers with single swords.

Two notes. First, yes fencing is a sport. But that does little to change the fact that the techniques one uses when fencing are identical to those used in a duel. A properly executed parry prime is a properly executed parry prime; the only difference lay in the stakes for screwing it up. Of course, where foil strays away from simulating a duel and sabre rewards naked aggression, the epee stays relatively true to the spirit of the duel. It is also, as a result, dreadfully dull.

And the question of which sword would win . . . is, as it has always been, a stupid one. A fencer of the European tradition would have difficulty crossing blades against someone trained in the Katana. But the person with the katana would have the same trouble in return. Different weapons, different purposes and different styles. The Foil and Epee are sport interpretations of dueling weapons used in controlled situations to settle silly matters of honor. They were not weapons of war. That fact alone makes it incredibly difficult and ultimately pointless to compare.

 

[Lunar Templar]

for blocking? a shield -.-, duh

failing the, the flat of the blade,

the 'it'll break if you hit the flat, but not the edge' is a myth, and a stupid one at that. would the sword not still break from normal usage if its so weak that it'll break from a solid strike to the flat?

and parry with the edge i guess? by my under standing, or how im wired parry = a counter, or set up for a counter

 

[Potato Dragon]

You should always try to parry with the flat or back of the sword and block with the front edge. The main reasons being that if both of you are right/left handed and use the front edge you take the full force which is why its better for blocking but this makes it harder to redirect the foce for a parry as the only way you can move the sword now is through theirs this creates a deadlock(where the sword stick together until some pulls theirs off). From here you either push or try to move your opponents sword.

When you parry you are trying to absorb your opponents force then redirect it and this is easiest to do by placeing the flat of your sword on the flst of theirs whilst they are strikeing then twisting your wrist as this will send the momentom of the strike in a direction that his joints can not follow making him adjust by putting himself off balence. this works because when useing wepons to strike the wrist instinctivly locks but only breifly hence why parrying is so difficult.

The last and in my opinion hardest way to pary is to bonce the back of your sword off the back of theirs whilst they are swinging downwards (dosen't work with horizontal swings) pulling them fowards and putting them off balence. You can then use the force from the bounce plus the force of them falling foward to strike.

At least thats how I do it.

 

[Vanilla_Druid]

I prefer to stick with an axe; they are cheaper to make and have other uses. Of course, I would use kicks and sometimes try to trip my opponent.

 

[Wyes]

I do Aikido sword work and blocking with the edge, but that's only with the katanas and bokken, and the way the blade is held and blahdy blah, is the only logical way to block, plus it adds to the fact you can then manoeuvre into an attacking position with the training I do.

This is interesting, because while I'd never done any Japanese sword I'd always been told to not block with the edge of a katana, but in a way I'm glad to hear that you use the edge as well!

snip

I'm yet to do any sabre (and when I do it will probably be sabre according to Hutton), though I've seen that in Polish sabre one parries with the flat, but again, I'm glad to hear one uses the edge in sabre too!

In the systems I've learnt, one does block rarely, but I wouldn't say that it requires any more energy than parrying, as one usually blocks a blow from the guard they were already lying in, requiring little movement. Parrying is definitely more useful though, setting you up for a riposte.

As for your second post; I must admit I've never done any fencing, and so I can only claim that to me it looks dull (especially this 'move in a straight line' business, which in my experience is a very quick way to get killed).

But yes, ultimately when it comes to which system is the 'best', the question is a poor one. With two competent swordsmen, it always comes down to the skill of the individual swordsmen. I was initially trying to avoid that kind of topic but kind of accidentally slipped into it through my posts.

You should always try to parry with the flat or back of the sword and block with the front edge. The main reasons being that if both of you are right/left handed and use the front edge you take the full force which is why its better for blocking but this makes it harder to redirect the foce for a parry as the only way you can move the sword now is through theirs this creates a deadlock(where the sword stick together until some pulls theirs off). From here you either push or try to move your opponents sword.

When you parry you are trying to absorb your opponents force then redirect it and this is easiest to do by placeing the flat of your sword on the flst of theirs whilst they are strikeing then twisting your wrist as this will send the momentom of the strike in a direction that his joints can not follow making him adjust by putting himself off balence. this works because when useing wepons to strike the wrist instinctivly locks but only breifly hence why parrying is so difficult.

The last and in my opinion hardest way to pary is to bonce the back of your sword off the back of theirs whilst they are swinging downwards (dosen't work with horizontal swings) pulling them fowards and putting them off balence. You can then use the force from the bounce plus the force of them falling foward to strike.

At least thats how I do it.

I find this a bit hard to read so hopefully I'm not misinterpreting;
Most of my parries are done with the front edge, and I promise you this does not leave me in a 'deadlock', nor does blocking like that leave me in a deadlock. With practice one keeps their wrist lose enough to be able to continue moving it quite freely, and from that kind of position it's very easy to do something such as withdraw the blade and thrust, disengage their blade and go for a riposte, etc.

When redirecting a blow, I will strike the flat of their sword with the edge of mine, because this gives me the strongest position (and means if they turn their wrist to meet me with their edge, I am not at a disadvantage)

Your last paragraph seems to be referring to false edge parries, which in my experience with one handed weapons are more difficult than true edge parries, but still a very viable technique, and it can work on horizontal blows but it's much easier to use a true edge parry then. False edge parries in longsword however seem quite intuitive.

I prefer to stick with an axe; they are cheaper to make and have other uses. Of course, I would use kicks and sometimes try to trip my opponent.

I don't know about axes, but in swordplay kicking and tripping is a great way to lose a leg.