Silver confusion

[Guest]

I've heard (read actually) some different interpretations of Silver, the point is that those who propose them seem to know what they say, so I do not really know which to choose.
In one interpretation the guardant fight beats open and variable, but it's not defined as the use of true guardant only.
In another guardant beats variable, open beats guardant, if I remeber correctly (I'm not suer it's asserted that variable beats open).
Another subject of discussion is true guardant, one Silver student I respect says it's with the inner flat toward the opponent, blade vertical along the center line, hilt just above the head.
Another smart guy suggests that the left leg might be leading, I tried it out with prejudice but I had to admit it makes sense.
I used to think true guardant was similar to prime hanging guard with the blade inclined to the left, then thought it was similar to the hanging of the I 33 (main edge out) but with the hilt higher, now I'm confused.
Then there is the matter of parries, it's not a new point that some believe that the cross is made with the edge and one wanders if there is anything in Silver denying this, outside the fact that he probably did not use carte and tierce, while admittedly they appeared less than 100 years later. So how does one parry from TG?
For as strange as it is, it seems easier to me now to figure out how a clansmen' style might work, because the guards are depitched and their use is described by other sources, than to understand Silver <img src="/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" />, who wrote so much.
Carlo

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Carlo,

Silver clearly states that open fight beats variable, variable beats guardant and guardant beats open. If guardant fight beat everything then why would you lie in anything else?

The best way to describe true guardant is to ask you to adopt a point forward hanging guard (right foot forwards). Now bend your elbow until your forearm is resting on your head just above your hairline. The blade is held with the flat presented forward so that the true edge closes the high inside line. The point should be (as Silver says) sloping back towards the left knee. This is an extremely awkward position if you are left foot forward and would necessitate pushing the arm well forward of the body in order to get it sloping towards the left knee.

As for parrying from TG, this is no great mystery, If someone attacks your closed line then you pass forward and left and choke up the blow on your forte. If someone attack vertically you pass forward and left and then beat. If someone attacks you on the other side you can (depending on the height of the blow) pass forwards and left and parry guardant by bringing your sword across or you can beat as a vertical blow if the attack is coming in high enough. The danger of beating is of course being undercut. In true guardant, you can drop down to bastard guardant and cover yourself all the way to the floor if need be.
Cheers,
Stu.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Guest]

Stu, Mc Bane was describing true guardant the right way then... (my first supposition) and you receive blows on the edge (supposition I did not whant to make and I'd not bet on).
I keep preferring the hanging of the I 33 because you do not expose your wrist arteries and the more traditional 45" hangings edge to target, but Silver is the issue here so my preferences have no weight.
As to the leading foot, if you do not spread feet much and use medieval footwork, then TG with either feet leading makes sense and without much problems.
I was told guardant fight is not the use of TG but an attitude in fighting in which you think defensively, the guard issue being a different matter, this brings the problem on a different ground.
One other question I would ask is if the variable fight is the Italian way of fighting, if I had to answer, I'd say "yes and no" "sounds like Di Grassi but not rapier".
Another matter is the relation between the English method and the Scottish one, if I'm supposing right, Scotts fought open (the guards depitched in the sketches are open, walpurgis, underarm, hanging 45" edge up Talhoffer style, iron door and a possible St George, with the possible ecception of the hanging, the others sound like open fight and I suppose actions to be similar to those of long sword, messer, sword and buckler) if guardant beats open, than the Scotts might be the reason of guardant fight developement (but I prefer the Scotts' way <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ).
Ciao
Carlo

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Carlo,

McBane is good stuff IMHO.

You should realise that when lying in Silver's true guardant ward, you can move quite close to your opponent and not be in distance to be hit with an attack in the time of the hand. In the point forward guard you would be. In addition, the point forward guard gives your opponent a great visual clue to gauge their distance on. Also the point forward hanging guard closes the line you really want an opponent to attack. If an opponent attacks you on your left, he is attacking with his longest and strongest attack. If he attacks on your right he is making a reverso which is a weaker and shorter attack that is very vulnerable to defensive grapples. If he strikes vertically (the best option against true guardant in my experience if you don't adopt stoccata and thrust) then you can step off the line to the left out of distance of any undercut and beat.

Having said all this I do make use of the point forward hanging guard as it is great against a tentative opponent or one who has bad footwork to either thrust or feign a thrust and cut at the head.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Guest]

Some questions for you Stu <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Which evidence do you have of TG being exactly right foot forward, and point more to the left than the hilt?
Why do you say the mandritto is stronger than manrovescio?
With longer do you mean with more reach or that travels more?
Also, Lovino shows inside and outside guards (carte and tierce), do you think we can say they were not in use in any renaissance sidesword method and in the English one in paricular?
In my interpretation of the Scottish single sword, if your opponent goes in stoccata, you either batter his blade aside from underarm (very strongly) and get a line for a head cut or cut it down from open and get a line for a rising cut (if his hand is still on the arm <img src="/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" />). Say you are opposed stoccata while in TG, do you wait the thrust to oppose it with bastard guardant? What do you do after crossing, wrestle? Or should you oppose stoccata with open guard and cut down?
Regards
Carlo

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Carlo,

Try lying in true guardant with your left foot forward and your blade sloping back towards your left knee without horribly exposing your forearm to attack. If you lie right foot forward then your forearm is more refused, your blade can easily point at the left knee and you can more easily "gather to the opponent's right hand side" than if you are in a left foot forward guard. I didn't say that the point lays further left than the hilt. Mine is pretty much vertical in that plane. Others in my club let their point creep out a bit but this leaves you vulnerable when (if) attempting to parry tondo's that turn and rise at the last second. By pushing the point out to the left you allow these tondo's to cut "up and under" the guard. By keeping the blade fairly vertical and close to the body you give an attacker no such angle.

Mandritto is stronger because pushing inwards towards your own centre without having to open the shoulder joint is a much stronger position that having to open the shoulder joint and push away from your body as you do in a manreverso. Conduct a simple pushing experiment and you wil see the proof. Mandritti are also "stronger" than reverso in that because reverse cuts are vulnerable to being grappled.

Longer. More reach. We can say that inside and outside guard are not used (at least by that name) in Silver. he is actually pretty vague on the variable fight.

If you adopt underarm against stoccata and try and beat then I will simply remove your arm or poke a large hole in it (depending on how high I am carrying my point) unless you have a buckler or targe in which case 1.33 shows us that underarm is the no.1 attacking ward..

If I couldn't use the open ward to counter stoccata I would probably make a medium thrust to force the guy in stoccata to engage. From an engagement the possibilities are endless.

True guardant vs stoccata is a poor prospect for the chap in TG. The stoccata guy has a threat presented that TG doesn't immediately cover. Open ward or a medium thrust (attempting an engagement or feinting an engagement) is the way to go.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Guest]

Hi Stu, I find all of your points to make sense, this does not mean that different ones do not, this is the problem with Silver and his interpreters, too many good heads.
As to underarm and stoccata, I think that underarm was used at distance not in distance, as open guard. I suppose that attacks from open and underarm are done on the pass, I mean that the batter is done with one step that brings you to reaching the blade of the opponent, but not the opponent, unless he extends the arm. The cut down is done on a second step that brings you into range and than out of line to the left, followed by a third step that is to bring you at safe distance again. Something similar applies in my opinion to attacks from open ward and iron door. Only hanging and walpurgis might allow to work from close with less risk, but I think they were themselves used to attack on the pass stepping in range and out of line, I mean that from hanging you can step toward your opponent and to his right, attempt a abdomen cut (for instance) and fly out. My idea is that from the Scottish guards you stay away, go in to attack using an attack that covers you from a counterattack (like cutting in the head and sword arm at once against an open guard) and fly away on a different line either backward or, better, behind your opponent, never lunging and always stepping.
The couterattack interdicting attack is an idea I got from Roworth who asserts to be exposing a fencing method that puts toghether Austrian and Scottish systems, while admittedly he does not say from which one he takes the single principles.
Ciao
Carlo
BTW: only 64 vews and no replies except me and you, is Silver out of fashion? Guess my Scottish stuff will not get much interest <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Carlo,

There are quite a few people in the world working with Silver. The Stoccata version apparently resembles quite strongly the method that Maestro Sean Hayes has come up with so I am fairly happy that our interpretation is a sound method of defence despite any possible misinterpretations.
This of course is the advantage of dealing with "conceptual" manuals like Silver over "technique" type manuals like Ringeck or Fiore. You can determine whether a technique fits well defined principles rather than just having a bunch of plays to work with.

Anyway,.....back to the topic. *g*.

I had assumed you were attacking from wide distance before. If you try to beat my blade I can defend this by simply beginning a countercut on a moulinet. You will likely be lying spent as my attack begins. Only distance will save you here.

If you want to bind my blade on my outside line then you must threaten an attack or else I can simply disengage from your bind and cut back as above. The best technique here is a medium thrust at the face which will almost certainly draw a reflexive parry into an engagement in the outside guard. From here you have the initiative and can cut behind him or disengage/whirl etc.

Your interpretation of the Scottish sword is pretty much what the Germans do. The German approach to defending an attack seems to be to attack in a line whereby if the defender doesn't bind, they will be hit. This defence works quite well (particularly with weapons long enough for single time defences ie longswords) but in my experience can lead to a double hit with shorter weapons in a way that Silver's system does not.

As for both English and Scots swordplay not getting much play here I believe it is because ARMA training is centred heavily on the Longsword.
It's a pity really because English swordplay is so much less complicated than the continental stuff I have seen and was often deliberately designed for amatuer fencers. This makes it a more optimistic area of study than poorly written and illustrated manuals from Medieval Europe written in language unintelligible even by native speakers of the modern versions of the languages in question. Add in the fact that these sources were often designed for professional fighting men and the odds really begin to stack up against those reconstructing them. I can read 16th and 17th century manuals off the page. So can anyone else who speaks modern English with a little practice. Those a little later are an absolute doddle. Sir William Hope's "A New, Short and Easy Method of Fencing" springs to mind as a really well written manual that is quite easy to read, is designed to be a simple method of self defence and works from the first time anyone with any skill tries it out.

Having seen various translations of German texts and the vast differences between them, I wish anyone using these manuals as their primary source the very best of luck. They need it.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Guest]

Yes Stu, I based my interpretation of Scottish single sword on long sword moves, messer moves and sword and buckler moves. This because the Scotts had a long sword tradition and a sword and targe tradition and likely fought more with the targe than without. Their guards resemble strongly longsword and messer-dusack ones, testimonies like that of Mc Bane indicate that they were using cuts first and foremost, mainly at the head. Those few illustration that are avaliable do not show any point on guard outside hanging, so I can't count on point on guards from other styles. Also the method has to fit the enormous variety of blade shapes that you find on Scottish swords (narrow, broad, heavy, light, straight, curved, single edged, double edged, long, short), my favourite being serrated straight single edged of moderate lenght and not heavy weight.
I imagine thrusts are used when appropriate, like in breaking the underarm guard, where you come down on the arm with a downward cut and push in, running your opponent through and crushing his reposte.
One thing that makes me curious is that there are people who use the maestro title in WMA, one lives near me and his title comes from classical fencing, is it the same for the others too? I mean they are foil-epee-sabre masters or some are EMA masters?
Ciao
Carlo

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Carlo,

Not much more to say about your interpretation but a quick google of "Maestro Sean Hayes" will show you his credentials. I have never met the man by one of my teachers has and holds My Hayes in high regard. You could probably also ask on SFI about those using the Maestro title and I think you will find that they claim no title when it comes to rapier or anything earlier at all.
From what little I have seen though, classical Italian duelling epee looks rather like transitional rapier. This knowledge is therefore valuable to all fencing but particularly to smallsword or rapier reconstruction.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Guest]

Hi, I meant that inside WMA there are people who use the master title, not that I think there are some who claim to be WMA masters. Anyway, if there were old masters alive it's not to be thought unlikely that some of todays teachers would get a master rank from them, there are indeed skilled people around.
Carlo
BTW: medieval long sword is not an easy research ground, however I think there are people who are doing an excellent job with it, expecially in the HEMAC team we have many good people working on it.