So what happens during a "parry" ?

[Thearos]

May I be so lucky one day. In the meantime, thanks to all who took the patience to give opinions and experience.

I've published some skeletons from a well-known ancient battle-- from a period for which we know really very little about what actually happened at the sharp end; trying to find out more for periods where we do know something.

[craftyfighter]

...I've published some skeletons from a well-known ancient battle-- from a period for which we know really very little about what actually happened at the sharp end; trying to find out more for periods where we do know something.

This is relevant to my interests...

[Thearos]

PM again, or write to me direct, if interested, I'll send you some notes and photographs-- beyond what's published.

[MugginsToadwort]

Feel a little bit late to the party, but here goes:

Meyer separates defending yourself into two categories: blocking and parrying. Blocking keeps you safe, but offers you no advantage in the fight. Parrying offers you the chance to change the direction of the fight, and is to be preferred. However, keeping yourself safe is paramount, so blocking is an essential skill.

Thereafter he pulls things apart a little more. Blocking can be done in various ways, but essentially involves putting your blade between his blade and your body. It can be done with or without footwork, but should be done by taking the blow on your forte while defending the line of attack. Why forte/strong? Simply because of leverage and strength. Do you extend your forte into the line of attack, like some re-enactors? No, you can never depend on strength, and need to use angulation and footwork to supplement your sword block. Blocking is instinctive; as an analogy, consider this: if somebody kicks a ball at you, you can generally catch it and get your body in the way instinctively.

Parrying involves turning the blocking process into something useful. "True" parrying or absetzen involves changing your block slightly to passively deflect the incoming blow, allowing you a counter attack (riposte). Countercutting is an active deflection of the incoming blow, designed to allow you a better chance at counterattacking. Then the single time defences are composite parry-attack moves, accomplishing the deflection/blocking at the same time as the counter attack. In the football analogy, these would be equivalent to 1) controlling the ball with head or torso so it drops at your feet for a kick, or 2) hitting the ball while in flight (i.e. a volley kick). Both of these actions are similar to blocking, but take practice and training.

Of course, there is another option- voiding/dodging. Present in longsword, but not that common. Can't find a football analogy for missing the ball entirely....

[Thearos]

Very interesting. Some thoughts.

There is no reason why reenactors should not parry instead of blocking, most of the time. In fact, there are reenactor groups for e.g. the C15th, no ? (for instance Gerry Embleton's group ? The Company of the White Rose ?). Do they practice HEMA style parrying, or Viking-reenactor-style blocks ?

What do you do with a shield-- do you block or do you parry ? Is the "schiltschlac" in I.33 a parry ?

Do people still agree with John Clements on I. 33 that there is no blocking described in I.33 ? (Is "falling under" a parry ?)

[MugginsToadwort]

Very interesting. Some thoughts.

There is no reason why reenactors should not parry instead of blocking, most of the time. In fact, there are reenactor groups for e.g. the C15th, no ? (for instance Gerry Embleton's group ? The Company of the White Rose ?). Do they practice HEMA style parrying, or Viking-reenactor-style blocks ?

What do you do with a shield-- do you block or do you parry ? Is the "schiltschlac" in I.33 a parry ?

Do people still agree with John Clements on I. 33 that there is no blocking described in I.33 ? (Is "falling under" a parry ?)

Bad parrying is generally related to a lack of footwork, as well as the desire to hit the opposing sword rather than the other person- once you stop targeting the sword, things get better.

Shields are used in two ways, generally- you can take the blow on the edge, or you can deflect it down the flat (or often a combination of both). What you don't do is take the blow on the flat. Bucklers are a bit different in that they are steel and more sturdy than a shield, but the principle is the same: edge or deflection. At the same time, most parrying in I.33 and other sources is done with the sword. The Schiltslac has been interpreted various ways, but it is a sort of "beat"- a strike to deliberately move the buckler out the way.

And Clements is mostly irrelevant...

[Cutlery Penguin]

Blocking can be done in various ways, but essentially involves putting your blade between his blade and your blade.

Wow that's quite a skill...

[admin]

Bad parrying is generally related to <snip> the desire to hit the opposing sword rather than the other person- once you stop targeting the sword, things get better.

This is the crux I think.
However, people who do not really understand HEMA or fencing tend to interpret this statement as 'just hit at the person', leading to two people repeatedly double-killing each other with no defence (as seen in many HEMA tournaments).

It is a very subtle difference in reality and the difference between HEMA and reenactment parrying is down to mindset. Once you change the mindset and objectives, then the parries seem to change themselves. As I have been saying for the last few days - this is not something that can easily be conveyed on an internet forum. One or two lessons in a HEMA, kendo or even modern sport fencing class would be enough to show it.

I am sure there are some reenactment groups who use their swords with more of a HEMA mindset, but the majority do not - not in the UK at least. It is a constant point of amazement to me that 99% of reenactors using swords seem to have almost no real interest in knowing how to use their swords historically, despite spending large amounts of their time perfecting their uniforms and equipment.

[Thearos]

@MT-- v. interesting re shield, too. I think reenactors, at least Viking / NFPS, also receive the blows statically on their shield, on the flat. There is a vid. of Roland Warzecha talking about the Viking shield and the round boss, which he thinks is not for punching, but to catch and control the opponent's blade as it slides off the shield. I think this interesting, because some La Tene-style shields (say C2nd BC) have metal projections on top of the boss which seem to perform exactly this function; and some early med bosses are waisted, which might also have helped in deflecting / catching.

@Mr Admin. I'm sure a class sword in hand would be illuminating (just as turning up to a reenactor's event is illuminating in other ways).Listening to HEMA people has been very interesting to me (I'm an academic historian, not a sportsman). Discussion does no harm; it primes the mind; it clarifies. Unless abundant discussion drives up the costs of running this very interesting forum, in which case I will desist.

Anyway, v. interesting observation about the twin sins: blocking by hitting at the sword rather than fighting the opponent; falling in the trap of the double kill.

[the_last_alive]

It is a constant point of amazement to me that 99% of reenactors using swords seem to have almost no real interest in knowing how to use their swords historically, despite spending large amounts of their time perfecting their uniforms and equipment.

That's precisely why I've stopped doing re-enactment sword 'fighting'.

[MugginsToadwort]

Blocking can be done in various ways, but essentially involves putting your blade between his blade and your blade.

Wow that's quite a skill...

Edited...

But didn't you know we were talking about the "case of swords"?

[KeithFarrell]

I am sure there are some reenactment groups who use their swords with more of a HEMA mindset, but the majority do not - not in the UK at least. It is a constant point of amazement to me that 99% of reenactors using swords seem to have almost no real interest in knowing how to use their swords historically, despite spending large amounts of their time perfecting their uniforms and equipment.

I made a blog post last month about this issue, about a week before FightCamp. Unfortunately no one left any comments on the article, although some people in the living history and re-enactment communities did leave comments on places like Facebook and the LivingHistory forum where I posted links to the article... Oh well. In any case, the article is here if anyone is interested: http://historical-academy.co.uk/blog/2011/08/12/does-hema-have-a-role-in-historical-re-enactment/

I would be interested in hearing feedback from any of you guys on the issue, but please do leave comments on the blog article and not here where future blog readers won't see them

[Andrew Shultz]

There is no reason why reenactors should not parry instead of blocking, most of the time. In fact, there are reenactor groups for e.g. the C15th, no ? (for instance Gerry Embleton's group ? The Company of the White Rose ?). Do they practice HEMA style parrying, or Viking-reenactor-style blocks ?

There are a lot of safety reasons - if your parry keeps the point forward at the opponent's face, for example, it's not appropriate for an open helmet reenactment environment. Blocking is a lot safer for the attacker, which is necessary for reenactment and not useful for the original art.

-andy

[Thearos]

From Sydney Anglo, I remember the phrase "merciless battering about the head" as well as thrusts to the face as pretty routine moves. And I remember the first two things told reenactors (Viking): do not hit the head, and do not thrust.

That said, reenactors do not, mostly, spend their time preparing for shows-- most of their time is spent in contact sparring with pulled blows, edge to edge blocks and "shots" (i.e. cuts) to limited targets (arms, legs, trunk), and slashes / slices above the shield. Usually with steel, and usually without face protection. In other words, that, too, is a form of sport fencing.

Keith Farrell's essay seems very reasonable compromise...

[admin]

Another factor relating to reenactors and their swords is of course that most of their swords are overweight and/or bizarrely balanced (many reenactors seem to think that if a sword balances closer to the hand then it is obviously a good thing).

[admin]

@Mr Admin. I'm sure a class sword in hand would be illuminating (just as turning up to a reenactor's event is illuminating in other ways).Listening to HEMA people has been very interesting to me (I'm an academic historian, not a sportsman).

The fact remains that the only way you'll get a full understanding of the answers to the questions you are asking is to actually have a go at the thing you are asking questions about. If you are really interested then go to a fencing class.

[Thearos]

On reenactors: right now (I suppose), when the reenactor is attacked with a sword, he replies with a good solid block. Without going the full HEMA route (basically fencing masks to allow face thrusts), he could very well respond with a... parry.

@Mr Admin. Thanks. Actually, I think I got it, thanks to the many detailled and thoughtful replies, followed up by thinking about it with a sword in hand. Up next: learning how to ride a horse via internet forum. (First: to buy my own horse).

[admin]

I don't personally think there is a distiction between parry and block, without getting into semantics. A parry is a defensive movement, as is a block.

[Thearos]

So what's the difference between gallop and canter ?

[the_last_alive]

On reenactors: right now (I suppose), when the reenactor is attacked with a sword, he replies with a good solid block. Without going the full HEMA route (basically fencing masks to allow face thrusts), he could very well respond with a... parry.

Or riposte with a cut at a target other than the face.