A little more in-depth explanation of the cone question may be in order here. I've thought about it some, but am not entirely sure I understand just what you're referring to.
In Western fencing there are similar attacks where the deflection is part of the same movement, but these are not parries - they are simply attacks which cross the opponent's line of attack. It's a technical term, so it's quite explicit as to what is and isn't a parry (failing to parry before you riposte in sports fencing means that your point isn't counted). The cone of defense, as I was taught it, is to do with the angle of the sword at any point. If you look at the four classic guards in fencing you'll notice that the blade describes a line pointed slightly inwards towards the opponent - join these with a circle at the hilt, and end it with a point where the blade would theoretically end up if you thrust forwards (and the opponent wasn't in the way) and you get a cone shape aimed at the opponent, with the base covering most of the upper body of the fencer, down to roughly groin level.
Hmmmm........I don't think I have ever thought about it quite like a "cone". Its an interesting take on things. Thinking back over the defensive deflection or redirecting moves we use I sense we have a kind of "defensive zone". This area would be roughly as you describe it though covering an area both upwards and downwards. I think the outline of the area would be more along the lines of a wedge of melon, stood on its end with the rind towards the defender. The thing is, though, this would only apply to defensive moves as the offensive moves would not all fall inside the outline of the same wedge. After all, the wedge I describe would not take into account moves----both defensive and offensive---- to the rear, yes? FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
That's what I thought you meant, but I wanted to make sure. It seems to me that this is true more by virtue of physics than any thought of methodology. No matter what guard position (Japanese refer to it as kamae) you begin in, the sword would have to fall within a rough cone shape in order to cut the opponent. The sword arts that I am familiar with are all about offense though. Any defense is considered a part of the next attack rather than an independent entity.
The idea of 360 degree awareness provides for cuts and thrusts to be executed in a variety of angles and vectors without actually formally addressing the assailant. If you ever visit the National Museum in Seoul there is an interesting display of items used to subdue armed individuals including snares, lassos, nets, cudgeols, and even these odd polearms with spikey sorts of attachments on the ends. Seems to me the Japanese police of the TOKUGAWA Period had a similar toolbox. At any rate when a person is attacked there is no guarentee that the attack will be up-front and straight-forward and thats the sort of attack I am talking about. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
This is just completely unrealistic at best. You can possibilty take on more than one opponent if they are lightly armed (i.e. knifes and clubs) and inexperienced. If you face more than one trained fighters then unless you get real lucky you are going to die. Fairy stories and wishful thinking isn't going to change that. You cannot train for it. The variables are simply too great. The Bear.
Funny thing was, Bear, I had the practice that YOU follow more in mind when I wrote that. IIRC there was a clip of some sort of Meet or "challenge" in which teams of WMA contested other teams. In those clips all the very neat and well-choreographed stuff went out the window and what was left was a kind of running series of exchanges. Personally, I think the idea of well-choreographed tit-fer-tat between two people is the true "fantasy". I remember Amberger reporting in his book that despite what is represented in the media, most "duels" in European style usually wound-up as tussles on the ground. Maybe its not very seemly, but its probably much closer to the truth. BTW: Thinking on Japanese traditions..... if the level of swordsmanship was "all that"...there ought be no need for the instruction for UCHI KUMI (lit: wrestling in armour"), right? Maybe the very idea that use of the sword is somehow a defining combat art, rather than just one of an array of options is another "universality" we need to consider. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
You are confusing HEMA with battle re-enactment. These mass battles aren't done in HEMA because as I said earlier most sword manuals are written for off the battlefield. Like this. It isn't HEMA at all. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl514Vk7HlA"]Battle of the Nations 2012 - Russia vs USA 21x21 (30 April) - YouTube[/ame] Again wrong, as we keep telling you unarmoured swordsmanship and battlefield fighting aren't the same thing. There is no way to control the space on a battlefield so you learn additional skills. The Bear.
Being good with a sword (knife, gun etc) in no way makes someone immune to grappling, falling over, being grabbed by a person they've injured, weapon breakage, being disarmed, being injured themselves, being ambushed, meeting a better swordsman, etc etc etc. Wrestling of all sorts has been a back up skill of weapon combat since time immemorial. For me the defining factors involved in being a warrior of any generation, culture or civilisation are versatility, combative problem solving, adaptation and being well prepared. Using whatever is needed to prevail and preparing realistically to do so. All that has changed over the years is the "layers" of armament a person must go through in order to enter grappling range.
I don't know about anyone else, but in my own training boxing, kicking and grappling are all seen as part of the practice - the sword is just another tool (though a good, sharp one that lets you try to keep your opponent at a greater range, and provides a whole new repertoire of tricks). As far as I was aware this is pretty common in all HEMA practices.
Bruce, Stop. Most warriors in Japan were using polearms on the battlefield. A sword is a sidearm in Japanese armoured tradition. Historically, jindachi (Battlefield sword slung from the waist) was rarely used and when it was used (when a polearm was lost or broken), it was depending on the ryuha, used to get in close and use the yoroi kumiuchi techniques to facilitate a quick kill with a yoroi doshi (armour piercing dagger). Lance, arrow and later, musket ball were the order of the day. I would be interested to know what Japanese ryuha you have had exposure to Bruce. Especially since a lot of them were developed after the warring states period, when armoured conflict was a rarity. (And yes, I have come out of hibernation early!)
Bruce, What do you mean when you say formally addressing an opponent? Bowing to them or turning your body towards the target? I think that we have a different view on awareness. You should have awareness so that when a threat is present you will be aware of it as soon as possible so that you will be able to adress the threat properly. Not in a "tingeling spiderman sense" sensing someone around me so I will do a 360 degree jump with my sword and killing them all without having to adress them properly. That is crappy awareness. That is awareness to late in the situation. A part of the combat skill is to avoid ending in a spot where you have to many opponents around you. And who has said that the Japanese traditions is "all that" and they need no time for petty grappling? And many Japanese traditions do have instructions in grappling. In heavy or light armor, with or without weapons.