Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Krieg" data-source="post: 1755702" data-attributes="member: 5282">While the edge vs flat parry debate goes FAR beyond the scope of this thread (or this board for that matter), I do have a couple of points... -The full on, blade against blade blows you see in modern stage "combat" have little to no relation to how the weapons were used in actual battle. When defending against a cut the Fechtbuchs typically teach the following (in order of preference)...1. Move out of the way of the blow (Void the attack) 2. Deflect the blade by striking it from an angle different from the line of attack (beating or displacing the attack). This would typically be followed with a counter attack. 3. Close with the attacker so as to prevent him from finishing the attack (stifle or bind the attack). In the case of number two, the displacement was typically edge on flat, although it was just as likely to be the defender's edge deflecting the attacker's flat as the other way around. Static parries (direct blade on blade perpendicular contact) were always a measure of last resort. This is as much because it would cause the defender to step out of time as due to danger to the blade.  Beating a blade away is less traumatic to the blades of both weapons than a head-on static parry; regardless, actual fighting blades are far more flexible and less brittle than the thick, stiff stage blades used by re-enactors. If you are looking for written historical evidence of edge vs flat parrying ... Joachim Meyer's 1570 Fecthbuch:Codex Wallerstein, Plate 69:The Original Art of the Fencers 1555OK I'll shut up now, just wanted to point out that modern stage re-enactment is a very VERY bad place to try and find clues regarding historical fencing. /rant edit: Well fudge, looks like Horishijin beat me to the punch while I was typing!</blockquote>

Verification