[001]
129.78.64.102
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
1) ARMA and other historical swordsmanship groups are recreating [i]European[/i] swordsmanship. The Japanese swordsmanship (kenjutsu) and the Chinese swordsmanship are still very much alive today and one can find masters with lineages to the past very easily.
to:
1) ARMA and other historical swordsmanship groups are recreating [i]European[/i] swordsmanship. The Japanese swordsmanship (kenjutsu) and the Chinese swordsmanship are still very much alive today and one can find masters with lineages to the past relatively easily.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
2) Some of such groups actually perform \
to:
2) Some of such groups actually perform \\\"bouts\\\" with steel, though blunt, swords (with modern safety gear) in order to test if their interpretation of the historical manuals are \\\"correct\\\"- or rather to see if there are obvious fatal flaws with their interpretation, therefore the statement \\\"until someone actually gets into a swordfight\\\" is obsolete.
3) Updated the edge to edge vs flat to edge debate: currently from the manuals it seems that some of the medieval masters don\\\'t recommend \\\"parrying\\\" at all- rather, they suggested that sword fights should strike their opponent because their attack lands (makes sense since you want to hurt your opponent in a fight), or dodge the coming blow and strike the opponent before they escape (which, again, makes sense), or deflect the blow to another direction before striking the opponent. The amended version is more or less word to word copy from an article in the Historical European Martial Arts magazine SPADA on this.
3) The pro-\\\"edge to edge\\\" parry camp did not use movies as \\\"historical evidence\\\" to proof that medieval people did edge to edge parry.
4) It\\\'s actually currently more pro-\\\"what the historical manual says\\\" vs \\\"must use edge to edge parry regardless\\\" debate.
4) You cannot, simply CANNOT, say that \\\"such as such did not do this in history because they don\\\'t work\\\" when there\\\'s ample evidence to show that they [i]did[/i], ie you cannot argue against historical sources and evidence. Saying that \\\"medieval people do not parry edge to edge because it breaks their swords\\\" when you have 1) medieval manuscripts showing that they do and 2) swords from medieval times showing signs of edge to edge parry is like saying that the medieval doctors do not make their patients whip their backs to drive out the evil spirits or the soldiers in World War I did not charge into machine gun fire because such actions are stupid and do not work, despite all the evidence showing that such events did happen. It is such bad history that this troper is reluctant to call this \\\"history\\\" at all- it is more \\\"being completely blind to the evidence\\\".
3) Updated the edge to edge vs flat to edge debate: currently from the manuals it seems that some of the medieval masters don\\\'t recommend \\\"parrying\\\" at all- rather, they suggested that sword fights should strike their opponent because their attack lands (makes sense since you want to hurt your opponent in a fight), or dodge the coming blow and strike the opponent before they escape (which, again, makes sense), or deflect the blow to another direction before striking the opponent. The amended version is more or less word to word copy from an article in the Historical European Martial Arts magazine SPADA on this.
3) The pro-\\\"edge to edge\\\" parry camp did not use movies as \\\"historical evidence\\\" to proof that medieval people did edge to edge parry.
4) It\\\'s actually currently more pro-\\\"what the historical manual says\\\" vs \\\"must use edge to edge parry regardless\\\" debate.
4) You cannot, simply CANNOT, say that \\\"such as such did not do this in history because they don\\\'t work\\\" when there\\\'s ample evidence to show that they [i]did[/i], ie you cannot argue against historical sources and evidence. Saying that \\\"medieval people do not parry edge to edge because it breaks their swords\\\" when you have 1) medieval manuscripts showing that they do and 2) swords from medieval times showing signs of edge to edge parry is like saying that the medieval doctors do not make their patients whip their backs to drive out the evil spirits or the soldiers in World War I did not charge into machine gun fire because such actions are stupid and do not work, despite all the evidence showing that such events did happen. It is such bad history that this troper is reluctant to call this \\\"history\\\" at all- it is more \\\"being completely blind to the evidence\\\".
