Hello Fellows:
I am making a new post to clearly express views, as first put forth in response to a post in this area called: “Incredible statement about cutting in Mc Bane”. Please refer to that for the background, if you would. Again, my apologies for not posting my stance on the subject correctly there the first time, it was my foolish failure of communication. I only hope that you shall read my amending thereof, and this post of course, that you might know my true intent.
I simply do not accept each and every thing asserted in each and every fighting-manual. This is the case with the specific advice by McBane regarding small-sword & cloak versus sword & targe. I find myself unwilling to think it right. I do not question McBane's reputation and credentials; he must have been quite accomplished. I simply disagree with the specific tactic he describes. Whether anyone [censored] my viewpoint is not my care. Please consider the following.
Should the sword & targe man (ST) await patiently the small-sword & cloak man (SSC) to wrap the off-arm in cloak and/or set wet napkin under hat? Should ST be expected to block his view of the fray & foe, sunken behind his targe, rather than lashing out with its rim, using it dynamically and deceptively in tandem with his sword, not unlike Walpurgis (MS I.33)? Should ST be expected not to punch his targe at SSC, to harry him therewith, or even to throw it at SSC? What if ST flings his targe aside, either to try to grab the small-sword of SSC with the off-hand and hew (not slice) SSC open with the sword in his other hand, or to draw his dirk alongside his sword to make now a two-weapon attack upon SSC? McBane seems to make it all so simple, whereas say Ringeck tends to describe a complexity of attack-counter-attack, and relates the permutations of danger more fully, in regards to an albeit different paradigm (long-sword versus long-sword).
I would advise a man to learn sword or sword & targe, rather than trying to convince him to rely upon small-sword & cloak, when dealing with the disparity of a match of civilian-weaponry versus battle-weaponry. I imagine that someone like Silver might agree with my mindset in this regard.
None of us can claim to have witnessed the deadly fighting of the old masters ourselves – and doubtless at least some deserved the title. We can only make up our minds from the teachings they have bequeathed as to whether none, some, most, or all of said teachings are helpful to the fighter, and can do our best to reckon this by our own research, experience, instinct, and sparring.
I think that McBane’s advice in this instance was meant to appease and persuade elitist cosmopolitan fencers; was meant to dismiss the poor-man’s rural and archaic martiality; was meant to make the advisor seem clever; and was frankly faulty and unsound.
That is what I think. Ultimately, I must trust myself, and not anyone else, for I am the one who ultimately must fight for himself. Thank you for considering my words.
Gang Warily!
Jeffrey Hull
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
