McGregors Lecture ?'s

[Chris Thompson]

>Is that why you hear of the dreaded english mercenary instead of the german or swiss merc., no wait that was the other way around, wasn't it?>

Although this was a flip comment, you do actually hear a lot about the Highland mercenaries. In fact, the Germans and Swedes hired them in large numbers, and they were very effective. Durer even did a picture of them. As for Swiss mercenaries, as I recall they were famed for their mastery of the pike formation, not individual combat with the longsword.

>I might be wrong but, you can not look at the small sword, or broad sword using what amounts to static blocks and say thats how they always did it in longsword>

No one said that.

>Maybe in the english texts, and if they did it would be different than in german or italian fight books I have seen>

Yes, exactly.

[John_Clements]

I’m following what you mean here, Casp. There does not seem to be in earlier works a deliberate dui tempo [double time] defensive action as de rigueur, where a deliberate separation between a defensive block is followed by a separate attacking action, as in the Baroque fencing of the later smallsword ---which highly inspired and influenced virtually every 18th & 19th century text (indeed they repeatedly call the smallsword the basis of the broad, the cutlass, the saber, and spadroon). They seem to have essentially done away with the concept of counter-striking blows as defense by the early 18th century, which is perhaps why several late 19th century British military fencers with actual battlefield experienced criticized so much of the salon / salle fencing of the day as worthless for any real combat outside of a gentlemanly duel. I believe the dui-tempo Baroque fencing influence (ubiquitous in stunt fencing and felt as even far and wide as within Filipino martial arts) is a chief cause of much misunderstanding of Renaissance fencing.

JC

[Chris Thompson]

>There does not seem to be in earlier works a deliberate dui tempo [double time] defensive action as de rigueur, where a deliberate separation between a defensive block is followed by a separate attacking action, as in the Baroque fencing of the later smallsword>

Do you not define Silver, writing in 1599, as a Renaissance swordsman? Or did you not read the quote given above, where he says in plain English to do a dui tempo parry-riposte, decades before the first smallsword was ever created?

[Casper Bradak]

Alright, I withdraw from the argument, and see it akin to an edge/flat debate with no resolution any time soon (respectfully). To each his own interpretation.

[quote] Well, sort of. Silver very clearly emphasises the need to fly out after attacking, especially against a fencer who knows what he's doing. [quote]

To go into this one a little though, as an example, you can take so many of his (Silvers) statements as you will, and pick and choose the ones you post to support any view/interpretation you wish to put forth (he has as much about offense as defense). But the above one, for example, is no new concept and was advocated in the "german" schools as well, being, as most are in my opinion, a universal reality of fighting, and not a lean towards offense or defense.

As for defining parry riposte, I keep that term with the small sword and its derivative styles, to mean more seperate, one-two actions, often in opposite directions.
Several of Fiore's and Silver's techniques, I believe, can be broken down into seperate motions, as can most (even Ringeck's explanations of Lichtenaur's techniques), when learning them, but when executing them (at least with my interpretations) are not readily identified as true two count or double time motions. It's all how you take it though, and I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe, personally, than english systems used a true parry and riposte, parry alone, or anything different than anyone else. Silver puts the art forth in his own fashion of description, as they all do, but in practice I think he was no "safer" than any other master or system. Gaining the time and place where one can safely strike is no different or more "defensive" than any other master explained, but simply explained in a different fashion. That's more or less my opinion summarized. Like I said, perhaps semantic to a degree with the parry riposte bit, but I think our interpretations do differ.