Manual del Baratero - A Review

Frank · 14th October 2005, 05:56 AM

Chris

Thanks for that link to that article on fencing. Realy intersting. Now I understand the diference between Japanese/Asian and European sword fighting.

I know that small knives cant block another knife but what about the biger ones? Surely witha 20 inch blade something can be done?

Have a good one
Frank

Chris Evans · 18th October 2005, 06:02 AM

Hi Frank,

1. I presume that what you mean is that European swordplay evolved into double time play whereas the Orientals, never quite having discovered the science of the point, stayed with what we may call single time sword play in which defense was primarily by voiding (evasion). This a was also the case in the West, where the heavier military cutting swords, when fenced with, continued to be used in single time. Whilst a few double time moves can be made with a heavy-ish sword, only the very light small-sword and its descendants can be fenced consistently in double time.

2. Re Parrying With Knives: The 18th and early 19th century Gauchos, in keeping with Spanish tradition, used very long knives/daggers. After that time, their knives became shorter for a variety of reasons, but we need not go into this here. These long knives were made from cut down swords and bayonets - A good many had blades somewhere in between 16" and 20". Now, if we remember that a small-sword has a blade around 30", it is not hard to see that with say a 20" blade, some kind of blade to blade interaction is possible, indeed probable, but as we shall see, not necessarily beneficial. For parrying to be of use, the defender has to gain an advantage of leverage against the attacker so as to reliably displace his blade's point and thus open the way for a safe counterattack. This is achieved by the defending sword's first half (forte) engaging the attacking sword's second half (foible) - If this advantage of leverage is not attained, then the parry is largely a dengerously wasted move. Now, once the blade length decreases to less than that of a sword parries become increasingly unreliable and below some critical, but undefined length, completely unattainable. In addition, parry/riposte fencing also requires effective handguards, which apart from specialized left hand fencing daggers, knifes did and do not have.

Something else to keep in mind is that to use a knife for parrying, a knife side hand and leg forward stance is required, akin to that of a modern swordsman. However, this stance has the following disadvantages:

a) Prevents effective parrying with the left arm implement (cape etc);
b) makes it difficult to attack without resorting to the lunge, a move that is completely impractical with a knife;
c) the fighter that leads with the knife is vulnerable to be either cut on the arm, or worse still, rushed should his arm be displaced sideways.

For the above reasons, the Spanish style knife fighters lead with the left leg and arm defending (usually with a cape), whilst the knife arm and leg are held back, attacks being delivered on a "pass" or a step forward, as the knife arm is at the same time extended.

To sum up, any attempt to defend (parry) with a very long knife is fraught with disadvantages and with a shorter weapon completely impractical. And in my opinion, this is why knife systems derived from modern fencing, that is in double time, are ineffective and perilous in the extreme.

Cheers
Chris

Renegade Conquistador · 22nd October 2005, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Frank,

1. I presume that what you mean is that European swordplay evolved into double time play whereas the Orientals, never quite having discovered the science of the point, stayed with what we may call single time sword play in which defense was primarily by voiding (evasion). This a was also the case in the West, where the heavier military cutting swords, when fenced with, continued to be used in single time. Whilst a few double time moves can be made with a heavy-ish sword, only the very light small-sword and its descendants can be fenced consistently in double time.

Mr Evans,

I must respectfully disagree with what you state above.

George Silver, in describing the use of the "short sword" of his day (a basket-hilted broadsword or backsword, that actually had a rather long blade of 37"-40"), said that one of the main defensive options was to "ward, & after to strike". This is what modern fencers call a parry-riposte, and thus we are talking about a double-time action.

The parry-riposte remained a staple for cut-and-thrust swordplay with the broadsword, backsword, saber, & cutlass.

Best,

R C

14th October 2005, 05:56 AM	#1
Frank Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 23	Chris Thanks for that link to that article on fencing. Realy intersting. Now I understand the diference between Japanese/Asian and European sword fighting. I know that small knives cant block another knife but what about the biger ones? Surely witha 20 inch blade something can be done? Have a good one Frank Last edited by Frank; 14th October 2005 at 11:33 AM.

18th October 2005, 06:02 AM	#2
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi Frank, 1. I presume that what you mean is that European swordplay evolved into double time play whereas the Orientals, never quite having discovered the science of the point, stayed with what we may call single time sword play in which defense was primarily by voiding (evasion). This a was also the case in the West, where the heavier military cutting swords, when fenced with, continued to be used in single time. Whilst a few double time moves can be made with a heavy-ish sword, only the very light small-sword and its descendants can be fenced consistently in double time. 2. Re Parrying With Knives: The 18th and early 19th century Gauchos, in keeping with Spanish tradition, used very long knives/daggers. After that time, their knives became shorter for a variety of reasons, but we need not go into this here. These long knives were made from cut down swords and bayonets - A good many had blades somewhere in between 16" and 20". Now, if we remember that a small-sword has a blade around 30", it is not hard to see that with say a 20" blade, some kind of blade to blade interaction is possible, indeed probable, but as we shall see, not necessarily beneficial. For parrying to be of use, the defender has to gain an advantage of leverage against the attacker so as to reliably displace his blade's point and thus open the way for a safe counterattack. This is achieved by the defending sword's first half (forte) engaging the attacking sword's second half (foible) - If this advantage of leverage is not attained, then the parry is largely a dengerously wasted move. Now, once the blade length decreases to less than that of a sword parries become increasingly unreliable and below some critical, but undefined length, completely unattainable. In addition, parry/riposte fencing also requires effective handguards, which apart from specialized left hand fencing daggers, knifes did and do not have. Something else to keep in mind is that to use a knife for parrying, a knife side hand and leg forward stance is required, akin to that of a modern swordsman. However, this stance has the following disadvantages: a) Prevents effective parrying with the left arm implement (cape etc); b) makes it difficult to attack without resorting to the lunge, a move that is completely impractical with a knife; c) the fighter that leads with the knife is vulnerable to be either cut on the arm, or worse still, rushed should his arm be displaced sideways. For the above reasons, the Spanish style knife fighters lead with the left leg and arm defending (usually with a cape), whilst the knife arm and leg are held back, attacks being delivered on a "pass" or a step forward, as the knife arm is at the same time extended. To sum up, any attempt to defend (parry) with a very long knife is fraught with disadvantages and with a shorter weapon completely impractical. And in my opinion, this is why knife systems derived from modern fencing, that is in double time, are ineffective and perilous in the extreme. Cheers Chris