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.
-Dan
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.
-Dan