New Projects: Training Manuals and a Flanders Gown

06. October 2009 · Write a comment · Categories: Fighting, Sewing · Tags: , , , , , , , ,

When I was baroness I had several projects I really wanted to pursue but I put on the back burner due to time constraints. Among there projects were training manuals for Silver and Swetnam’s systems of defense. Now I am ready to pick those projects back up. While I was finishing my recent article on Swetnam I spent some time thinking about how I wanted to make these manuals available. In the end I’ve decided to publish them in installments here on my blog. Starting probably next week but definitely by the week of the 19th I will be making them a weekly feature. I haven’t yet decided which day I will be publishing them but currently I’m leaning towards midweek. My current plan is to start with Silver and then do Swetnam. When they are finished I’ll be compiling them and making them available in pdf format on my website.

I’ve also be diligently embroidering my jacket to the point where I feel pretty good about taking on another sewing project. I’ve been enamored with Flanders gowns since doing the research for my loose gown in 2006. I have some lovely wool flannel that would be perfect for the project and I’ve decided to make it fully fur lined since I have wanted a fur lined gown since probably 2005. I know I live in North Carolina and am not likely to get to wear it very often but I don’t care. It’s going to gorgeous and it will ensure beautiful weather for Ymir in February. I have wanted to try my hand a working with fur for quite some time and I already have several coats for the project.

To attack or not to attack. That is the question.

24. September 2009 · 1 comment · Categories: Philosophy · Tags: , , , ,

It has often been debated as to whether the offender or defender has an innate advantage during a fight. It was debated during George Silver’s day, it was debated before Silver ever picked up a sword, and it’s still debated today in the minds of many newcomers to fencing. At the center is the question of where it is innately better to make the first attack (and thus get the jump on your opponent) or whether it’s innately better to lie in wait until you opponent attacks you, defend first, and attack him in the opening his own attack has created.

Silver did not agree with either saying that if the fighter who attacks first has the advantage, then what is the point of parrying. Similarly if the advantage lies in defending than why should a fighter risk his life to attack. Silver held instead that there is no absolute advantage in either attacking or defending. Rather he maintained than the advantage lied in having true pace, time, and space in the fight whether he is attacking or defending.

Interestingly, Saviolo also held a similar opinion. He maintained that a fighter should stay in guard until he had gained an advantage over his opponent, through body positioning, etc. and at that point only should he attack whether that means attacking first or not. However, there are times when he maintained that it was more advantageous to maintain your guard rather than to attack. For example, if a fighter found himself being charged by an opponent who was running intensely at him he should maintain his ward and thrust at his opponent when he comes in range. In this situation the defender would have the advantage because just as he maintained his stance, his opponent was neither in ward nor standing firm. Also, the more intense the attacker’s charge the more dangerous the defender’s stance is for him because his speed and momentum could easily run him upon the defender’s blade.

Personally I’ve always held the opinion, like Silver, that it depends on the situation. Sometimes you’ll want to defend first. Perhaps you want to feel out your opponent for a couple of passes to get an idea of the strength of his attack or his technical skill. Maybe you want to lull him into a false sense of security or maybe you are biding your time until he opens that hole you know he always opens on the 3rd pass. Then there are times when you will want to attack first. You’ll want to strike while your opponent isn’t paying attention or you want to close quickly before he can back out of range again. Your choice will depend greatly on the circumstances you find yourself in. If there was an innate advantage in always defending first no one would ever attack and vice versa. Instead, take the time to practice and drill you basics so you will be prepared for whatever situation you find yourself in.

Instructing Students According to George Silver

17. September 2009 · 2 comments · Categories: Fighting, Philosophy · Tags: , , ,

Silver often gets a bad rap for his Paradoxes of Defense and until recently, with the surge in interest in HMA and cut and thrust, he was more often than not seen as an enemy of fencing and rapier combat.  There’s a lot of pro-English propaganda in Paradoxes (naturally, as there should be) but there is also a lot of wisdom to be found there too.  In fact, there is a very interesting section toward the end that discusses the “evil” practices of his beloved English schools of defense.

Silver argues against certain teaching methods in the English fencing schools. According to him, teachers are forbidding students from using a thrust when fighting with broad swords and from using a blow when fighting with rapiers. He maintains that both attacks are necessary to the “true fight” regardless of what type of weapon you are fighting with. He feels that students should be exposed to everything they might possibly see because not exposing them puts them at a disadvantage in real world fighting.

And then Silver gives us a gem: the order in which he believes scholars should still be taught.  According to the old ways first they should learn…

their quarters, then their wards, blows, thrusts, and breaking of  thrusts, then their closes and gripes, striking with the hilts, daggers, bucklers, wrastlings, striking with the foote or knee in the coddes, or groin, and all these are safely defended in learning perfectly of the gripes.

He further specifies that students should be taught with weapons of the correct length. Students of average height should use a weapon that is 1 yard and 1 inch and tall students many use a weapon of 1 yard and 3 or 4 inches, but nothing longer. He says that the rapier should still be taught in the schools to anyone that wants to learn as long as those students are also taught with the broadsword as well.

Silver also makes a strong argument for a complete education. Students should be exposed to all manner of tricks and techniques, especially if a future opponent might use them.  And this is quite possibly one of the greatest pearls to be found in his works.  A lot of times students are taught only one style and this was especially true during Silver’s period.  However this places the student at a disadvantage.  If they’ve only seen and been taught one style and one way of doing things they are often at a loss for what to do when they are faced with a new and unfamiliar style.  Rather they should be made familiar with every style, even if their teachers favor one above the others, so that they can be prepared when they are faced with outside opponents on the field.

Fine advice and definitely worth keeping in mind as we instruct our own students.

Newer articles »
Get Adobe Flash player