The Ancient Debate: Flat Versus Edge

Users who are viewing this thread

Blackthorn

Squire
Basically, this thread -is not- designed to settle the issue- nobody -ever- will. Merely for people to discuss it and actually look into it. I do ask for mutual respect, a bit of research (IE don't post blag if you don't know), and no superior gainsaying, 'Oh, you still believe -that-, ho, ho, ho'.
So basically, yeah.
I myself parry with the flat- and have found it dictates its own specific style, rather than being 'ineffective' or 'impractical'. I did have a debate the other day with somebody who tried to demonstrate edge-on parries as more effective, but he did somewhat believe in direct parrying, rather than deflecting the enemy's blows from their line of attack.
A big part of the problem with this debate is that I am a 12th Century reenactor, and therefore sword-on-sword contact is, authentically, kept to a minimum- you block 'vicious' blows with the shield, not with the sword (the shield is, ultimately, disposable, the sword- not so much).
Basically my reasons for my theory is simple- the style I practice works- it also works in parrying people who do not agree with it (IE- direct edge attacks can be 'knocked aside' using the flat if you decide not to take it on the edge), so it doesn't have to be a point of mutual agreement. It also tallies closely with the extant swords that have survived in good condition. There are damaged edges- but not excessively damaged, which one would expect from direct edge-to-edge contact with any kind of force. My own swords, even though I'm a 'flatter' have accrued similar damage to a lot of extant swords. The other thing that is interesting is the damage to a lot of swords' fullers, which would suggest they have recieved violent 'flat' contact.
The thing is, I'm prepared to believe the whole argument may even be entirely pointless as the debate may be as old as the sword itself (IE- there was no singular practise in period).
So yes- this is a sounding-board, and I'd like to see it remain so in an academic manner, rather than a slanging match. :wink:
-Dan
 
try with tihs: http://www.thearma.org/Videos/swordshow121.htm
i have to say that the  medieval reenactment group of my city use the edge vs edge system,
but i think that not parry but deflect is the thing to do, a sword is a valuable object that had to be preserved, so if you have to parry: do it with your flat, if people says to you that the sword will bend don't care about them, gauging a sword until it breaks it's using it as a flexible Clamp
 
I've been mostly fighting with wooden practice swords, but after 4 years or so, I came to a style that felt the most comfortable and natural to me - deflecting and recieving on the flat. Sure, once in a while (in a pinch) I'd use a hard block on the low part of the edge, but mostly I'd deflect using the flat.

After watching an ARMA video on this matter, I think I believe their argument. The positions described by renaissance masters DO make sense for recieving on the flat.

About the amount of damage to swords found I have no real idea. I've read both - "damage mostly on edge" and "damage mostly on flat, little damage on edge".
Go figure. :/
 
Merlkir said:
I've been mostly fighting with wooden practice swords, but after 4 years or so, I came to a style that felt the most comfortable and natural to me - deflecting and recieving on the flat. Sure, once in a while (in a pinch) I'd use a hard block on the low part of the edge, but mostly I'd deflect using the flat.

After watching an ARMA video on this matter, I think I believe their argument. The positions described by renaissance masters DO make sense for recieving on the flat.

About the amount of damage to swords found I have no real idea. I've read both - "damage mostly on edge" and "damage mostly on flat, little damage on edge".
Go figure. :/

From having to study the actual swords, or 1:1 scale images of them, there is little -real- damage on the edge (nicks, not gouges).
And here's a fun demonstration- have an opponent cut straight down at the head- strike his blade using your flat against flat- pushing the blade clear out to your left- step right as you do so. Now note that your blade is free to cut at their exposed neck/face- your blade forced down on theirs means that they are limited in their action, whilst your edge is orientated towards their body, ready to strike.

And yes- I too believe that due to the value of swords, to preserve them is a serious concern. It is also something to note that a fairly new theory (one that I heartily back) suggests that most knights maintained two swords as early as the 12th century- one for use on horseback (36" on average, heavy, designed for the slash), and a second, with a more accute point and shorter length (28") for use on foot. If you read E. Oakeshott's Records of the Medieval Sword both are specifically in evidence- though not identified as specifically disparate designs.
The idea that a sword used on foot would be employed in a style that incorporated a lot of offensive stabbing does change the outlook to the form of sword-play.
(Interestingly, William Marshall's first wound is described as a sword-stab to his thigh- delivered from behind, just to grab a random historical tidbit).
 
Blackthorn said:
And here's a fun demonstration- have an opponent cut straight down at the head- strike his blade using your flat against flat- pushing the blade clear out to your left- step right as you do so. Now note that your blade is free to cut at their exposed neck/face- your blade forced down on theirs means that they are limited in their action, whilst your edge is orientated towards their body, ready to strike.

Heh, I use that quite a lot.
 
My only experience with swordsmanship manuals supports parrying with the flat, I can think of no benefit to using edge-on-edge parries.

Defending with the flat of the sword, aside from spreading the impact of the defended blow across a larger area, allows you to keep your own edge on line with your opponent for a faster counterattack.

Blackthorn said:
A big part of the problem with this debate is that I am a 12th Century reenactor, and therefore sword-on-sword contact is, authentically, kept to a minimum- you block 'vicious' blows with the shield, not with the sword (the shield is, ultimately, disposable, the sword- not so much).

I am more into 14th century swordsmanship (ie: two-handed longsword), and sword-on-sword contact is kept to a minimum as well. The best defence is attacking first and forcing your opponent on the defensive, then voiding (or dodging) a stroke, with parrying at the bottom of the heirarchy of defence.

Blackthorn said:
I myself parry with the flat- and have found it dictates its own specific style, rather than being 'ineffective' or 'impractical'. I did have a debate the other day with somebody who tried to demonstrate edge-on parries as more effective, but he did somewhat believe in direct parrying, rather than deflecting the enemy's blows from their line of attack.

This is probably a major factor in the debate you were having - if deflecting blows rather than blocking them directly, edge-on parries are not likely to happen. But if you prefer to block a blow directly, you would have to keep adjusting your grip to block with the flat and then attack with the edge.
 
Most of the defensive actions that I've seen oppose your opponent's flat with your edge. I'm a relative novice though.

I'm pretty sure that most medieval fighters didn't care too much about which part of the blade made contact. There's very few examples of actions (as described by the fight masters) that require contact with a specific part of the blade.
 
Blackthorn said:
And yes- I too believe that due to the value of swords, to preserve them is a serious concern. It is also something to note that a fairly new theory (one that I heartily back) suggests that most knights maintained two swords as early as the 12th century- one for use on horseback (36" on average, heavy, designed for the slash), and a second, with a more accute point and shorter length (28") for use on foot. If you read E. Oakeshott's Records of the Medieval Sword both are specifically in evidence- though not identified as specifically disparate designs.
The idea that a sword used on foot would be employed in a style that incorporated a lot of offensive stabbing does change the outlook to the form of sword-play.
a lot of professional warriors in Alfred the Great's army to carry two swords as long blades are to hard to use.
 
I'm practicing iaido, and the same question was raised there.
We had a talk with my grandmaster, who also forges the swords for us (iaito, and heavier swords for cutting practice).
What he said was quite rational, but I should emphasize that it was solely about the katana.

When at the tempering stage, the edge is tempered into harder steel then the other parts of the blade.
That gives the sword a hard cutting edge, and the back / side parts of the blade stays somewhat softer and more flexible.
So if the blade meets with an other blade, blocking with the edge means blocking with the hardest part,
and there's a good 4 centimeters of steel behind it which can absorb the force of the impact.
Blocking with the flat means not blocking with the hardest part, and the impact would be absorbed buy the
under 10 mm thick blade. That leaves a higher chance of the sword breaking or getting damaged.

Of course, blocking with the edge a similar or better blade would make mine chipped. Well, it's much better then a split skull.

That is all about blocking. Parrying the swords can touch each other anywhere, based on the moves of the opponents.
They won't be seriously damaged, because the attack will be diverted, not stopped, so the impacts of the blades will be much less severe.

personal notice: If a big swing is coming at me, and I must block, I wouldn't give a **** about which part I blocked with if it saves me
and gives me an opportunity to retort.

PS: Sorry if what I wanted to say is not clear, I'm not used to this kind of technical talk in English.
 
Although an ARMA article says the katana is very similar to european longswords in this regard, imo its blade is considerably thicker and more rigid - blocking on flat might not be a good idea. But still, I've seen techniques doing just that.
 
If the demonstration in this video is to be trusted, katana tend to be unsuitable for directly opposing any form of attack. I wouldn't trust my life to a weapon that curled up like that on impact with a resisting opponent's blade.

EDIT: Gah! Posting at 2 am = more proofreading required.
 
Been training Kenjutsu for 5 years or so... Edge with active dodging...And btw,Katana is sharper and more durable than European longswords/claymores, and it's flexibility makes it even more dangerous,if you know how to use it...
 
Night Ninja said:
If the demonstration this video is to be trusted, katana tend to be unsuitable for directly opposing any form of attack. I wouldn't trust my life to a weapon that curled up like that on impact with a resisting opponent's blade.

interesting. Again, any tests on stationary fixed targets are useless, but still interesting.
 
Night Ninja said:
If the demonstration in this video is to be trusted, katana tend to be unsuitable for directly opposing any form of attack. I wouldn't trust my life to a weapon that curled up like that on impact with a resisting opponent's blade.

EDIT: Gah! Posting at 2 am = more proofreading required.

What a sword can handle is unique to each one. Saying a katana is stronger than longsword, is like saying a motorcycle is faster than a car.
There were cheap katana in feudal japan, as there were poor samurai. Cheap weapon = less effort and time put in to create it.
Naturally it will be weaker than one made for months / years. This test of swords should be repeated a lot of times with swords from various smiths to prove anything.

And the technique of the dude is bad, he cuts with the middle of the sword. The katana has the most cutting power at the last third of the blade.

Disclaimer: I'm not against western swords, or western sword arts. I know there were many quality weapons crafted in Europe,
as well as warriors who would kick samurai ass. Thank goodness the "who / which is better" questions can never be answered,
so everybody can like what he likes.
 
There's actually more of an argument -against- edge parrying based on the description of the katana forging methods- harder steel is also more brittle, and therefore tends to hold a sharper edge, but cracks or develops stress damage easier. The softer steel will 'dent' easier- but will absorb the impact more effectively with less risk to the overall blade.
I'd argue that medieval knights who weren't particularly bothered about fighting in a weapon-preserving manner would fight with maces or axes- both of which are cheaper, easier to replace, and harder to critically damage by 'whomping' with them.
 
Bromden said:
When at the tempering stage, the edge is tempered into harder steel then the other parts of the blade.
That gives the sword a hard cutting edge, and the back / side parts of the blade stays somewhat softer and more flexible.
So if the blade meets with an other blade, blocking with the edge means blocking with the hardest part,
and there's a good 4 centimeters of steel behind it which can absorb the force of the impact.
Blocking with the flat means not blocking with the hardest part, and the impact would be absorbed buy the
under 10 mm thick blade. That leaves a higher chance of the sword breaking or getting damaged.

Of course, blocking with the edge a similar or better blade would make mine chipped. Well, it's much better then a split skull.

On the other side of the coin, increasing hardness means increasing brittleness, so the hardest part of the blade is also the most brittle and thus most likely to chip during a violent impact with another hard object (such as directly blocking the blow).

Also, blocking with the flat would spread the impact of a blow across the width of the blade (in your example 4 cm) while blocking with the edge spreads the impact across the thickness (in your example under 10 mm), so concentrates the impact on a smaller area, meaning there would be more risk of damage at the point of impact.

Volkodav said:
Been training Kenjutsu for 5 years or so... Edge with active dodging...And btw,Katana is sharper and more durable than European longswords/claymores, and it's flexibility makes it even more dangerous,if you know how to use it...

Getting side-tracked by your btw comment, how long have you been training with European longswords/claymores? I ask because I think experience with both kinds of weapons would be important to making a fair comparison between the two.
 
I want to make clear that I was talking about blocking. Parrying isn't much of a problem, because the enemy's attack
would be lead away by my sword, so there's no frontal clash, the swords won't be damaged too much.
Blocking (I stop his move with holding my sword in his sword's way firmly) is unfortunate with a katana,
however it happens (we do reenactment style battles, so I know it's sometimes inevitable).
Blocking with the edge is the easiest with a katana, you don't have to change your grip.
Blocking with the flat (like in full stop blocking) is dangerous, most broken katanas I know of are broken
because a hit on the flat. As I said, parrying is no problem with any part, what you use is always depends on the situation
and the technique you want to use.

PS: I didn't hear of any single warrior who fought "weapon preserving" style in real battle.
 
Bromden said:
PS: I didn't hear of any single warrior who fought "weapon preserving" style in real battle.

The fact that most extant swords have some battle-damage but are amazingly well-preserved means that we have the evidence anyway.
You can fight with a sword in a dynamic, aggressive, indeed, completely natural way, but just naturally playing to its strengths and therefore preventing it being damaged. Equally very few people note at great length that, say, Cromwell's men kept their carbines and pistols clean- because good practice is rarely noted and celebrated.
 
Back
Top Bottom