Probably affords significantly better resistance than an edged parry but potentially jams the wrist if you're not ready and the attack is at an unexpected angle.
Talking seriously, the edge resists incoming attacks better than the flat, at least in a vacuum. Foible or forte is more important in terms of pure leverage, but using the edge rather than the flat can be seen as a (usually) positive modifier. Additionally, cross-guarded swords defend in the plane of the edge; looking at the convenient snapshot image above, we can see that Parry Guy's forward hand is pretty exposed and would have been cut if the parry was only slightly miscalculated.
Flat parries are more favourable in systems that assume a sword with a circular guard (or equivalent); while one still loses out on some leverage in the parry, at least the hand isn't so exposed. Additionally, flat parries are generally better as "soft" parries rather than firm displacements, where one crosses swords only to impose an obstacle and gives way while moving.
There's one huge exception, though. It's not so much the strength of the sword's edge that helps with leverage against an opponent's weapon, but the force you apply with support of your forearm and knuckle alignment. This means that if you rotate the sword in your hand without changing your forward hand, your flat will suddenly resist more effectively. A fun trick against opponents that seek to employ beats by striking your flat.
Additionally, flat parries are generally better as "soft" parries rather than firm displacements, where one crosses swords only to impose an obstacle and gives way while moving.
That was my first thought. It seems like you'd want to use the flat when you absolutely don't want the blade to bind. Like, if you had a slippery trickster-sort, she might parry with the flat and let the attack slip down past her side behind her as she closes past the blade and attacks with the pommel.
Granted I tend to think about this sort of thing more in terms of character design than how truly useful it might be in a real fight, but those don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Additionally, flat parries are generally better as "soft" parries rather than firm displacements, where one crosses swords only to impose an obstacle and gives way while moving.
That was my first thought. It seems like you'd want to use the flat when you absolutely don't want the blade to bind. Like, if you had a slippery trickster-sort, she might parry with the flat and let the attack slip down past her side behind her as she closes past the blade and attacks with the pommel.
Yes, plus a number of variations. Cuts and thrusts can also emerge from that parry, or even from the pommel strike you describe. Fiore dei Liberi's longsword in particular has a lot of praise for the sequence of strike-pommel-cut.
I also agree that character design/expression and martial pragmatism can go hand in hand. Berserk, for instance, is fuzzy around the edges here, but its author knows more than he lets on about fencing if you take into account things like focal illustrations. But then again, lots of Japanese media has hushed fencing wisdom contained within; the less a swordplay-inclusive work bangs on about its swordplay, it seems, the more likely that swordplay is to be actually clever and good.
Comments