McGregors Lecture ?'s

[Allen Johnson]

I doubt there are many who have access to McGregors Lecture on the Arte of Defence (1791) but I have a few questions we can kick around.

1) Mac states that "the only fencer we have among us at this day, is the much accomplished St. George, who is looked upon as the best fencer in the world." Who is this guy?
I have recently heard a theory that it could be Chevalier St George. A guy described to me by another as,

"a man born of mixed blood and much money who came across to Europe from the Tropics to enter Society at his father's bequest.
He was an accomplished fencer, horseman and exquisite violinist composing many works that are still played today and was seen to be the epitome of fence and culture in his time. He nearly became the head of the French Conservatoire but the Prima Donna objected to a black man taking the postion and he was passed over, to the extent that the role remained unfilled for several years as none could be found as his equal. He was also a friend and contemporary of the Angelo family."

Seems a decent theory- someone the aristocracy would certainly admire. Any other ideas?

2. In the Broad Sword section... When MacGregor is talking about the other medium "mentioned by no one, as far as [he] knows" - is he saying that the hanging guard is a medium by which it dosent protect anything but serves as a point to push to all other guards?
I've heard a decent theory that this may be a hanging in second with the arm pretty much fully extended.

3. In the Smallsword section...Paragraph starting with "Supposing now that a broad swordsman and a small, were engaged together..." Is that paragraph stating that the reason he thinks the small has the advantage is that every cut made by the broad, the small can disengage with and counter? I'm a little confused here.

I'm just starting on the spadroon section but this has really been an interesting read thus far. Some things I thought were interesting were that first there was no gradiose kiss butt session at the opening of the Lecture where he drones on and on about how perfect his political leader is- very refreshing. His historical re-cap is intersting but of course (and probably understandably so) flawed. One thing I did like was that he said that the "aincents" were alot more sophisticated and civilized than most gave them credit for.
The one thing that struck me the hardest though (very blatnant punning) was where he claimed that "the small sword has by far the advantage of the broad,"... His reason for this is he says that he has seen a man get many cuts with a broadsword and live, but one thrust from a small which proves to be fatal, if placed right. This is obviously not the same style of broadsword use documented of the Highlanders 1745 and earlier where people were being cleaved forehead to sturnum. Interesting. Thanks for all your help!

[Jeffrey Hull]

Interesting. Now the thing where McGregor says that he has seen a man get many cuts with a broadsword and live, but one thrust from a small which proves to be fatal, if placed right, seems like the inversion of what, I believe, Silver said -- did he not state that he had witnessed many slashes or thrusts survived from a rapier, but never a great cleaving from a sword? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Incidentally, I believe I have heard some of Saint Gerorge's musical works performed on public radio.

JH

[Casper Bradak]

Cool stuff. If I remember right offhand, Master Silver did say that about the rapier. He didn't say so much that one would usually die from a cut (depending on location, obviously), but that a cut, as opposed to a puncture, has stopping power, in that is severs the nerves, veins, tendons and bone, causing incurable maimings/cripplings or death, while a thrust from a very slender blade, if not deadly accurate, was often inconsequential.
Like many have theorized though, I believe comments from both perspectives are correct, they're just looking at things from different circumstances and eras.

[Allen Johnson]

Agreed and the more I read of this stuff I really feel this attitude of, not taking his life at all costs, is really at the heart of the debate. Try doing single sword and only try for light cuts to the arms and hands. You style will probably change dramatically and take on much more of a "from the wrist" style. A style which is reflected in these smallsword and late broadsword manuals.

[Allen Johnson]

More MacGregor observations and inquiries:

*I found it interesting that when he is discussing distance, the closest one is for when you can extend your sword and hit the other guy. No mention is made of grappling distance like all the medieval masters. I know we have talked a little about this but is this mainly because this was concerned with dueling and or school play and such behaviour was uncouth?

*to fence from the riposte... He states quite clearly that the best and safest way to fence is from the riposte. He even goes on to say "that this holds good in all engagements whatsoever, not only with swords in a single combat; but with respect to naval or military engagements, it is worse to attack than to be attacked...I cannot enough recomend it." This is quite a distance from the earlier masters who advised to 'strike first and then strike second'. With so much discussion about "Vor" it seems this is a completley different mentality? I would think you would want to control the fight- at least thats what was advised earlier. Why do you suppose he advises this so strongly?

*Also in reguard to fencing from the riposte...It has also been said that your first parry should be a void/slip/traverse ect... Is this idea out as well? Or do you think a slip then counter cut is considered "fencing from the riposte"?

[Casper Bradak]

I don't know that much about small swords, it could be a better way to fight with them, but it's obviously a last resort/second choice to most, if not all, medieval and ren. fencing texts.

I think he would've had serious disagreements with any military officer of his day. In a military engagement (or sword engagement), it goes without saying, that you want to choose the time and place of your battle, to hit hard, and hit first, with lethal or crippling force. If the enemy does, you may not be able to riposte. I think he may be applying too much of his personal skill style to everyone else.

[Chris Thompson]

>I don't know that much about small swords, it could be a better way to fight with them, but it's obviously a last resort/second choice to most, if not all, medieval and ren. fencing texts>

The British fencing tradition *always* emphasized parry-riposte and fighting on the defensive. It's right there in Silver in 1599, and it continues on through all the later British backsword manuals and Highland broadsword manuals. Silver repeatedly criticizes the Italian rapier masters for teaching "offense, not defense," which he felt was a foolhardy approach that led to many mutual hits. No doubt he would have felt the same way about the German longsword method. The important thing to understand is that this is not a decadent later style or a personal quirk of MacGregor's, but the core assumption of the British systems from the earliest known texts onwards. Any attempt to apply the German combative approach to British/Highland weapons will only lead to misunderstanding. It's a different style. In my personal experience, the British/Highland approach is highly effective in loose play against other European styles and against styles from elsewhere in the world. Against the German approach of relentless attack, a Highland fencer would retreat, parrying till an opening appeared, then shifting out of distance and countering as the German rushed forward.

[Allen Johnson]

I think I'm begining to see that a bit more as I re-read these things. I also really think it depends on the fight. For instance the idea of defence first does not at all seem to be the case in a battle scenario. When the'd fire muskets/dags and charge before they enemy could make a second volley. The drawings of the highland charge certainly dont seem to be of a defensive mindset.

[Chris Thompson]

>For instance the idea of defence first does not at all seem to be the case in a battle scenario>

You're quite correct, as Page says the ordinary rules of fencing are for single combat in a duel or prizefight, but on the battlefield "it is better to attack than to be attacked." However, a classic Highland clan battle would not have involved a Highland Charge, but a number of individual single combats between the warriors of the opposing clans. The Highland Charge was probably a late development, designed specifically to oppose volley fire. As the Highlanders weren't trained or equipped to engage in musket volleys, they had little choice but to close the distance as rapidly as possible in order to spend as little time as possible under fire, and to bring their swords to bear as quickly as possible. For their enemies, the psychological effect of this was devastating- they were used to fighting other professional European armies exchanging volleys from a distance, and the sight of the Highlanders rushing in to cut them down at point-blank range caused them to panic and run again and again. The Highland Charge wasn't an anachronism from the Celtic past, but a deliberate adaptation to changing military realities. Any such charge would have to be carried out with maximum aggression to succeed. But on the battlefield, only the most simple of sword techniques would have been used.

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

>I don't know that much about small swords, it could be a better way to fight with them, but it's obviously a last resort/second choice to most, if not all, medieval and ren. fencing texts>

The British fencing tradition *always* emphasized parry-riposte and fighting on the defensive.

Yeah, what Chris said - and it's not like the parry-riposte was a phenomenon limited to the British isles either. Fiore, I.33 and the Bolognese sidesword systems, among others, use it quite extensively as well.

Best wishes
Rabbe

[Casper Bradak]

[quoteThe British fencing tradition *always* emphasized parry-riposte and fighting on the defensive. It's right there in Silver in 1599, and it continues on through all the later British backsword manuals and Highland broadsword manuals. Silver repeatedly criticizes the Italian rapier masters for teaching "offense, not defense," which he felt was a foolhardy approach that led to many mutual hits. No doubt he would have felt the same way about the German longsword method. The important thing to understand is that this is not a decadent later style or a personal quirk of MacGregor's, but the core assumption of the British systems from the earliest known texts onwards. Any attempt to apply the German combative approach to British/Highland weapons will only lead to misunderstanding. It's a different style. In my personal experience, the British/Highland approach is highly effective in loose play against other European styles and against styles from elsewhere in the world. Against the German approach of relentless attack, a Highland fencer would retreat, parrying till an opening appeared, then shifting out of distance and countering as the German rushed forwarquote]

Sorry, I just don't see it. I think you also have a misunderstanding of the german methods. Read through the 15th c english longsword texts.
All systems have a balance of offense and defense. Not seeing that is a lack of knowledge of those systems. Germans did not rush forward while the english or italians faced off and countered, and the british did not fight "defensively" or parry riposte like a smallswordsman until the smallsword made that a viable method.
Silver little, if at all, critisizes the offensive nature of rapier users, but the rapier itself, that being, it's nature and disadvantages leading to overspecification of it's users. That is, they lack knowledge of most of the aspects of personal combat, and are not well rounded, and the weapon itself leads them to fight in imperfect ways.
Do you think Silver advocated being the last to strike? To wait to be attacked in order to use a counter? To lack combinations, striking false, striking double, kneeing the opponent in the groin? Separating his parries from his offensive actions? He is very much an advocate of closing with the opponent.
I can find nothing in his texts that could lead me to believe that he advocated "defensive" fighting, or anything to make me believe he advocated any less balanced method than any other style in europe before or since, including the german and italian methods. His governors are a summary example and show his methods to be all but identicle to those of the german and italian methods, and very well put.

[Casper Bradak]

Yeah, what Chris said - and it's not like the parry-riposte was a phenomenon limited to the British isles either. Fiore, I.33 and the Bolognese sidesword systems, among others, use it quite extensively as well.

Maybe this is a semantic debate, but I absolutely would not count I.33 or Fiore's work as parry-riposte. It is 100% different than the seperate and individual motions of the small sword or sport foil, where that term is the norm, and all the other integral actions are seldom, if ever, seen. But then, we could have entirely different interpretations of I.33 and Fiore (I don't know the bolognese sidesword methods). But I'd put my interpretations up against a parry-riposte interpretation any day with confidence.

[Chris Thompson]

>Read through the 15th c english longsword texts>

See Paul Wagner's detailed analysis of them- he believes they are based on parry riposte, though in a way peculiar to the longsword and not really similar to smallsword parry riposte.

>All systems have a balance of offense and defense>

Quite right, but to quote Silver: "divers have written books treating of the noble science of defence, wherein they rather teach offence than defence, rather showing men thereby how to be slain than to defend themselves from the danger of their enemies."

>the british did not fight "defensively" or parry riposte like a smallswordsman until the smallsword made that a viable method>

Silver: "The second is to ward; after to strike him or thrust from it"

>Silver little, if at all, critisizes the offensive nature of rapier users>

Silver: "the uncertainty of whose false teaching does yet remain to the daily murdering and overthrow of many, for he and the rest of them did not teach defence but offence"

>Do you think Silver advocated being the last to strike?>

What he advocated is quite clear-

"1. The first is to strike or thrust at him, the instant when he has gained you the place by his coming in.

2. The second is to ward; after to strike him or thrust from it, remembering your governors

3. The third is to slip a little back & to strike or thrust after him."

In other words, your three options are to strike him as he advances, to parry-riposte, or to slip and counter, exactly as in the later Highland broadsword systems. None of this has anything to do with the smallsword; it didn't even exist at the time. And it's obvious that he did advocate a seperate parry and riposte, it says so in plain English: "to ward; *after* to strike him or thrust from it"

>To lack combinations, striking false, striking double, kneeing the opponent in the groin?>

None of that was part of the discussion in the first place, so it's a straw man. The point is that Silver advocated the use of the parry-riposte (among other tactics) and a defensive mindset, as is clearly demonstrated by the passages quoted above.

>or anything to make me believe he advocated any less balanced method>

Of course his method is balanced. But his over-all emphasis is on defense- not being touched- more than on offense- touching the opponent. That's why it's called "Brief Instructions on my Paradoxes of Defence."

[Bill Welch]

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? mmmm <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Sorry I could not resist. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

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

[Rabbe J.O. Laine]

Hi Casper,

o you think Silver advocated being the last to strike? To wait to be attacked in order to use a counter?

At least I don't, since there are plenty of offensive actions to be found in Silver, but he certainly places an emphasis on fencing defensively and in a manner that is *safe*, even against suicidal (Liechtenauerian?) fencers.

Of course, not entirely serious about the Liechtenauer bit...

To lack combinations, striking false, striking double, kneeing the opponent in the groin?

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

Separating his parries from his offensive actions?

Yes. Silver contains both parry-ripostes and counterattacks. Chris quoted SIlver's three types of defensive action (slip &amp; riposte, parry-riposte, stesso tempo counterattack) already, so I won't repeat them.

He is very much an advocate of closing with the opponent.

No, not really, unless the opponent messes up. I don't have access to Matthey right now, so here's a quote from Steve Hick's modernised transcription:

"Do you never attempt to close or come to grip at these weapons unless it be upon the slow motion or disorder of your enemy," -- BI 4:26

Maybe this is a semantic debate, --

Possibly - how would you define a parry-riposte? My definition is something along the lines of "a defensive action with the sword made to prevent the adversary's attack from arriving, followed by an offensive action with the sword".

-- but I absolutely would not count I.33 or Fiore's work as parry-riposte.

Fiore says, according to the Schola Gladiatoria translation:

"Again, this is a play of Breaking Thrust, which is as the second play which is before me. That when I have beaten (rebatuda) the sword to the ground, I immediately put my right foot on his sword. And in that deed, I injure him in the head, as you can see."

A purely defensive action -the breaking of the thrust- followed by a cut. A parry-riposte if there ever was one.

But I'd put my interpretations up against a parry-riposte interpretation any day with confidence.

Cool. I prefer to trust the words of the masters themselves, though.


Hi Bill,

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.

I doubt anyone here is doing that, to be honest.

Best wishes
Rabbe