MASTER OF DEFENCE by Wagner

[Allen Johnson]

Good points Benjamin and Martin.

The aspect of Silver's xenophobia is certainly a valid one. (Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this was unique to him) I feel that Silver's opinion on the inferiority of the rapier was not only influenced by his political (and possibly xenophobic) feelings but upon personal experience. Indeed, a wise person would make such scathing comments about a product only after they had spent time with it. According to his words, he did recieve adequate training at the rapier- at least enough to understand its pros and cons.

According to Silver's deffinition of the "true fight", the rapier clearly does not fit the bill. I dont think that he feels it is not a valid weapon- just less of one for what he feels is optimal. I feel the strongest point of his argument is that rapier is no good in battle. So why bother wasting valuble time studying a weapon you can not use in war? A backsword can do both.

I love the rapier. I love the backsword. I feel I have a decent understanding of the basic principals and techniques of both weapons. Neither one should be snubbed in our studies and certinaly we can only profit from further examination of both tools.

I'm not the best writer in the world (or even in the top 10 on these boards) but I could probabaly prepare a review of Hand's Silver book. This discussion has certainly increased my desire to get a hold on Wagners book too, in order to compare them.

[Jay Vail]

Good points Benjamin and Martin.

The aspect of Silver's xenophobia is certainly a valid one. (Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this was unique to him) I feel that Silver's opinion on the inferiority of the rapier was not only influenced by his political (and possibly xenophobic) feelings but upon personal experience. Indeed, a wise person would make such scathing comments about a product only after they had spent time with it. According to his words, he did recieve adequate training at the rapier- at least enough to understand its pros and cons.

According to Silver's deffinition of the "true fight", the rapier clearly does not fit the bill. I dont think that he feels it is not a valid weapon- just less of one for what he feels is optimal. I feel the strongest point of his argument is that rapier is no good in battle. So why bother wasting valuble time studying a weapon you can not use in war? A backsword can do both.

I love the rapier. I love the backsword. I feel I have a decent understanding of the basic principals and techniques of both weapons. Neither one should be snubbed in our studies and certinaly we can only profit from further examination of both tools.

I'm not the best writer in the world (or even in the top 10 on these boards) but I could probabaly prepare a review of Hand's Silver book. This discussion has certainly increased my desire to get a hold on Wagners book too, in order to compare them.

Xenophobia? Shame on you for using this word. He criticizes the Italian methods of combat for their ineffectiveness. That is not xenophobia. That's a word that only someone steeped in PC uses.

[Kyle Horn]

Xenophobia? Shame on you for using this word. He criticizes the Italian methods of combat for their ineffectiveness. That is not xenophobia. That's a word that only someone steeped in PC uses.

Not to nit-pick, but according to the American Heritage Dictionary, a Xenophobe is "A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples." And, in Paradoxes, Silver says:

I verily think it my bound duty, with all love and humility to admonish them to take heed, how they submit themselves into the hand of Italian teachers of defence, or strangers whatsoever, and to beware how they forsake or suspect their own natural fight

So Silver admonishes his fellow countrymen for learning swordplay from foreigners? Isn't that the definition of Xenophobia?

This isn't to say that he had good reasons for disliking rapiers, too. As he put it:

In fight there are many motions, with the hand, body, and feet, and in every motion the place of the hand is altered, & ... the hand will sometimes be in place to strike, some times to thrust...

if two fight with long rapiers, upon every cross made with the half rapier, if they have poniards, they most commonly stab each other, which cannot be avoided, because the rapiers being long, the cross cannot be undone of either side

Now if two do fight with ... rapiers of convenient length, such rapiers are inconvenient also for lack of hilt to defend the hand and head from the blow

Also, Allen, you should definitely write a review of Hand and Wagner's books. ARMA can only be enriched by more book reviews.

[Jay Vail]

Xenophobia? Shame on you for using this word. He criticizes the Italian methods of combat for their ineffectiveness. That is not xenophobia. That's a word that only someone steeped in PC uses.

Not to nit-pick, but according to the American Heritage Dictionary, a Xenophobe is "A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples." And, in Paradoxes, Silver says:

I verily think it my bound duty, with all love and humility to admonish them to take heed, how they submit themselves into the hand of Italian teachers of defence, or strangers whatsoever, and to beware how they forsake or suspect their own natural fight

So Silver admonishes his fellow countrymen for learning swordplay from foreigners? Isn't that the definition of Xenophobia?

This isn't to say that he had good reasons for disliking rapiers, too. As he put it:

In fight there are many motions, with the hand, body, and feet, and in every motion the place of the hand is altered, & ... the hand will sometimes be in place to strike, some times to thrust...

if two fight with long rapiers, upon every cross made with the half rapier, if they have poniards, they most commonly stab each other, which cannot be avoided, because the rapiers being long, the cross cannot be undone of either side

Now if two do fight with ... rapiers of convenient length, such rapiers are inconvenient also for lack of hilt to defend the hand and head from the blow

Also, Allen, you should definitely write a review of Hand and Wagner's books. ARMA can only be enriched by more book reviews.

You make my case.

The modern tendency to equate any criticism on the merits with race baiting is offensive and intended to stifle free speech.

[Kyle Horn]

You make my case.

The modern tendency to equate any criticism on the merits with race baiting is offensive and intended to stifle free speech.

No, I don't make your case, since I'm explicitly arguing that Silver was xenophobic. And, unless I'm mistaken, you're arguing that Silver can't be xenophobic. I fail to see how arguing against your case would support it, though feel free to clarify.

You're making a lot of broad generalizations, and not backing them up with any manner of evidence. I fail to see why xenophobia is "a word that only someone steeped in PC uses." In fact, if you'd like, I can do a poll of English professors to see what their opinion of the use of the word "xenophobia" in conversation is. Or are they steeped in PC uses too? Likewise, your statement that "The modern tendency to equate any criticism on the merits with race baiting is offensive and intended to stifle free speech." would seem to insinuate that me and Allen are not only deliberately misinterpreting Silver, but doing so to stifle free speech. Not only is this false, as we can back up our claims that Silver was a xenophobe by citing Silver directly, but decrying us as offensive and anti free speech is a baseless ad hominem attack that has no place on the ARMA boards. I'm fine with any manner of argument you might choose to make, just, please, please, back it up with something. I'd also like to see the data or references you have supporting the statement that 'equating criticism with race-baiting' is a modern tendency.

If you weren't satisfied with anything me or Allen cited on Silver's xenophobia, then I present to you a line from Paradoxes that itself would appear to be race-baiting:

that [Englishmen] may by casting off these Italianated, weak, fantastical, and most devilish and imperfect fights, and by exercising their own ancient weapons, be restored, or achieve unto the natural, and most manly and victorious fight again

Silver equates "Italianated" swordplay with weakness, calls it devilish and imperfect, and insinuates it's neither manly nor natural, nor will it lead to victory. The phrase "Italianated" itself clearly demonstrates that Silver is thinking in prejudiced terms. Continuing further...

while we like degenerate sons, have forsaken our forefathers virtues with their weapons, and have lusted like men sick of a strange ague, after the strange vices and devices of Italian, French, and Spanish fencers

Silver chastises his fellow countrymen for abandoning the old ways, and then states that Italian, French, and Spanish fencing are filled with vices. What would you call such a statement?

If Silver were merely dissatisfied with the rapier, then there would be no need for him to make a blanket statement about the inferiority of entire nations when it comes to swordplay. Keep in mind that the rapier was not the only weapon in the arsenal of either of the three aforementioned nations, and Silver knew this. At one point he mentions that the Italian fencing master, Signior Rocco used a two-handed sword unsuccessfully against Austin Bagger, an Englishman who had challenged him with a sword and buckler. At no point does silver state the inferiority of the two-handed sword. Quite to the contrary, he mentions that "The two handed sword has the vantage against the sword and target, the sword and buckler, the sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard." Silver isn't just dissatisfied with the rapier, he's dissatisfied that his countrymen are abandoning English fencing practices for what he perceives as vice-filled foreign sword styles. Silver is a nationalist and a xenophobe. He also dislikes the rapier. However, these two statements are not mutually exclusive. He certainly isn't the first, or last, martial artist to exhibit national pride in his nation's native forms of combat, and peer suspiciously at the martial practices of his neighbors. As always, feel free to dissent.

[Stacy Clifford]

I must also disagree with the use of the term "xenophobia". A phobia is by definition an irrational, overwhelming and uncontrollable fear which does not respond to reason, and is a genuine psychiatric condition. That is not the same thing as prejudice, nationalism or jingoism, all of which are strong enough terms that you could fairly accuse Silver of. Too many people today hijack the term "phobia" and rob it of its true meaning to vilify those whose opinions differ from their own in order to make it easier to dismiss their opposition without doing the work of addressing it. Let's use words in their proper context and not fall into that trap. Silver's opinions were certainly strong, but I wouldn't doubt that he taught a foreign student or had a beer with a foreign master now and then without going into fits of hysteria. That said, let's get this thread back on topic please.

[Kyle Horn]

Actually, I don't believe xenophobia is an official psychiatric term, as it is not listed in the DSM-IV. Also, it doesn't just necessarily imply fear, but can also imply contempt, of which Silver had a great deal of. I don't think anyone was arguing that Silver had a social anxiety that centered around foreigners. Anyway, yes, back to the actual topic... Is there anyone else out there who has experience trying to implement Silver who also owns Wagner's Master of Defence or Hand's English Swordmanship?

On a related note, I've heard some mixed things about Hand's book on the I.33 manuscript, specifically about footwork. Are there any good treatments of I.33 out there?

[Nigel Plum]

Is there anyone else out there who has experience trying to implement Silver who also owns Wagner's Master of Defence or Hand's English Swordmanship?

Yes, I'd recomend it.

On a related note, I've heard some mixed things about Hand's book on the I.33 manuscript, specifically about footwork. Are there any good treatments of I.33 out there?

Try Dave Rawlings dvd

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=76033

[Allen Johnson]

on xenophobia: I can see both sides of the argument. I suppose that without sitting down and interviewing Silver on the topic of his feelings reguarding foreign peoples we can not really brand him as xenophobic. His reasons for dislike seem to be mainly focused on their martial art effectivness and not the people as a race. However, it is certainly possible he harbors contpemt for them as a people as well as their weapons of choice. There is just no way for us to tell. So I'll concede to refrain from using the term xenophobic, in favor for stating he was very bold in his dislike for rapiers and foreign methods- which completley agrees with his own words. Plus, this topic isnt nearly as exciting to discuss as the martial art he teaches.

I went ahead and ordered Wagner's book last week- so it should arrive in a few days. I'll take time to read it carefully and present my feelings on it, here. I will also strive to prepare something on Hand's book. Though I should probably re-read it in order to make sure I remember everything properly.

[Kyle Horn]

So I'll concede to refrain from using the term xenophobic, in favor for stating he was very bold in his dislike for rapiers and foreign methods- which completley agrees with his own words. Plus, this topic isnt nearly as exciting to discuss as the martial art he teaches.

Well... I can't disagree with you on either point!

Also, Nigel, thanks!

[Randall Pleasant]

Here is a published presentation by a Mr. Paul Wagner I found on Paladin Press. It contains George Silver's works, and apparently some commentary about them. I'd like to know if anyone has read it yet? If so, or if not, we should get a review going for the website.

I probably would not have order this book. However, I actually ran across it in a book store a couple of days ago so I did purchased it. Hopefully in the coming couple of weeks I will have time for it.

[Jon Pellett]

I haven't got Paul's book. I'm not sure I can justify buying it (when there are so many other books on my list). What I'd really like to know is how different Paul's transcription of Brief Instructions is from Matthey's transcription.

I do have Stephen Hand's book. It's quite good. Clearly explained, with tons of photographs. I disagree with some of the interpretation, though, and I'd be interested in other people's views on the subject. Keep in mind that I am a really crappy fencer though, and I haven't tried this stuff with proper steel blunts, so my criticism has a certain armchair nature to it.

I don't agree with gathering (stepping) forward and left when parrying from guardant fight (p. 111 of "English Swordsmanship"); I make the circular step instead. I understand most people interpret this the same way as Steve does, but I find it creates a bunch of problems. For one, you can't change your mind about parrying and slip instead. Second, it brings you so close that your leg is within reach. That means you have to parry bastard guardant, and Silver specifically says that bastard guardant ward is not to be used except to cross the other guy's ward when he comes in to grip or close (Brief Instructions 3.2) - it is not supposed to be a parry. If you don't step in you can just countercut or thrust high. Third, I find it brings me in too close, making it easy for the other guy to grapple (not that I mind grappling, but Silver is pretty clear that you only come to grips on your own terms). I especially notice this when sparring with a significantly taller friend, who can easily punch me with a buckler if I don't keep proper distance.

In the grappling section (chapter 5) the person who parries the blow is consistently shown initiating the grappling. Silver describes the various grips explicitly as counters used when the enemy presses in to the close, so it is the striker who should be initiating.

IMO the grip from forehand ward cross (p. 197 of "English Swordsmanship", and 4.23 and 6.6 from Brief Instructions) is wrong. What is shown is IMHO not reliable and does not fit the text. I interpret this as simply turning your pommel over the enemy's wrist, as done in many many other sources, from Talhoffer (e.g. 1467 fechtbuch plate 227) to Pallas Armata (the last technique of Book I Part II.)

There are some other things, but these come to mind mainly.

Cheers

[Allen Johnson]

I just recieved Wagner's book in the mail today. Just in flipping through I noticed that he stated that he felt there was much in common between Silvers single sword method and German Messer fighing as seen in the likes of Hans Lebkommer's manual. This is someting that I have felt to be true for quite some time now. I feels this also is the case going up through the mid 18th century in Scottish Highland broadsword and backsword systems. It was in the regiments where it began to be more infused with smallsword and spadroon influences.

[Allen Johnson]

Upon additional observation it appears that transcript of both of Silvers work IS included. So this is a good lesson in not taking peoples negative comments at face value. I was told it did not have the etirety of Silver's work in it- which it appears that it does. (I have not sat down and compared line for line with the facsimilies that I have)

[Allen Johnson]

At long last I have FINALLY found the time to finish this book. In short- I enjoyed it. It is a collection of essays rather than a manual that you would take into the salle. Of course, if you were training in a salle, Silver might not like you anyway Here is my full review:

I hesitated on the purchase of this book for quite some time due to some negative reviews I had read online. I should have been more wary of the ignorant critic.

This book is a good value. Those who object obviously do not understand its purpose. This is an examination of the works of George Silver. Mr. Wagner seeks to explain to a modern audience what George Silver wrote and why he felt and fought the way he did.

Anyone who reads George Silver picks up very quickly that he did not like the rapier nor its Italian instructors. In order to explain why, we need to see how Silver saw things. This is EXACTLY what the author does.

Silver based his method on a series of “Governors” and “Grounds or Principals”. He felt that without all these things in place a fight would be “false” or less effective and more dangerous for one’s self. The Italian method of rapier usage violated some of these Principals- thus in Silver’s eyes- making the fight false. His points are well grounded and warrant serious consideration. Mr. Wagner’s comments reflect these sentiments in an pretty accurate and truthful manner.

Silver felt that if a person is to train in a weapon, they should train with one that can be used both civilly as well as in warfare. Something that the rapier obviously CAN NOT do. Mr. Wagner spends a good deal of time explaining the reasons why and the reasons why the basket hilt broadsword or “single sword” or “short sword” that Silver prefers is adequate for all defenses.

This is not a picture book with step-by-step instructions on how to fight like George Silver. Reason being is that Silver did not write his texts in that manner. He wrote essays on what was wrong with the Italian method and why his native English methods and weapons were better. His texts are more of an editorial than a true manual. Though, through his explanations we can learn much about how he fought. To turn this book into step by step, pictured instructions would be to depart from what is really written on the page. Certainly in the course of ones study of the method of George Silver they will eventually need to discover and flesh out techniques that fit in his system of Principals- but again, that is not the purpose of this book.

Here follows a more thorough breakdown of the sections of this book:

A Brief Background to the Works of George Silver- This section is written by Stephen Hand and explains some of the world surrounding Silver when his texts were penned. He explains the influx of Italian teachers and rapier usage in England at this time. Also included is the story of when George Silver and his brother challenged Italian rapier master Saviolo and Jeronimo to a bout at single rapier (which supports the idea that Silver knew how rapier worked and how to use it), rapier and dagger, dagger and single sword, sword and target, sword and buckler, two handed sword, staff, battle axe, and Morris pike. The Italians never showed up.

Silver’s Armoury- This section is a very in depth essay into all the weapons addressed by Silver. From the Italian rapier, to his Single Sword, staffs, bucklers, pikes, etc. In order to understand the martial art you must understand the tools involved. Those who object to Silver’s bias are frequently ignorant of exactly what weapons are being discussed. Wagner also spends time discussing the different guards and wards for these weapons. He clues the reader into the type of martial and athletic movements that are needed in this art.

Silver’s Principals and Practice- This section is penned by Mark Hillyard. He very effectively lays down Silver’s Principals & Governors and how they are worked into the fight. He explains why the Italian style of rapier play violated these rules and why that is important. A solid understanding of these Governors are ESSENTIAL to understanding Silvers system.

The Untrue Weapon: The Flaws of Italian Rapier Fencing- Regardless of how we feel today, George Silver felt the Italian rapier was an inferior system. This section seeks to explain things from Silver’s side of the fence. Authors Wagner & Hand together delve further into the question of why Silver felt the rapier and its Italian system of use was inferior to their native English martial art. To ignore Silver’s bias and behave in a “Politically Correct” manner would be to throw the entire work of Silver out the window. Blatant disregard of his actual writings would be scholastically inexcusable.

Silver and the Fights of Shakespeare- In this section Wagner explores the relationship between Silver’s writings and Shakespeare’s He addresses both the attitude towards fighting and the relationships between English and Italians. This essay is speculative but with decent theories and well documented conclusions.

An Elizabethan Book of the Five Rings- In a similar themed essay, Wagner explores the similarities between Silvers work and the famous “Book of the Five Rings” by Musashi Miyamoto. Both men detested the weaker style of “school play” that was prevalent among the upper class in both societies. Silver and Miyamoto both embraced a ‘no nonsense’ approach to fighting and disliked anything that detracted from the pure, effective martial art.

Both of Silver’s complete texts follow this section.

Wagner also includes a very helpful Glossary of terms that may be difficult to understand for those not familiar with such writings. It is very easy to understand and use.

It’s obvious that the critics of this book either do not understand the reason for this book- or are biased in favor of the rapier and are inherently against anyone that would challenge its effectiveness. The book is documented heavily and is a worthy scholastic achievement.