1) Don't retreat out of distance with a parry. 2) Don't over-reach with parries - only move as far as is necessary. 3) Parry with the forte of the blade, as near to the hilt as you can.
Thanks. And yes, lots. In fact the cut 2 from Quarte is one of the most powerful cuts, as it uses the large muscles of the back. It was the most feared cut in Indian swordsmanship.
Hmmm. In historical fencing from medieval to Victorian times there are all types of parry, including 'static' blocks, deflections and counter-cuts. A conventional parry in backsword or sabre is a static block. Edge damage doesn't matter - edges get damaged regardless of how you fence. Defending yourself and incapacitating the opponent is what matters.
@@justinprather4760 IMO any sort of weapon with minimal or no guard indicates that it's not really meant for fencing, but for quickly killing your opponent while perhaps evading his blow, or using buckler, etc. Kukri comes to mind.
To add: There *were* techniques in medieval and renaissance sources where you occasionally parried with the flat, however in those cases they are specially mentioned and are unusual. There are plenty of examples from longsword fencing treatises of defending with the front edge and the back edge, but blade engagements are not only 90 degree edge or 90 degree flat - most engagements are more like 45 degrees between the edge and the flat, which does not damage the blade in most cases.
Hi Adam, edge against edge parrying is normal in most documented European fencing systems and is explicitly described in medieval, renaissance and later fencing treatises. The guards of European swords project in the direction of the edge, not the flat :-) The 'parrying with the flat' thing is something that was pushed by ARMA in the 1990's and has been debunked by most serious HEMA researchers conclusively. Edge damage is not really an issue. Weapons always get damaged when they are used.
But do not underestimate the importance of the fact that the guards of swords from the dark ages to the modern day are in the direction of the edge. If people were usually parrying with the flat then the guards would project in the direction of the flats, rather than the edge. Added to this, the manuals tell us to use the edges.
I agree - I was taught to catch cuts with the strong of the blade (the part close to the crossguard), with edge, perpendicular to the plane of the cut. If you catch a cut with the flat of your blade, it will start to vibrate and you won't be able to control it as surely as you can. The guards of many swords and sabres indicate that these weapons were designed for parrying with blade.
I wish there was a club around me that did this kind of fencing. I'd love to get into it but learning alone is no fun and probably not very productive.
@goggles789 “productive” in terms of the hobby of mastering the form of military Sabre. Playing piano is not productive as there is a minuscule chance you have enough talent to play for any sort of a living let alone a good one, but it is still helpful to have an instructor to teach you some mastery for hobby’s sake
@goggles789 thats such a stupid stupid way of thinking. Living ain't exactly productive because the likelihood you'll actually make a meaningful difference on the planet is minuscule.. The pursuit of any hobby that doesn't negatively affect another cannot be called unproductive unless it interferes with other parts of a person's life to an unreasonable amount and even at that it is deabteable as to being unproductive in who's eyes.
The point you made about not wanting to do the parry with a medieval sword made me realise how different all the sword fighting techniques are compared to armour. Have you done a video on full-armoured medieval sword fighting? If simply having a hilt changes the fight that much then I wonder what full-armoured fighting is like.
Awesome lesson! Lots of info yet very concise. Would love it if you did more of these. For me, it was a little hard to see the blades (i.e. if inside or outside, though you did say which cleared it up). It would be great if you could have different colour blades to show them better. Like one taped/coloured blue one coloured white. Thankyou for the lesson, please make more!😊👍
Thanks for sharing these vids, really enjoying them. Out of curiosity have you done any experiments test cutting from the position of the inside parry, just wondering what kind of cutting power can be generated from that "bent" (ref Silver) position??
I feel like a lot of the confusion comes from the modern idea of static blocks and meeting force with force at roughly right angles, in which case the edge of your blade is going to get bashed up more than a bit, as opposed to the countercutting and parry techniques that are actually used in the manuals. I could be wrong, though.
cool video but please correct me if I am wrong, the man on the left should not lean forward so much when cutting, basically his spine should lie perpendicular to the ground; leaning forward makes it easier for the opponent to counterattack; at least that's how I was taught;))
My instructor told me that a lot of military sabre manuals basically dont teach any kind of retreat at all - it must be for that reason of not losing range for your retaliating cut?
With a polish sabre you can take advantage of the parry by making an attack and then either before or once the attack has been parried, use the curve of the blade to trust around your opponents blade.
Lukos0036 No, almost the same. In the 19th century the basket-hilted broadsword of the Highland regiments was used in *exactly* the same way as sabres.
scholagladiatoria Was the Highland sword weighted the same as a sabre? Some of the descriptions I have heard said it had a lot more blade presence. But that could have been poorly informed hollywood nonsense.
It is a common feature of many one-handed European swordsmanship systems from the middle ages to WW1. There are two main reasons - firstly to keep it out of the way (so you don't hit it and the opponent can't hit it) and secondly to aid balance, bringing the body weight back and counterbalancing the sword arm and weapon.
scholagladiatoria I study rapier through the SCA and have always been taught that you can technically swipe away thrusts and such with your off hand if it comes down to it. Rather cut your hand than your face get stabbed kind of thing. Does this not apply with sabre? I'm guessing, with no experience in sabre that off hand parries are possible with rapier because they are thin and thrust based while sabre is more slashing based. Is that correct? I could imagine it would be very difficult to even try to parry a sabre or any slashing weapon with your arm/hand.
ChamorruWarrior Yes, these are important reasons. In fact they did often keep the off-hand forwards to defend from thrusts in British 18thC backsword and broadsword, but the disadvantage to my mind is that it makes the body a bigger target, as it brings the left shoulder forward (and therefore the whole torso is more square-on). Sabre stance (or foil in fact) forces you to make the body as narrow a target as possible - this also helps with longer lunge attacks.
Interesting, I really want to get into sabre, but for now all I have available to me is like Capo Ferro/Spanish rapier through the SCA, I can't complain though, it's free and awesome! Thanks for the videos, I love them!
keeping your hand at your hip or behind your body gives a smaller target to hit. Look at yourself in a full length mirror and your back shoulder forward. Notice how wide your body is. Now bring your arm/shoulder back you should notice the target presented get thinner. So there's less for your opponet to hit. That is the main reason I think.
Who has the advantage in this engagement where one duelist takes the initiative and attacks with a #1 cut and is parried? Instinctively I'd say the attacker. I imagine a skilled swordsman having a "play book" of attacks & defenses. In this case, the attacker may use a combo #1 cut (which he fully expects to be parried) followed by any number of counter attacks to the defender's arm, leg, head. Or perhaps he will grapple his opponent. The attacker knows the recipe - but the defender doesn't know what's coming next. It seems the defender is going to be a fraction of a second slower than the attacker since the defender has to mentally access his own "play book" of defenses vs. a #1 cut attack, which is but one of many attacks the defender is expecting. In which case if I were the defender I'd back off - after all who knows what the attacker has up his sleeve after I parry?
Bulhakas To keep it out of the way of your own blade and bring the rear shoulder back, making the body into a narrower target. If you need to use the left hand to grapple you can still do it very quickly from here. People who have the left hand forwards make themselves bigger targets.
scholagladiatoria Right, I see. Is that always done? Or is it always done with all swords? I think I have seen instances where people didn't have their hands behind their backs.
+Bulhakas What you'll usually see, if the hand is forward, is having the palm or the back of the hand pressed firmly against the sternum or chest, as in some medieval German messer sources. The weapon's a bit shorter, so the extra inches added to your silhouette from your hand shouldn't be as much of an issue. Even then though a lot of sources show the hand behind the back. Grappling, ideally, isn't incidental. It's something that you planned to do, and as such prepared for it by bringing your hand our from behind your back. Having it on your chest effectively leaves a hook on your torso for the other person to grab.
+Bulhakas The situation dictates what you do with the non-dominant hand (I'm just going to say left for speed, but non-dominant is accurate). In saber, since he is only going to use the saber with one hand, narrowing the body profile and keeping the left arm safe makes sense. In Olympic sport fencing, you see the left hand is usually behind the body for the same reason. This is also true of Italian rapier when there's nothing in the left hand, except it's brought up near the face almost like a boxer. This is so in a last-ditch attempt to save yourself, you can swat at or grab the opponent's blade. Better a slice along the arm that a stab in the lung! If you do have something in the left hand, you bring it forward in most rapier techniques, usually so you can use whatever's in your left hand to free up the rapier to attack. (For example, parrying and then controlling the opponent's sword with a dagger while you attack with the rapier.) Smallswords do pretty much the same thing. In German longsword, the left hand is usually near or on the pommel of the sword; it's too big to use well otherwise. I do not know enough about messers or shields to comment on them much except I've usually seen those with messers keep the left hand back like a sabreur (saber fencer), while with shields, the shield is kept forward, not thrown backwards during the attack like in a lot of films or video game animations. I don't know enough about Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern, Classical, Meso-American, Filipino, African, etc, styles to comment. All of these peoples developed their own things. However, body mechanics are universal; what works for humans works for humans. Culture after culture stumbles onto the same idea. I looked up the kilij (a weapon I've never even seen in the flesh!) and saw a few surviving images from treatises, and sure enough the stance looked remarkably like the guard Matt's using with his saber, though this may be due to the artist. Could Matt comment about whether other cultures he's familiar with also did it similarly?
A great cross cultural treatise is Sir Richard Francis Burton's (19th century British explorer, geographer, translator, writer, soldier, orientalist, cartographer, ethnologist, spy, linguist, poet, fencer, and diplomat) 'Book of the Sword'. I won't go into detail here but just look at a quick biography of his life and I think you'll get an idea. I wish he's shared more of his own techniques. Hell, I wish he had his own youtube channel!
When one ripostes in rapier, he or she does so with the line still closed to avoid a situation of two dead idiots. Why is it you disengage to counter-attack in sabre? Is being parried such a devastating loss of tempo that there's nothing your opponent can do?
the are a few other videos about this, I believe that skallagrim did one, but edge on edge is actually fine, and actually the only way to do some parries properly.
I noticed that you pronounced "forte" in the way that you do when you mean "someone's specialty", which is correct instead of the Italian/musical way, which most Americans do (and it is wrong!). But, when talking about a sword, shouldn't it be pronounced the musical way since the weak of the blade is called the "debole" and both terms are Italian? (Whereas "forte", "one's specialty" comes from the ME word "forte", for those who don't know.)
battletoads22 It varied by country, but in England the terms for the parts of the sword were borrowed from other countries before the 16th century - therefore the way we say them was set back then. We say foible ("foybull") and "fort". In the same way, the French term 'quarte' is often written 'cart' in historical English sources.
It looks like you are parrying with the edge. I always thought it was best to parry with the flat of the blade in order to avoid edge damage. My limited experience is based of the longsword, is saber different in that regard?
Edge parrying was normal throughout European history and is explicitly described in the fencing manuals from the 15th century through to the 19th century and later. See my various videos on the subject :) - Edge & Flat in parrying, Part 1 - Get some perspective! Edge & Flat in parrying, Part 2 - The hand guard Edge & Flat, Part 3 - Damage to sword edges Edge & Flat in parrying, Part 4 - The sources are available and clear
Very insightful. Thank you for your videos, and the labor and research that went into making them. Keep up the good work. Have you ever considered making a written blog in conjunction with your video blog?
I don't have experience in HEMA (I just really love these videos) but I have encountered flat parrying primarily in machete type fighting systems (like your kali/eskrimas). While this does preserve the edge a machete also offers a pretty generous flat surface area where as a saber really doesn't. I imagine the latter fact might hold true for a long sword as well.
historically the forte of the saber is left blunt for parrying, cause that part won't help much with cutting. cuts are made with the top third of the blade. I am not a know it all, I just read alot.
I respectfully disagree with the approach presented in the video. It's true that if you move backwards, you are diminishing your chances to hit your opponent, but you are dramatically increasing your time window for the defensive action, and you are much less prone to fall to a feint, or chained feints followed by a cut or a thrust from an angle you won't be able to cover. IMO the backstep with every defense (and the fore-step or lunge with every offensive action) is the basic, characteristic back-and-forth movement characteristic for any kind of swordplay. Sometimes the defender can stand or even go forward - when doing "in-tempo" counter like inquarta, but those are risky exceptions to the rule. "Standing ground" would have costly consequences in a real fight, I believe. Of course, a training session with a friend who does not really wanna hurt you (or even hit you) is another thing. Just my opinion, of course.
