# Six reasons to parry with the edge of the sword



## Brian G Turner (Mar 16, 2017)

Lindybeige takes to task the idea that swordsmen would not parry with the edge of their weapons:






Though to be fair, I can imagine an argument that a very highly skilled swordsman might aim to parry otherwise...


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 17, 2017)

Lots of very good stuff on Lindy Beige. I especially like this sort of thing, which is interesting from both a historical and a writing perspective.

Which reminds me, I think I heard 'fire' being used for bows recently (may have been Dan Snow's 1066 mini-series).


----------



## EJ Heijnis (Mar 24, 2017)

This is very informative! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Joshua Jones (Jun 16, 2018)

I hate to be the contankerous one, but this is a bit of an oversimplification. It doesn't take into account weapon, era, skill, or fighting style, all of which are massively relevant to the equation. A Roman legionary would never have parried with the edge, because if they were defending themselves with their gladius, something horrible had happened anyway, and they were probably already dead. This is because their fighting style was to crash shield first into the enemy line and stab around the shield with their gladius, using the rest of the unit to protect their exposed sides. Alternatively, the claymore was designed specifically to be able to parry with the bottom section, using the edge side. That is why it isn't sharpened to the hilt. Samurai trained in battojutsu would always parry with the side of the katana, and were drilled from age 7 in techniques for this. They also never parried to stop the opponents sword, but to redirect the cutting line away from themselves (which also included moving themelselves out of the way), and positioning themselves and their swords to give themselves the advantage. When using a rapier, they don't really care, as the edges aren't really sharpened beyond necessity for aerodynamics. Instead, there is usually a hook on the hard guard for capturing the opponent's blade. 

Then, there is the fact that hand guards on western swords also functioned as a punching assist, and that a skilled user or trainer was less concerned about knicks as cracking the blade. A sword is not designed to bear the force of stopping a full swing cold, and putting all that force on a sharp edge has a good chance of breaking the blade entirely, or at least weakening it to the point that a few more hits, either by the wielder or the opponent, could break off the blade. Spreading out the impact by blocking with a wider surface and letting the bend of the sword absorb some of the punishment helped ensure one had a weapon for the duration of the battle. 

So, speaking in very broad terms, medieval swords were typically designed to parry with roughly the bottom third, so it didn't matter so much which side was used, and earlier European swords weren't made for defense. Fencing style swords were designed to redirect and trap other fencing swords, and the dodged slashing swords up until the saber, which combined both offensive and defensive ideas (stab and slash techniques, sword capture and bottom unsharpened). Japanese swordsmanship emphasized training so turning the edge was instinctual, and used redirection and repositioning even more extensively than Europeans. Chinese swordsmanship is so diverse that it cannot possibly be summarized, and then there are techniques from other cultures which I honestly haven't studied adequately to speak to their techniques.


----------



## Onyx (Jun 16, 2018)

Structurally, few swords could withstand parrying with the side of the blade. But there is a lot of territory between the choices of edge or side.


----------



## Joshua Jones (Jun 16, 2018)

Onyx said:


> Structurally, few swords could withstand parrying with the side of the blade. But there is a lot of territory between the choices of edge or side.


Few swords could withstand a 90 degree block on any side, which is why one is trained specifically not to do that. Only shields and the heaviest of armor could realistically stand up to something like that, and even then, it isn't advisable. It is always better to block at an angle than straight on, because this deflects the energy rather than tries to stop it entirely. A good example is this image:






And, if the observer notices, he is blocking with the side of the katana. It looks like his next move is to slide his left leg back, regrip the katana with two hands, and perform a vertical cut to the opponent's neck. Regardless, his intention is to cause the downward cut from the opponent to slide off and away from himself.

Now, the point I was trying to make above is that there isn't a single "Swordsmen everywhere will do..." because what they do will depend on how well they were trained (or not trained), in what style they were trained, what weapon(s) they are using, and what era they are fighting in. Again, in the broadest of terms, if the sword is sharpened to the crossguard, the blade edge is not intended for defense, and defense is either with the side edge or another weapon (shield, parrying blade, etc.). If part of the blade is dulled or still rectangular (like a claymore), that portion may be used for defense. But, again, that is in broad terms, so there are exceptions, I am sure, and it doesn't take into account novices.

(I should also note that I am using block, parry, and defense more or less interchangeably, but this is for ease of communication rather than technical accuracy. A parry is technically a redirection, while a block is a stopping of the attack, and defense is the blanket term for both. True blocks are rather rare in armed combat, because of the risk involved. Parries are far more common.)


----------

