On art and fencing.

 This came up in my feeds of  things from interesting people and I thought it would make a good starting point.

It often happens that a fencer is graceful and clean with sword in hand, but is nevertheless ineffectual. Facing another who is very unaesthetic with sword in hand, as soon as they exchange blows, the unaesthetic fencer takes the upper hand.

This occurs because the ugly fencer cares only about effectiveness. He does not care much for beauty, only utility, leaving pomposity aside. The fencer who is clean with sword in hand delights in crispness without taking care of utility.

However when any fencer faces another, he should assess how he behaves. Whether his play is effective, or whether he is ostentatious with sword in hand, and does not attend to the utility of his play.

You must have good judgement in this, because on infinite occasions people say of a clean and graceful fencer: “oh doesn't he fence well”, but nevertheless his play is ineffectual. Likewise a fencer might seem very unaesthetic, so people say he does not know how to hold a sword, and his fencing is poor. But when put to the test he beats the beautiful fencer.

Anonimo Bolognese – Early 16th Century

The English schools tend to put more emphasis on the martial part of the art and has substantially fewer triangles, engravings and peculiarly specific targets in the texts.  Poncy boasts like being able to stab any button are to be treated with mild scorn. So, with a brawler's charter, I'm prone to agree with this as a matter of principle. Good fencing is when the pointy bit goes in the other person and you leave untouched.

One of the problems with really good fencing is that, although you can fight with grace, you should be doing it without really letting people know what's going on. You'll take the shortest possible line into your opponent and if you can see what's going on you can see the elegance in it's simplicity.  Note that simplicity can be unaesthetic, there's no frills and you don't get to gasp in admiration as some kind of stage-play happens.  It can be simply going from guard to stab to recovery before anyone realises what's going on.

There's a trick to telling the difference between ugly-bad fencing and ugly-good and it's all about the lines. Somehow ugly-good shows this ability to always be in just the right place to miss getting hit. You don't quite know how because the wild cuts are still wild, the parries are much wider than needs be and it's more like an explosion in a sword factory than the noble art of fencing.

Sure, if you can be graceful and stay intact, this should be encouraged..  but stay intact first, otherwise you're not going to develop the chance to become graceful.

Back to the myth of edge-on-edge

Inspired by the constantly raised question about edge-parries, I thought I'd go and have a look at ARMA to see what they had to say about the matter.

"In his 1617 backsword and rapier fencing text swordsman Joseph Swetnam also makes no mention of the word “block” or “parry”, but only talks of defending and receiving blows.  In Chapter XII of his, Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence he  “Showeth of seven principal rules whereon true defence is grounded” which states succinctly the principal of counter-striking over blocking: “thou must defend and seeke to offend all at once, for thou must not suffer thy enemy to recover his guard, for if thou doe thou looseth thy advantage.” (p. 74).  In referring to the “true guard for the defence, either of blowe, or thrust, with Rapier and Dagger”, Swetnam just as with other masters, advised to use its edge to parry –since, the true rapier being a narrow rigid blade with little edge, can do this.  Swetnam wrote: “Carrie the edge of thy rapier upward, and downward, for then thou shalt defend a blow upon the edge of thy rapier, by bearing thy rapier after the rule of the Backe-sword, for this is the strongest and surest carriage of him.” (Swetnam, p. 86).  This “rule of the backsword” that Swetnam refers to bares explanation.  Just what it is he never explains or addresses.  But common sense tells us there must be some reason why he specifically refers to a parrying rule for the “back” sword and not simply a rule for “a sword” or “all swords”.  What is it that is special about a backsword?  It has a back.  Unlike double-edged swords it has one side that is thicker and dull and not used for striking cuts (…similar to a rapier).  Thus, it can be used for parrying and likely was employed in this manner similarly to later cutlasses and sabers.

  
 First of all, stating "counterstriking over blocking" is a bit odd when it comes to rapier in general- single time defences manifest in several ways, and the "defend and offend at once" is not really counter-striking. Basically you try to put your sword in a place which stops their attack and lets their momentum carry themselves onto your point.  Or a single time defence. With rapier and dagger you can use your dagger to block/entangle their sword and attack in the same motion.. Defence and offence in one movement.  Athough, cutting someone's hand off as they're attacking is arguably "defending and offending" it's still 90% attack and I'd count that as pre-emptive striking or countercutting.


The rule of the backsword has taken me a while to figure out and it's mentioned in his single-sword section... I think, I really can't be bothered to dig it out, but it's something along the lines of not turning your sword as you parry. The usual parry you move the hilt and keep the point in their face- going from _\ to /_. Maintaining threat Rule of the backsword you move hilt and blade together- going  from _\ to \_  (hopefully that makes sense.. choreography has shorthand notation and maybe we should develop our own for the purpose of online discussion)  Also- false edge parries are ridiculously uncomfortable and aren't particularly supported by body mechanics, so the "back" of a back sword isn't really supported as an edge parry.

I believe this is something briefly mentioned in a French book, and more for cutty weaponry as a way to buy more time against a volte and extend the tempo of a cut and allow you to block then attack.  Or a double-time defence.  When looking at backsword/rapier the thing that is special about a backsword is that it is much more efficient on the cut.  Swetnam, more or less, uses interchangeable techniques with a focus on point or cut depending on the weapon and cross references within the work anyway (which is a pain in the arse, considering there are things he's forgotten, but can probably be recovered through the other schools that were in London at the time)

So to quillions. When you get to a lot of flat blade parries, you can see that the only thing keeping you safe is your perfect skill. A semi-equal fighter would be easily able to slide down your blade and take a shot at something squishy in your arms. The tsubas, on oriental swords, have protection on flat parries because of their circular nature.  We have quillions- two metal bars that run in line with the blade edge and are surprisingly protective when used well. That extra 6-8 inches of hand protection turns "perfect skill" to flinch acceptable.

The evolution of the hilt resulted in knucklebows, side rings, pretty swept ring hilts with massive holes along the flat side of the hilt and eventually the obviously sensible solid gated + hilts that completely protect your hand. If you were thinking about the hilt as a defensive structure, surely side rings would have been the starting point for hand protection. After all, the blade is coming down on your flat, it's lined up nicely and will carry itself down the blade to your thumb. (and hand hits, although not glamorous, are fatal... in their way)


That said, certain guards lend themselves to flat on flat parries. I'm not big on longsword, terrible with the correct terminology and I suspect they're better for rebats than actual parries. So I'm not saying completely wrong to do flat parries once in a while.

What I'm really wondering is how on earth this still manages to be a question after all this time?

Play with the idea, see where and how your body feels mechanically strong. Remember that really strong cuts should be able to be deflected or intercepted as you play weak against strong so you need to look at that aspect of motion   Then look for the shortest line between their blade and your squishy bits.

It that line is very short and doesn't require them going around your sword, then it's a bad parry.