New Youth Article

[Webmaster]

A new article by Canadian member Craig Peters has been posted in the ARMA Youth section:

Evaluating Historic European Martial Arts on Television

[GaryGrzybek]

Nice job Craig! <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[Jeffrey Hull]

Craig:

Thanks for helping the younger guys <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[Benjamin Abbott]

Eh, this article seems to be written with mainly German longsword sources in mind. For example, any of Craig's points aren't correct for the single handed sword according to Silver.

Craig writes:

Poor fencers generally rely on static oppositional blocks to protect themselves. Poor fencers also tend to rely mostly on parries when fighting. Decent fencers use distance and voiding to protect themselves. Excellent fencers use counterstrikes, while it might be said masterful fencers strike first and strike well.

Silver's take on the matter:

And that the truth may appear for the satisfaction of all men, this is my resolution: that there is no advantage absolutely, nor disadvantage in striker, thruster, or warder, and their is great advantage in the striker, thruster &amp; warder, but in this manner. In the perfection of fight the advantage consists in fight between party and party, that is, whosoever wins or gains the place in true pace, space and time, has the advantage, whether he is striker, thruster or warder.

Craig writes:

An untrained person, when given a sword and told to defend themselves, will instinctually hold the weapon out in front to “protect” themselves.

Sounds a lot like Silver's true guardant ward to me, with the hand &amp; hilt above the head and providing a great deal of protection.

Craig writes:

Sword fights, particularly duels between two people, are notoriously short. Any time that you see a fight last longer than 30 seconds, particularly if there are multiple strikes exchanged, there’s a good chance the people involved don’t really know what they’re doing, and are not really trying to hurt one another but instead want to put on an artificial show. When two skilled warriors engage in combat, one of them will quickly exploit an opening or counter the other’s attack, soon ending the fight.

Silver explictly disagrees with this. His definition of a perfect weapon is a weapon that two masters can fight each other to a standstill with. He states this cleary:

And therefore I prove where a man by their teaching can not be safe in his defence following their own ground of fight then is their teaching offence and not defence, for in true fight against the best no hurt can be done. And if both have the full perfection of true fight, then the one will not be able to hurt the other at what perfect weapon so ever.

Craig writes:

If they fail to succeed with a strike, they typically immediately follow it with another strike, attacking in an unpredictable manner to various openings in order to overcome their foe.

According to Silver it's often better to strike and then fly out of distance. He rarely suggests staying in distance long enough to make a second attack.

Plenty of good points in the article, but I wish he had looked at Silver too. There are many ways to fight well. The more offensive German school doesn't have a monoply on skill.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Benjamin

Given that our base weapon is a longsword i think he did a fine job as far as an introductory article, i think you are looking at this from the perspective of someone who has been practicing for a couple year's, and has some knowledge of what is going on.

It does a good job as an introduction article.


Jeff

[John_Clements]

Ben, keep in mind the article is addressing specifically swordfights in popular media, where they traditional ignore virtually all historical source teachings, Silver included.

I also have to say I find some of your SIlver interpretations questiionable and open to debate. They can be countered by examples from his work and others. I think we will certainly have to address that topic in a lengthy article here one day. In the mean time, I must advise not to be so quick to accept current conventinal interpretaions of Silver as gospel, you're likely to find yourself locked into an intellectual and martial box. Sorry I have no opportunity to elabortae on this reply. Just try to think broader.

JC

[Craig Peters]

Thanks for the recognition. I initially wrote this article for adult readers, and I think it's equally valuable for them too. However, John requested we add it to badly neglected Youth section, and given that younger readers are particularly prone to ask questions about TV and film, it's probably not a bad idea.

[Craig Peters]

Benjamin,

You're correct- my focus is not Silver's work, but rather the long sword and the medieval sword in general. I think an article directly relating to George Silver's opinions is too narrow, don't you?

However, I do have a few points. Regarding defences, Silver has a good point on the matter, but I think he failed to consider the German position more fully: essentially, whether we follow the German philosophy or Silver's, it is attack and not the defence that ends the fight. When Silver describes warding, it can be inferred that a counter-attack immediately afterward is necessary if you want to end the fight. As the Germans philosophy suggests, it is the attack, and not the defence, which is necessary to defeat one's opponent.

Furthermore, I and others on the forum know from our experiences that if you do attack quickly, particularly if you can attack the four openings in a rapid and unpredictable manner, the opposing swordsman is put on the defensive and eventually overwhelmed, exactly as Dobringer predicts.

Therefore, I'd like to suggest that Silver has not fully considered the German philosophy when he made his comment.

Also, notice that Silver's ward specifically mentions above one's head, while my statement did not. While Silver is not my area of study, his guard here sounds like one quite similar to either Vom Dach or Ochs depending upon how it's held, and thus is not at all the same as a beginner who "holds their sword out in front of them."

"Open fight is to carry your hand and hilt aloft above your head, either with point upright, or point backward, which is best, yet use that, which you shall find most apt, to strike, thrust, or ward." Brief Instructions Upon My Paradoxes of Defence

Regarding your third point, that assumes that both men have the perfect fight for the entire duration of the duel. I'm sure George knew that the chances both men will have the perfect fight are slim to none, and I'm sure he also knew that men make errors, so this point isn't really relavent either. As I read it, Silver is describing a theoretical situation, rather than trying to describe a situation that will actually exist in a sword fight.

Regarding the final point, where exactly does Silver say this? I'm not saying that he does not make this statement, but I do want to see the necessary text. You'll also note that my article says "typically" which necessarily implies that they don't always follow one strike with a second- it depends upon the context.

[Benjamin Abbott]

Regarding your third point, that assumes that both men have the perfect fight for the entire duration of the duel. I'm sure George knew that the chances both men will have the perfect fight are slim to none, and I'm sure he also knew that men make errors, so this point isn't really relavent either. As I read it, Silver is describing a theoretical situation, rather than trying to describe a situation that will actually exist in a sword fight.

Even assuming Silver considered his goal of two men fighting to standstill to be unreachable, a point which I think is quite debatable, it remains relavent to the topic. The more skilled two fencers are at Silver's system, the longer a fight between them will take.

Regarding the final point, where exactly does Silver say this?

Brief Instructions 5.4:

If you meet with one that cannot strike from his ward, upon such a one you may both double &amp; false (feint)&amp; so deceive him, but if he is skillful you must not do so, because he will be still so uncertain in his traverse that he will still prevent you of time &amp; place, so that when you think to double &amp; feint, you shall gain him the place &amp; there upon he will be before you in his action, &amp; your coming he will still endanger you.

[Stacy Clifford]

According to Silver it's often better to strike and then fly out of distance. He rarely suggests staying in distance long enough to make a second attack.

If you meet with one that cannot strike from his ward, upon such a one you may both double &amp; false (feint)&amp; so deceive him, but if he is skillful you must not do so, because he will be still so uncertain in his traverse that he will still prevent you of time &amp; place, so that when you think to double &amp; feint, you shall gain him the place &amp; there upon he will be before you in his action, &amp; your coming he will still endanger you.

I don't think this is telling you not to follow a first committed attack with a second one, I think it is telling you not to try to feint or deceive a skilled opponent who is unlikely to fall for it. In the context it is being used here ("double &amp; false" and "double &amp; feint"), I think the term "double" is being used to mean a false blow followed by a true attack, which I would agree could be a dangerous gambit against a skilled opponent. However, if you make a committed attack which is warded, that doesn't mean you can't try to hit him again immediately before he can turn the counter. The difference is between making your opponent miss his defense and giving him more than he can handle to defend. Silver's exact meaning is always kind of difficult to weed out of his sentence structure, but I believe the particular paragraph you cited is addressing the first tactic, not the second.

[Jon Pellett]

Originally posted by John Clements
also have to say I find some of your SIlver interpretations questiionable and open to debate. They can be countered by examples from his work and others. I think we will certainly have to address that topic in a lengthy article here one day.

That would be great.

Originally posted by Stacy Clifford
I think it is telling you not to try to feint or deceive a skilled opponent who is unlikely to fall for it. In the context it is being used here ("double &amp; false" and "double &amp; feint"), I think the term "double" is being used to mean a false blow followed by a true attack, which I would agree could be a dangerous gambit against a skilled opponent.

Hmm, then what would distinguish a double from a false (since a false would normally be followed by a true attack anyway?)

[Brian Hunt]

One of the things that amazes me about Silver is the number of arguments it engenders compared to the non english texts we have. I have seen bigger fights over the turn of a phrase from Silver, than any other manual.

Cheers.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Stacy Clifford]

Hmm, then what would distinguish a double from a false (since a false would normally be followed by a true attack anyway?)

A "false" could be broadly defined as almost any kind of feint involving a fake cut then a real one, while I've always understood a "double" to be circling back around to make the same cut in the same line/plane twice. Fake left, cut right would be a false, but not a double. A double can be a false, but it doesn't have to be, it could be two full attacks or a deflection and an attack.

It sounds to me as if Silver is using the phrase "double &amp; feint" the way we might tell a football running back to "cut &amp; spin" - two distinct actions with the same intent, to fool an opponent in one example and dodge him in the other. I know it's a subtle distinction (but hey, that's English for you), but I find different meaning in "don't double &amp; feint" than if he had said more specifically "don't double and don't feint". Since a double has multiple tactical applications, I think you have to use the context to narrow down his intended meaning in this particular instance, rather than take the broadest possible meaning and potentially limiting yourself when you don't have to.

[Stacy Clifford]

I totally agree, there's just something about Silver's way of constructing a sentence that just leaves you scratching your head sometimes. George Orwell gave doublespeak its name, but he didn't invent it. Swetnam could do the same thing sometimes, but not nearly as much.

[Mike Chidester]

One of the things that amazes me about Silver is the number of arguments it engenders compared to the non english texts we have. I have seen bigger fights over the turn of a phrase from Silver, than any other manual.

We just have too many darn synonyms in english.

There's also the fact that most people have to read the non-English manuals in modern English translations that are fairly clear, whereas anyone can try their hand at "interpreting" Silver directly from the source text.