I will stick my neck out and unequivocaly say you are wrong in your assumption - at least by the late 14th c., for the following reasons.

Examine Talhoffer or de Libera - in the plates that accompany you can see they parry with the flat - especially when they parry on the slope, the most common parry with a Bastard sword as it is the strongest "parry".

Actually, if you study late medieval swordsmanship, 75% of the "parrying" is footwork getting out of the path of the opponents sword, the remaining 25% of the parry consisting of re-directing the opponents sword with your blade. They did not trust to a solid block to stop an incoming weapon. There is no solid blocking parry like you are trying to accomplish, as this is too chancy, and risks damaging an expensive weapon.

Another piece of solid evidence is the surviving swords (battle weapons, not ceremonial ones) themselves - be they votive offerings, excavations from battlefields, river finds, what have you - there is almost no evidence of nicking on the blades whatsoever (and I've handled a surviving Medieval sword and a couple of daggers, as well as looking at them from pictures and in person - they are/were razor sharp, and would be easily damaged on the edge by a block with it). I would recommed Oakeshottes "Records of the Medieval Sword to you, he discusses this very topic in detail (never mind the close up pictures of a number of weapons).

I would say to make your tools work properly, you need to use them with the methods they were designed to be used. That should eliminate any problems you may have.

Neat topic. There are a couple of schools of thought on the parrying debate; I'm going to do my best to explain mine. In the context of life or death combat, I'm thinking that edge to edge parrying was a thing done in desperation to keep your head or limbs from departing your torso. I think the same also applies to STATIC flat to edge parrying, as this sort of action will also undoubtedly cause damage to the blade. Allow me to explain further.

The Talhoffer illustrations are an absolute gem but they have one problem, they are unmoving images and it's difficult in some cases to determine exactly what sort of movements are involved. Mr. John Clements (who's writings I have issues with, but they are not really relevant to this discussion) has hypothesized that parrying actions were of an active nature, much like the theory behind rapier parrying actions where the thrust is redirected rather than halted.

I'll give you a simple example, we'll assume "longswords" per Talhoffer as the weapons:

The aggressor initiates a downward cut to the head / right shoulder

The defender does not intercept the blow with the flat or edge of his weapon with the intention of halting it, rather he "cuts" into the swing of the aggressor. That is to say, keeping the orientation of his blade almost parallel to that of the aggressor he moves his weapon into the arc of the cut and, using the flat of his blade, redirects the cut safely to his right using lateral force applied to the aggressors blade.......I hope that made sense.

By employing an active rather than static, like the one I just attempted to describe, the swordsman accomplishes two important things:
Firstly, he remains living.
Secondly, he maintains the integrity of his sword which is almost as important as remaining alive.

It seems to me that in modern swordplay, be it staged steel, rattan, blunted steel, HACA style "wasters", whatever, people (myself included) have a tendency to attack the opponents weapon rather than the opponent when they first begin learning about swordplay. I think this is a product of the stage and screen where we subliminally learn that swordfighting is banging swords together, which can look cool, rather than attempting to strike the opponent with the blade. Keep in mind also, that I am a complete amateur and probably have no idea what I'm talking about. These are just some speculations based on some illustrations and a bit of practical experience.

------------------
How much? Ok, I'll take two.

I think a separation of types of combat is in order here.

Let's define terms also. I think we're talking about late 15th C. combat, where shields were not used except on the tilt field or in the lance charge in battle.

Are we talking about armoured or unarmoured combatants?

First of all, Talhoffer is not relevant to war combat, or multiple opponent melee. What is the Fechtbuch, anyway? I believe it's a manual for dandies who wanted to know 'state of the art' combat techniques so they could look studly when practicing against their courtly type buddies. I don't think the average Joe soldier knew of these moves in such a formal sense. This book wasn't published or widely circulated, was it? As I understand it, it was a manuscript.
My point being, how appropriate is it to say that Talhoffer (or de Libera) is a good representation of how people 'typically' fought with swords. Just because they survive, doesn't mean we should treat them as gospel.

Is it appropriate to say that everyone who fought with a sword was highly trained to use it? I don't think so. Is it correct to say that even a good portion of those who engaged in sword combat one on one were well enough trained to use edge-flat blocks? I don't think so.

Secondly, war combat is a matter of survival and you do WHATEVER IT TAKES to live. Including edge to edge parries, if need be.

As Jon stated, I also believe that movies etc. have done us a disservice by their incorrectly choreographed "stage" fights, blade against blade, not blade against opponent's body. Jon and Bob's other idea about defense being "active" and "mobile" seems also correct. Movement is the key to parrying, be it with a pollarm, sword or buckler.

All this wraps up to say that I believe in almost "anything goes". When your life is at stake, rules go out the window. Even a large amount of training goes out the window. You do what you need to to keep from getting cut. You parry with whatever you can, edge, flat, you grab your opponent's arm, trip him, whatever.

If we're talking about medieval "fencing" in it's formal sense, that's another matter which I believe has about as much real life application to true combat as modern sport fencing does.

But then again, I tend to be a pragmatist, and base my ideas on experience coupled with research.

------------------
Cheers,

I think a couple of things need to be kept in mind - Jeff is certainly correct in that in the press of battle and the inital shock of foot combat, the greatsword/bastard sword technique of Talhoffer would be useless.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that by the last quarter of the 14th c. and onward into the 15th c., the sword is not the primary foot combat weapon - it is a weapon of last resort. A man at arms on foot drawn up in a battle would be armed with a pollaxe or one of it's close relatives, or a glaive. His retinue would be drawn up around him with their poll weapons, and he would be part of the larger retinue of a lord with similarly armed men around him (the archers/crossbows, etc, would be a seperate part of the battle). To employ their pole arms effectively, they had to be in close order - making the sort of technique shown in these manuals ineffective.

However, both Talhoffer and de Liberi were masters of arms employed throughout their career by noblemen, specificaly to teach them and their household "das Ritter Kunst des Fechtens", or the Knightly arts.

While a common soldier would have more probably have picked up any knowledge of the sword from more experienced comrades in the sort of fashion a person learns streetfighting skills, a knight or professional man at arms would be expected to have been trained to a certain level in the knightly arts, or they could not reasonably expect to pursue a career in arms.

I am most familiar with Talhoffer, as I own a copy of the 1477 manual (which was printed and circulated amongst a small readership - but it did circulate). His earliest work (1434?) was indeed a manuscript, made for his employer, but by the mid 15th c. there was enough of a demand for his knowledge for it to be printed and sold. Sword training (bastard sword in particular)was popular in Germany as a form of excersise for the middle classes, as was sword and buckler play - this was very popular in England through the 16th c. In Southern Germany, there is some evidence that sword and buckler practise was taught to the middle classes by Monks - there are even several pictures in a surviving manuscript on technique (c. 1300) showing women participating in sword and buckler play as sport.

Talhoffers book does not only address unarmoured bastard sword technique, it also covers armoured combat with bastard sword, pollaxe, unarmoured with dagger, grappling, holds, mounted lance vs mounted crossbow.... it goes on. It is intended to have practical aplication to self defence in any situation - it was originaly written for his patron who was going on pilgimage - certainly the sword technique would prove useful if you had the misfortune to lose your primary weapon in battle.

I guess I'm trying to say that those portraying the mounted man at arms should have more than a passing familiarity with the knightly arts, and those who portray the footsoldier should be competant with their primary weapon (pike/bill/bow/crossbow), but would probably realisticaly not be as proficient with the sword. The type of swordplay they would be familiar with would be sword/falchion and buckler - definitely more of a smashing/hacking sort of swordplay.

Your points are all well taken. I like that you've pointed out that a sword was not a primary weapon. I believe this is the case for nearly all soldiers from about 1350 on, which is the time of the rise of infantry and plate that is proof against swords.

As a mounted man, I know I don't have time to think about blocking with the flat when Bill and I fight on horse. Also, if I did parry with the flat, as Geoffrey says, the shock and vibration of a solid blow nearly drives the weapon from my hand. We're talking single hand wielded weapon now. You can't use a sword two handed on a horse.

Perhaps swords when used two handed on foot were used to parry with the flat. You have more edge/flat control when two handed, and in an exercise/practice situation, it could be managed. I still don't feel flat parries were used much (at least consciously) in a life or death struggle, be it in battle or duel.

Your example of extant swords not being notched is not a good justification for parries with the flat. I have viewed many swords in museums and in collections and about 99% of them have been worked on or "restored" after their functional life. This is mostly because their subsequent owners (mostly Victorian collectors) wouldn't want a heavily notched blade on their wall, so they have them "cleaned up". They even went so far as to rearrange hilts and shorten blades to match their own aesthetic. Thanks to collectors, we have a very poor idea of what the real medieval sword looked like.

Pristine museum examples that do survive were probably never used so are also not a good basis for determining whether flat parries were used typically; much as fine perfectly intact examples of armour are not a good basis for determining typical armour styles.

Lastly, if primarily weapons other than swords were used in battle (and the sword was relegated to a last resort weapon which seems the case especially for mounted men), the swords from that time probably didn't see much use or damage. The mace, hammer, axe and pollarm got chopped up, not the sword. This could explain why there are so many surviving poll weapons, just because they made so many, where there are relatively few surviving swords. Then again, swords probably got broken rather often.

The more we know, the fuzzier the picture gets.

------------------
Cheers,

Pardon me for resurrecting a dead thread but, Chef de Chambre just invited me to the board, and I'm nosing around the various threads.

Hauptmann wrote:
"I think a separation of types of combat is in order here.
Let's define terms also. I think we're talking about late 15th C. combat, where shields were not used except on the tilt field or in the lance charge in battle. "

OK, outside of martial matters, the 15th century is not my area of expertise, but I feel relatively qualified to stick my nose in here. For the following, I am going to adhere strictly to the 15th century Masters at Arms, although I will include Pietro Monte, whose work was published in 1509, and was written between 1490 - 1500.

"Are we talking about armoured or unarmoured combatants? "

A very good point. The German system saw the "Kunst des Fechtens" (Art of Fighting) as divided into 3 arts:
Blossfechten - unarmoured combat
Harnischfechten - armoured combat
Ritterfechten - mounted combat.

Blossfechten was considered the root for ALL combat, and the Fechtschules taught all three of these arts. In the 16th century, the fighting schools became more an more middle-class guilds, and the first clear evidence of this was that Ritterfechten dropped out of the curriculum. By the mid-16th century, Harnischfechten had as well.

"First of all, Talhoffer is not relevant to war combat, or multiple opponent melee. What is the Fechtbuch, anyway? I believe it's a manual for dandies who wanted to know 'state of the art' combat techniques so they could look studly when practicing against their courtly type buddies. I don't think the average Joe soldier knew of these moves in such a formal sense. This book wasn't published or widely circulated, was it? As I understand it, it was a manuscript."

OK, interestingly, your argument is the same one made by members of a certain rattan stick swinging group, but in the opposite direction:" these fighting guilds were for commoners right? So this doesn't reflect what the nobles were doing, does it?"

The truth is quite the opposite prior to the 16th century. ALL of the surviving 14th and 15th century masters fall into one of the three categories:

1. noblemen
2. professional fighters of the gentry, writing specifically for a noble's men at arms.

Liechtenauer and dei Liberi were the sons of knights, and at least the latter was knighted himself. Sigmund Ringeck (c.1440) was also of the minor nobility and wrote his work for Albrecht, Count Palatine of the Rhine, specifically "for the training of my lord's retainers and men-at-arms."

Fiore dei Liberi's patron was the Marquess of Ferara, and again, the work was written expressly to train his men-at-arms. Fiore also tells us, "the techniques contained within this book will serve the man-at-arms well in duel, war, tournament and civilian quarrel." Like most of the 15th century masters, he includes grappling, sword, poleaxe, dagger, mounted combat, and even use of the spear vs. a cavalry charge. All of this is taught both in and out of armour.

Talhoffer is particularly interesting, since he bounced from patron to patron, although of his 6 manuscripts (it is believed that there were at one point 9), 3 were written while he was in direct service to the Duke of Swabia. His earliest edition focuses on the judicial combat, probably because his own patron' s son had a notorious reputation, and had managed to get stuck fighting several of these combats. Talhoffer's own personal copy contains over 20 plates on siege equipment and siege engines, and his last three editions all have something on armoured and mounted cavalry, though the focus is on single-combat for the bulk of the manual.

Monte, writing at the end of the century goes to great length to discuss how to use the lance in warfare, how to choose armour for war and tournament, etc. He also takes the later German masters to task for their wrestling. "They delight in wrestling naked on the ground, like beasts, which may do much for a man's vigor, but teaches him nothing of war." It's interesting to note that the grappling and wrestling taught in Fiore and Talhoffer are much like old, classical jujutsu - focusing on standing techniques, disarms, and jointlocks. When there is a ground-technique, the man on top is looking up, as if read to be attacked from another side, and quickly uses his dagger to kill the man on the bottom. It is not until the 16th century, that this changes, and we see more of what we think of today as "Western Wrestling."

This focus on single combat also is notable because, during Talhoffer's lifetime, the Brotherhood of St. Markus was formed, and it's masters began to teach combat arts to the burghers of the Empire. We have plenty of records to show that the Marxbruder were conducting public matches every Sunday, training the sons of well-to-do merchants, and were also charged with training local town militias. (What this training was, we don't know. We only know they had this duty, because it appears in several of their charters.) And right on through the 15th century, the most senior masters of the Brotherhood were in the direct employ of the various great magnates, training their men-at-arms.

"My point being, how appropriate is it to say that Talhoffer (or de Libera) is a good representation of how people 'typically' fought with swords. Just because they survive, doesn't mean we should treat them as gospel. "

True, but this is also true of virtually every aspect of living history. What you of course, must do, is look for repeated examples, and a preponderance of evidence.

In the case of the fechtbuchs, we know that this art was being taught to professional men-at-arms, and that those same instructors were also teaching them for cash to burghers who could afford it. We also have a written record that they were teaching SOMETHING to the town militia. We also know that the role of fechtmeister was fairly prestigious - Fiore ranks it as far above his having been knighted, and in Maximillian's "Freyerdal" (sp?) the fechtmeister Holywood and his retinue appear in the procession just after the household knights, dressed in full tournament armour, who in turn come just behind the Emperor.

So, this information was not obscure.

Now, for the bigger European picture. The basic stances and actions taught by the fechtmeisters (or Maestro d'armi for those of you with an Italian bent) are constantly found in artwork of the period. That is because, when you pick up a longsword, poleaxe, or spear, there are only so many ways to swing them. Furthermore, the stances for the sword and buckler taught in manuscript I.33 in 1295 (south Germany), are identical to the marginalia in the Romance of Alexander (which I may be wrong, but I thought was Anglo-French) in the mid-14th century, are the same as the sword and buckler taught by Talhoffer in the 1450s and 60s, and are essentially the same as those taught by Marozzo in Italy in 1536.

Sword and buckler is particularly interesting for this discussion, since it was a training tool for the upper class warrior, but was very much considered a "vulgar" weapon, suitable for "students, soldiers, and other trouble makers" - (quoted from the trial records of the English fencing master "Roger le Skirmisour" from 1310). The form was considered popular recreation for townsmen and students from at least the 12th century, where English legal documents from this time name professional arms instructors and “judicial champions” such as Wilemus Pugilus (1156) and Laurencius Pugil (1176), who hired themselves out to stand as proxies in trials-by-combat. In 1180 AD Herny II banned the establishment of “fencing schools” in London, and forbade townsfolk to travel about the city with sword and buckler:

"And that nobody may hold school of sword and buckler within the city on pain of imprisonment."

One 17th century source further adds:
“Ye may read in mine annals who that in the year of 1222 the citizens kept games of defence, and wrestlings, near unto the hospital of St. Gile sin the field, where they challenged and had the master of the men in the suburbs and other commoners...The youths of this city also have used on holdy days after evening prayer, at their masters’ doors, to exercise their wasters and bucklers.”

Likewise, of the seven basic guards with the sword and buckler, they all appear in the longsword work, which again, is essentially universal throughout Europe. Likewise, dei Liberi's diagram of the 8 cuts, and the virtues necessary for a good swordsmen, are repeated by Dom Duarte of Portugal in the mid-15th century (who even steals some of the Italian terminology), and by the German masters.

>Is it appropriate to say that everyone who fought with a sword was highly trained to use it? I don't think >so.

Well, firstly, the role of infantry in the period is primarily to stand their ground. And to do it with a polearm, not to use the sword.

"Is it correct to say that even a good portion of those who engaged in sword combat one on one were well enough trained to use edge-flat blocks? I don't think so. "

Actually, this is the big problem: people interpret the historical terms "Parrata" and "absetzen" to mean "BLOCK" or parry as in modern sabre fencing, and they have nothing to do with this. The literally mean "to set aside". And what we find is that the masters taught that sometimes this means you cut into his attack, hitting his flat with your edge, sometimes you slap it away with your flat, sometimes the weapons meet edge to edge. But it is never static, and you never just block. The father of the German tradition, Johannes Liechtenauer, left the advice, "Trust not the parries, which only poor fighters use. When he cuts, you cut. When he thrusts you thrust."

This doesn't mean you don't defend, but it does mean that your focus is different. For example, the hanging guards. If I simply leave my sword like this, your cut will either be met on my edge in a hard block, or you will cut through my guard and hit me. Neither does much to help me win the fight.

Rather, say you cut at my left collar. I then make a diagonall step with my left foot to the right, away from your cut. This action causes the sword to essentially "hang" down my back, in what the Italian's called the posta di donna sovreigna. If your sword hits, it will hit my blade on its flat and slide down.

BUT - and this is the key - that's not the purpose of my step. The purpose is to clear myself with footwork, and this posta di donna sovreigna is the first action in circling my sword around for my own counter cut. If it happens to parry and deflect your blade, great, but it's real purpose is "insurance" as I transition into my next cut. This is what is meant by a "flat parry." They are quite easy to do, because they are the natural movements the sword makes as it travels from cut to cut anyway.

Nor is this unique. The exact same move I described is done by kenjutsu practitioners with their katanas, and by escrimadors with their sticks and their short-swords. (The former calls it "shedding a blow" the latter usually a "wing block.")

Now, another example, this time of an edge parry, can be directly quoted from Sigmund Ringeck:

"Note: When your adversary strikes at you from his right side with a strike from above (Oberhau), then hit with a strike of wrath from your right shoulder against it. Strike with your true edge and in your strong. When he is weak at the sword then, thrust into his face along his blade."

You are cutting against his incoming attack, which effects a parry. BUT, ideally you are striking him simultaneously as you do this.

Interestingly, these same concepts are found in Monte's section on mounted combat, and in Duarte's "Bem cavalgar."

I have an article that is nearly finished that does a statistical analysis of about 18 of the 15th century manuals, and what is interesting is that a parry and counter-hit as I've described above is shown in about 1/5 of the techniques. A hard "block" as you see in modern fencing or stage combat, is depicted in 3% of the techniques. But what is most interesting is that, this means that parries of any sort do not appear in 4/5 of the material at all!

So, to answer the original question: you can use your sword's flat to parry, and should, but don't do it rigidly. You can also use your edge by cutting into an attack, but you should not just hold it up and block.

Now, from a reenactment point of view, if you are a simple pikeman, a gunner, or a crossbowman, then no, there's probably no need to assume this material is relevant.
I would argue, however that this material is certainly relevant, if your portrayal is that of:

1. a member of the burgher class, with enough wealth to afford the equipment and tutelage.
2. an experienced, professional soldier or serjeant
3. a man-at-arms, for whom the art expressly refers.

Thanks for all the information.

I think you said what I meant, and had a lot more time to provide the substantiation. I too think the "formal" training stuff is probably irrelevant to the common footman. I also believe what you said about parries being active and not static, like in the movies.

Where can I get a copy of this "Monte" info on use of the lance in warfare? This seems right down my alley.

------------------
Cheers,

An interesting and thought provoking post. The more I look into this the more I realise how little I know (so what's new)!

Could you supply some bibliographical information on the sources you have used. In particular those relataing to C15th England.

One passing comment on a quotation you used which I feel is very pertinent ...

"Trust not the parries, which only poor fighters use."

The essential question, and one to which I suppose we'll never know the answer, is what proportion of figthers would he have considered poor?

Jeff...large portions of the Monte translation will appear in Dr. Sydney Anglo's massive new work: The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe. (Depsite the title, the work really begins with I.33).

Here's a pre-order link for the book, which comes out Sept 1.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300083521/o/qid=964104285/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/102-5292030-2133764

Now, there's also two articles that Dr. Anglo has written which are probably required reading, because they address parts of this, and have some of the Monte material quoted.

How to Win at Tournaments: The Technique of Chivalric Combat," Antiquaries Journal LXIII, Part ii, 1988, pp. 248-64

"The Man Who Taught Leonardo Darts," Antiquaries Journal, LXIX (1990).

Dave,
OK, the various sources.

Well, firstly, for the historical manuals, you're lucky. "Back in the day," when I started looking for this stuff, it was a nightmare to find. Now, you can find parts of Ringeck, dei Liberi, etc., on line at: www.thehaca.com and www.aemma.org.

Now, dei Liberi is in three forms. The first was reprinted by Francessco Novati in 1902, and is the one that appears on-line. THe second is in the Getty collection in California, and the third at the Pierpoint Morgan in NY. I can't give you full provenances, because, I confess I didn't do the leg work on this one. That was done by a friend in LA, Ian Johnson.

Also coming out this fall is:

Medieval Combat : A 15th Century Manual of Swordfighting and Close-Quarter Combat
(This is an English Translation of Talhoffer's 1467 manuscript)

Here's the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1853674184/o/qid=964104820/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/102-5292030-2133764

While on the subject of Talhoffer, his personal manuscript of 1459, is on-line, in full color at the Royal Library in Coppenhagen at
http://base.kb.dk/hsk_web/plsql/hsk_vis_en.forside?p_hs_loebenr=2

Now then, the legal documents I quoted are from the 12th century Liber Alber, and some of the Windsor rolls. I'm at work right now, so sit tight, and I'll post the details tonight or tomorrow.

There are only two English "Fechtbuchs" that survive. The first is Harleian Ms 3542, also called "The Man that Wol," and it is mighty cryptic. You can see a translation effort in progress at: http://www.thehaca.com/Harleian.htm

The second is as yet "secret" - and to be revealed in Dr. Anglo's new book.

As to manuscript I.33, it is property of the Royal Armouries, and a translation will be available next year. In the meantime, they've recently put it on-line at HACA and AEMMA, and you can also get the following article:

Singman, Jeffrey. “The Medieval Swordsman: a 13th-century German Fencing Manuscript” in Royal Armouries Yearbook 2 (1997) pp.129-136

Dr. Singman is the translator, and one of the curators of the Higgins Collection in Massachussets.

For modern sources, I would suggest:
Amberger, J. Christoph. The Secret History of the Sword:Adventures in Ancient Martial Arts, Multi-Media Books, Burbank, CA, 1999 (3rd edition)

Aylward, J.D. The English Master at Arms from the Twelfth to the Twentieth Centuries, Routledge, Kegan and Paul, London 1956.

Hutton, Alfred. The Sword and the Centuries, London 1901. Barnes & Noble reprint: 1997

Thimm, Carl Albert. A Complete Bibliography of Fencing and Dueling, John Lane, 1896. Pelican Publishing Company reprint: 1999

Finally, a rather useful article to hunt down is Matt Galas'

Galas, S. Matthew. “Kindred Spirits -- The Art of the Sword in Germany & Japan,” in Journal of Asian Martial Arts, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 20 - 47 (1997)

In reality, it's about 75% discussion of the German school, and 25% discussion of the Japanese parallels. But, more importantly, Matt (who has a translation of Liechtenauer and Doebringer in the works), gives full citations at the end for which collections have each of the major German fechtbuchs.

I hope that helps initially, and if there's more specific things you need, let me know.

>The essential question, and one to which I >suppose we'll never know the answer, is >what proportion of figthers would he have >considered poor?

Good question. I don't know, but at other times he refers to "poor fencers/fighters" as "peasants," and "Men untrained in war." Now, I'd bet that the average pikeman would fall into that category too, but your trained fighters from the middle and upperclasses? I think Liecthenauer would have argued that they should have known better.

Anyway, hope that all helped!

Greg

~Jenn

Seriously, remember, there are times when they DID parry with the edge, but they never just BLOCKED with them, which is exactly what SAFD style stage performers do.

What can you do? Well you can try and educate them, you can show them why it works better the other way, and you can be very patient.

Oh, yeah, and you can pour yourself that stiff drink....