Post originally by xechnao at 2004-06-17 04:10:33
Converted from Phorums BB System

"I don't want to put words in Oliver's mouth here but I think what he was reacting to was the assumption implicit in your original comment that parries are always or mainly a brute force thing - you know... two swords clashing together at right angles to each other, lots of grunting and sweating between two combatants struggling corps a corps... all that Hollywood stuff. "

No, you put words in my mouth, words I never said...
Never did I say "parries are ALWAYS or MAINLY a brute force thing - you know... two swords clashing together at right angles to each other, lots of grunting and sweating between two combatants struggling corps a corps... all that Hollywood stuff."
I just said that strength plays a role in blocking an attack and I was talking about generally, as a reply to Oliver's absolute and definitive phrase:
"Strength does NOT help you get through a parry"
which seemed as a universal rule, but a universal rule which is wrong
The Hollywood or anime stuff lie on your side friend, not mine...
So stop confusing things please, and about the manuals you are talking about give' em a
break also...
They are irrelevant to the discussion too



"I think what he was driving at was that this stuff was the mark of an untrained fighter (and talked about in deprecating tones by the authors of period fencing manuals) and that when trained swordsmen talk about parries they are actually referring to much less 'obvious' techniques that are more akin to what is seen in eastern martial arts like Aikido - altering the line, voiding, counterblows etc. "

I got was Oliver was talking about first place, thank you
I am not an idiot to not understand things or physics about the things around and there is not such a thing as esoterica for me, even if you make it sound like that (or avtually even if you believe it)...
All this is irrelevant to the discussion that has fed it to the wrong direction...
My first paragraph says everything what this discussion is about...



"As to my Rob Roy example, sure its a specific sort of encounter (a formal duel on good ground with plenty of space) but the techniques used by Roth's character, especially his use of distance and timing, seem much closer to the sort of thing I've seen as recommended style in my (admittedly limited) reading about historical fencing. A fencer is constantly advised by the manuals to seek and hold his correct range - specific circumstances might prevent this occurring of course (getting bushwhacked in a dark alleyway springs to mind) and require specific, exceptional, techniques (which are also discussed in these manuals) but the general principles that are constantly being repeated are all about distance, timing and rythm. That is, issues of skill and technique rather than innate strength or speed. "

As I said above, this discussion is not about manuals of historical fencing neither does it need to focus on them. In combat there are many situations that your example of those manuals falls short off including them...
-fighters in solid armour that can not so easilly be broken by a broadsword strke on the hands or arms, in the example we were talking about before
-the equipment of shield that a fighter could be carrying and protecting himself in a way you couldn't even touch his attacking arm with a strike intended as above
-a really heavy guy swinging a heavy chain with a spiky ball on its end and striking from a distance
-tight and crowded fighting masses on the battlefield
-and many more
Now, this discussion is not meant to analyze any of the above stuff...this discussion was more on the grounds to correct Oliver from the very begining on his absolute intention to mean that strength does not help you get throw a parry or block in comabt...
Sure when people fence or duel only with rappiers it is not, but in combat apply a lot of diverse situations which are not always the rappier case (or some other cases the manuals are speaking about...)

Hope this discussion could come to an end