So what happens during a "parry" ?

[Cutlery Penguin]

Guys, don't get sucked into this non-debate.

Randall, from his initial post above, clearly doesn't even understand the term parry-riposte.

Which is exactly why I was hoping he'd expand on his all too brief comments and let us know what he actually meant, how he defines his terms, and the context within which those terms are used.

[Thearos]

Say you're facing a right handed opponent who cuts down at you with a sword, at an angle.

The reenactor punches out his sword, or cuts at the sword, edge to edge. A block.

The Lichtenauerist cuts back at the opponent, ideally receiving the cut on his flat and continuing onwards to cut the opponent.

The Fioreist-- parries. He does so from one of the guards. Say the porta di ferro. His sword comes up to parry the incoming cut: what part of his sword meets the attacker's sword ? Is he slapping at the incoming cut with his flat ? Is he raising his sword into the incoming cut's path ? Is he making contact with the incoming cut with his edge but somehow in a more dynamic way than the reenactor, with the angles sliding and changing as he is positioning his blade for the riposte ? The latter is what I understand from Keith Farrell and looking at the Swordschool vid, but it goes a bit too quickly for my eye.

The modern (pre-sport) sabre practitioner-- what path does his sabre take to parry the incoming cut, from his guard ?

[John H]

That’s not a simple answer, there are many things I can do from open iron door when someone comes in with a fendente. Each will have a different answer to your question.

A few options with a longsword:
I can counter cut up to womans guard on the left and knock his attack out of the way in the process. –- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6A5rgx-r9w similar to @ :28 and again :30 depending on the angle of intersection you may call it edge to edge or flat to flat or oblique...

raise my blade to ‘two horns’ to thrust at him – his blade lands on between my quillion and fort.

fendente into his fendente - same as #1

rotate up to crown guard or window guard – too many possibility that leave many options, but closer to the video you posted.

I can go on and on, but all of these actions are before I add in footwork and discuss what target I am aiming for. What part of my blade comes in contact depends on what action I want to do and that has many different options. I can think of no ‘this is the only way to do it.’

Sabre – depending on the attack:
I can do an ‘Italian inside moulinetto’ or rotate to inside hanging guard to receive the attack then make cut 7

I can receive the attack in inside guard (angle dependent,) throw it off and make cut 4 at the head
Doh, ran out of time, others can continue…

[Thearos]

V. helpful. Not static like what I was shown by Viking reenactors. Thanks.

[Wolfgang Ritter]

There are also plenty of two tempo actions in the German stuff as well as single tempo actions.

Absolutely I agree, the German sources are full of parry-riposte examples (with longsword, messer, sword and buckler, staff etc etc), but I'll let a Liechtenauer specialist fight that corner.

Contrary to my usually modest behaviour let me play the Lichtenauer expert here and have me say:
No need to give explanations, as they only make sense if both parties are willing to actually exchange opinions, ideas, facts and are thus willing to maybe change their point of view.
Of course there are lots of two-time-moves in Lichtenauer. Of course there are obvious differences between Lichtenauer and Fiore. Of course both installed a martial art system that was in use for quite some time and proved to be of value.
Of course it doesn't make a f*cking difference to give evidence to conspiracy theorists - and this is exactly what this whole pan-european-generic-martial-art is all about. Why stop there? If you think there was a generic system, why should there be a difference between ANY SYSTEM IN ANY TIMEFRAME IN ALL CORNERS OF THE WORLD. Really, it's about puttin' the pointy thing into the soft thing.

@Thearos: sorry for the OT rant, but really....Randall, give us a break!!

[Thearos]

Anyway, what is receiving the blow on the flat of your strong if not a parry ? (for instance in a hanging guard) Or the "stifling of cuts" which John Clements talks about ? (and which does take place edge to edge).

Slow-mo vids would be helpful. Also a comparison with what goes on in kendo ?

[admin]

The simplest answer Thearos if for you to find a teacher or go to an event. We can't teach fencing through the medium of an internet forum I'm afraid.

[admin]

The simplest example of a parry is found in modern foil or epee fencing, German messer, Italian longsword, 19thC British sabre, 18thC French smallsword and 17thC Italian rapier.
It is - person A cuts diagonally downwards from the right or thrusts, person B parries across their body, moving the sword from right to left, forming a covered line in quarte/gioco largo incrossada/pflug and then thrusts Person A in the face/chest. That is the most simple, common and obvious parry-riposte and can be found in any period and just about any system. Depending on the exact system your blade acts against the opponent's blade in a variety of ways - for example edge on flat, oblique edge on edge, direct edge on edge, middle against middle or strong against weak, but the basic parry-riposte technique is the same, varying only in detail.

[Thearos]

Excellent, thanks

[Dithyrambus]

The simplest answer Thearos if for you to find a teacher or go to an event. We can't teach fencing through the medium of an internet forum I'm afraid.

Interaction with an experienced fencer is definitely required for a true understanding of fencing techniques, I have accumulated several training weapons and stacks of books and pdfs, but without formal instruction and engaging with someone experienced, I cannot be sure that anything that I have "learned" is correct (other than terminology etc).

Apologies for the off-topic post, just wanted to reiterate Matt's point.

[Thearos]

Thanks. Not trying learn swordmanship from the web; trying to get experienced people to describe a process.

[Andrew Shultz]

Thanks. Not trying learn swordmanship from the web; trying to get experienced people to describe a process.

It's really hard. For an example, get up, walk across the room. What was the position of your leg as you rose? Your butt? Were your feet turned in or out? Does that matter? As you walked...

our language is not made to describe physical motions easily because we're wired to show each other. It's hard to say "catch the blow with the sword with the edge angled at 13.5 degrees off the perpendicular with variance depending on how long your arms are and..." but it's easy(er) to grab the person's hands and move them into the right position.

So you're never going to be satisfied with descriptions of moves off the internet unless you treat each email like we treat the historical docs and spend weeks interpreting it. Seems like a bit of a waste of time.

[admin]

What he said.

[Thearos]

Actually... people do sit and walk and sleep differently according to where they're from, or which period. It's something you can be trained to observe-- and to describe / reproduce / analyse / think about. (It's called social anthropology). M. Mauss noticed English soldiers and French soldiers in WWI couldn't use each other's shovels.

http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/ma ... corps.html

(a piece HEMA practitioners might gain from)

But yes, it is hard, even for trained historians.

[Thearos]

Or, if you prefer: if I knew how to parry, I would know how to explain it. (I re-taught myself to sling when I was publishing a couple of sling bullets for a journal, and I can and have explained precisely quite complex actions in writing as well as in person).

[Thearos]

Forum members: Reenactors are foolish, they block instead of parrying.
Me: How is a parry different from a block ?
ARMA guy: Historically people didn't parry.
Forum members: Actually they did.
Me: So what's a parry ?
Forum members: Hey learn how to fence / It's really easy / I do a moulinetto / It's really hard / etc.
Me: I see.

[Phil C]

Simply put:
Some reenactors (since only a fraction of a percent of reenactors actually have swords let alone wave them around and even fewer try to actually hit each other with them) have a tendency to apply an excessive amount of energy in their parries. This is due to trying to look impressive to an audience, heavily rebated blades making swords heavier and a mistaken idea as to how swordfighting was done in the past.

Historical fencers tend not to do this because they know that that level of force is not required and tend to use lighter, less rebated blades as well as use differing techniques that are less showy but more effective in a fight.

This leads to large chunks being taken out of fencing blades when used by reenactors, who, often, are doing nothing different as a technique but are using too much force to do it.

[John H]

First defining a parry, a very general definition of a parry is to deflect the blade away from one’s self, this definition does not cover all aspects of a parry, but let’s use it for now. This definition seems to be mostly accurate throughout history, but somewhere along the way parry became the term for any defensive motion, and the sports parry which is just a block is what the visual people get when they hear the term parry. This explains ARMA’s desire not to use the term parry and instead they have some other term for deflecting the blade away to defend. One good exception to this definition is cavalry work, when you have to defend you and the horse, you don’t want to deflect a blow away from you and into your horse, so you must do things ‘differently.’

So how do we do this? Too many ways to list, in fact the more I study the more ways I find to do this. So how is a block different than a parry; a parry should be an active motion while a block is just holding your blade in a static position and waiting for impact. A parry would be more altering the trajectory of the attack such that is does not hit you, while a block is just putting something in the way of the attack and stopping it in its trajectory. Until someone decides to give you a better distinction you can use that concept.

What I find interesting is the use of a sword to sword parry or block in Viking sword. Do you neglect the shield?

[Thearos]

Very useful, including the bit about cavalry. I note that e.g. Greek cavalry before the fourth century did not use shields-- spears and then swords (or maces or axes) in the melee. I assume they did know how to, well, parry or block if covering the horse (and also the reins, no ?)

(If my own experience is anything to go by, Viking reenactors start by learning 7 cuts, and 7 blocks-- usually with dowels. They then move to shields, and bash away, and go for overshield shots). And yes, I did notice that the reenactors really did put a lot of force in bashing away at shields, and that this had to do with the sheer heaviness of everything-- shields, swords)

[admin]

A parry can be a simple block, but as Phil said, reenactors often do it by striking the edge of the incoming sword with a lot of force rather than just blocking. I have no idea why they do that, but as he said it is probably because they are trying to convey force and power without actually directing that force at the other person per se.
Seriously, go and do one basic lesson of sport fencing, then we wouldn't need to expend all this electronic ink explaining what a parry is.