|
Post by demented on May 13, 2020 3:16:21 GMT
Not a Silverite myself but I still found this video to be a neat explanation of Silver's true times.
|
|
|
Post by demented on May 13, 2020 20:03:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on May 13, 2020 21:40:32 GMT
I read the article with joy and would like to thank you for the link, Demented. I used to follow past discussions between Martin Austwick and Mr. Hand and Mr. Wagner with great interest and must say I find most of the article well researched. Yet I have to conclude that Mr. Austwick (and Cory Winslow and Michael Edelson as well, it seems) must (still) not fully understand Hands/Wagners interpretations or their concept of the “slow hand” and/or what Silver is most likely to hint on when stating about the need for “perfect technique” (when closing under ward (or "upon guard" > shorter vs. taller/longer reach) resp. “time of the hand” (or any of the true times in general). I’ll try to transport my views very briefly... [If they artificially slow down their hand in order to wait for their body and foot to catch up to it, then their attack is slow and weak, easily warded or counter-attacked. This is a False Time, tying the Hand to the Time of the Foot.] ...
...No, it’s not a false time. Moving the hand as slow as the foot does not tie the hand to the foot, or the time it takes to move the foot. In contrary, the hand stays free to act (to provoke and take or hit with a change of direction (seducing to go with Meyer), while moving the foot to try to win the place (always with a “two-fold mind”), without it becoming “lying spend” in the process. [Close distance under guard, thereby not committing to any False Time attack which would expose you to danger, but remain ready to defend yourself as you enter the Place. … Use a false or feint in order to induce them to attempt to ward. Along with this false, your body and foot may be brought forward into the proper distance to then attack the adversary.] ...
...Exactly both of these tactics can be achieved by using the slow hand. [All such actions must be initiated with the hand in order for them to be True, because any such action initiated with the foot or body would by definition slow the hand by making it hesitate while those other parts begin moving. Therefore, in such a motion, the hand is not free to move at its fastest speed, and since these actions involve the Place, that means you can be struck by your opponent.] ...
...Silver talks about the hand being “swift” (and how it should be used in true time according to the whole body while minding the govenors), not that it’s necessary to move the hand in the fastest way possible or “the quickest”. The slow hand enables the two-fold mind, to decide whenever to finish the attack (just when having won the place) or to ward (before having lost the place) and fly out again.
Of course attacking an opponent armed with an equally deadly sword and ready to use it is always a dangerous endeavor (less so with a "slow hand", but still dangerous).
|
|
|
Post by demented on May 13, 2020 22:08:16 GMT
I read the article with joy and would like to thank you for the link, Demented. I used to follow past discussions between Martin Austwick and Mr. Hand and Mr. Wagner with great interest and must say I while I can't disagree with most of the article's content I have to conclude that Mr. Austwick (and Cory Winslow and Michael Edelson as well, it seems) must (still) not fully understand Hands/Wagners interpretations or their concept of the “slow hand” and/or what Silver is most likely to hint on when stating about the need for “perfect technique” (when closing under ward (or "upon guard" > shorter vs. taller/longer reach) resp. “time of the hand” (or any of the true times in general). I’ll try to transport my views very briefly... [If they artificially slow down their hand in order to wait for their body and foot to catch up to it, then their attack is slow and weak, easily warded or counter-attacked. This is a False Time, tying the Hand to the Time of the Foot.] ...
...No, it’s not a false time. Moving the hand as slow as the foot does not tie the hand to the foot, or the time it takes to move the foot. In contrary, the hand stays free to act (to provoke and take or hit with a change of direction (seducing to go with Meyer), while moving the foot to try to win the place (always with a “two-fold mind”), without it becoming “lying spend” in the process. [Close distance under guard, thereby not committing to any False Time attack which would expose you to danger, but remain ready to defend yourself as you enter the Place. … Use a false or feint in order to induce them to attempt to ward. Along with this false, your body and foot may be brought forward into the proper distance to then attack the adversary.] ...
...Exactly both of these tactics can be achieved by using the slow hand. [All such actions must be initiated with the hand in order for them to be True, because any such action initiated with the foot or body would by definition slow the hand by making it hesitate while those other parts begin moving. Therefore, in such a motion, the hand is not free to move at its fastest speed, and since these actions involve the Place, that means you can be struck by your opponent.] ...
...Silver talks about the hand being “swift” (and how it should be used in true time according to the whole body while minding the govenors), not that it’s necessary to move the hand in the fastest way possible or “the quickest”. The slow hand enables the two-fold mind, to decide whenever to finish the attack (just when having won the place) or to ward (before having lost the place) and fly out again.
Of course attacking an opponent armed with an equally deadly sword and ready to use it is always a dangerous endeavor (less so with a "slow hand", but still dangerous). I think these guys totally dropped Early KDF and became Silverites. This interpretation was done in only a few days, I havnt really looked threw it in depth but nice write-up on it, markus313. Honestly I like Wagner's interpretation but he tends to try to pull something from thin air at times which I suppose is both a gift and a curse with this stuff. Supposedly Hand helped these guys with thier interpretation so it's a good start if anything. Silver deserves more attention from HEMA scholars
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2020 2:54:25 GMT
Michael is an enthusiast Samurai gone Templar to German longsword. What could go wrong? Now to Silver >8^0 Maybe he skipped through 1:33 He certainly means well. I'd be the last to judge. Cheers GC Closet fop
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2020 2:59:34 GMT
Michael also (or had) writes technical manuals for a livelihood, so keep the owners manual layout in mind
|
|
|
Post by demented on May 14, 2020 4:06:20 GMT
Michael is an enthusiast Samurai gone Templar to German longsword. What could go wrong? Now to Silver >8^0 Maybe he skipped through 1:33 He certainly means well. I'd be the last to judge. Cheers GC Closet fop I.33 is for when he wants to become a priest.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on May 14, 2020 9:13:04 GMT
"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 & 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. And that is my resolution."
Paradoxes, Chap. 8.
No shortcuts to good fencing.
|
|
|
Post by demented on May 14, 2020 11:26:16 GMT
"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 & 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. And that is my resolution."
Paradoxes, Chap. 8.
No shortcuts to good fencing.
While I agree , "good fencing" is pretty subjective. Even among Silverites they cant agree on interpretations. Then really Silvers theories might not be correct or universal to other systems standards. I'm a fan of his work but the interpretations are all over the place and nothing can really be set in stone when discussing HEMA which is made up of quite a few systems. Who's interpretation s do you usually follow? If you do your own who's translations did you start with? Im anything but close minded and always willing to learn.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on May 14, 2020 14:10:21 GMT
No shortcuts to good fencing. While I agree , "good fencing" is pretty subjective. Even among Silverites they cant agree on interpretations. Then really Silvers theories might not be correct or universal to other systems standards. I'm a fan of his work but the interpretations are all over the place and nothing can really be set in stone when discussing HEMA which is made up of quite a few systems. Who's interpretation s do you usually follow? If you do your own who's translations did you start with? Im anything but close minded and always willing to learn. Stephen Hand and Paul Wagner have done extensive research on a wide variety of treatises and tons of full contact sparring experience. The principles Silver describes are universal, as are those outlined in the early KDF. However Silver is a proponent of an at most safe way of fencing (if there is such a thing), and this thought is kept up in other works of the English martial arts (I also enjoy the late Sir William Hope). Any treatise is not only a more or less scientific work but also a reflection of a certain mentality.
To go with Meyer: “For as we are not all of a single nature, so we also cannot have a single style in combat, yet all must nonetheless arise and be derived from a single basis”.
I spend quite some time on Meyer (Roger Norling is the man), love the guys from A.C.T. (Alexander Zhelezniak is an animal) and a lot of other stuff present at youtube and elsewhere.
Imo, a good fencer must be able to defend himself, be able to use a variety of hand-held tools at that (and even be able to deal with it with none at hand) and under a variety of circumstances. His core principles must apply to many weapons (at best all) and hold true under many (if not all) situations, be it combat or other matters. A system that works only with a certain kind of weapon or under certain conditions is not worth much, imo. Same goes for approaches that lead to many double-hits in sparring or work well (or better: look good) in "sparring" but often fail outside their familiar comfort zone.
But at the end of the day, of course sword and shield is where the real sh*t’s at
|
|
|
Post by demented on May 14, 2020 15:44:44 GMT
While I agree , "good fencing" is pretty subjective. Even among Silverites they cant agree on interpretations. Then really Silvers theories might not be correct or universal to other systems standards. I'm a fan of his work but the interpretations are all over the place and nothing can really be set in stone when discussing HEMA which is made up of quite a few systems. Who's interpretation s do you usually follow? If you do your own who's translations did you start with? Im anything but close minded and always willing to learn. Stephen Hand and Paul Wagner have done extensive research on a wide variety of treatises and tons of full contact sparring experience. The principles Silver describes are universal, as are those outlined in the early KDF. However Silver is a proponent of an at most safe way of fencing (if there is such a thing), and this thought is kept up in other works of the English martial arts (I also enjoy the late Sir William Hope). Any treatise is not only a more or less scientific work but also a reflection of a certain mentality.
To go with Meyer: “For as we are not all of a single nature, so we also cannot have a single style in combat, yet all must nonetheless arise and be derived from a single basis”.
I spend quite some time on Meyer (Roger Norling is the man), love the guys from A.C.T. (Alexander Zhelezniak is an animal) and a lot of other stuff present at youtube and elsewhere.
And at the end of the day, of course sword and shield is where the real sh*t’s at Silver is somewhat universal but there are styles I dont feel he blends with but that could be an interpretive thing. By sword and shield do you mean buckler, target , or kite? I'm not so much a shield guy...and if you want to discuss real semprini then pole arms also deserve a mention. Absolutely terrifying weapons. I'm still a longsword/hand and a half sword type of guy though. An unrelated thing I find funny is Silvers choice in going after Saviolo who is much more of a hybrid style of Spanish and Italian. Saviolo himself was also a military man and his style is far different than the typical Italian rapierists such as Giganti or Fabris. A matter of fact its much more defensively minded.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on May 14, 2020 16:53:50 GMT
Silver is somewhat universal but there are styles I dont feel he blends with but that could be an interpretive thing. By sword and shield do you mean buckler, target , or kite? I'm not so much a shield guy...and if you want to discuss real semprini then pole arms also deserve a mention. Absolutely terrifying weapons. I'm still a longsword/hand and a half sword type of guy though. An unrelated thing I find funny is Silvers choice in going after Saviolo who is much more of a hybrid style of Spanish and Italian. Saviolo himself was also a military man and his style is far different than the typical Italian rapierists such as Giganti or Fabris. A matter of fact its much more defensively minded. I very much agree on that not every general rule applies equally well (or better said: are of equal importance) under every situation/set of circumstances (mindset, characteristics of the weapons, environment etc.).
By sword and shield I generally mean larger shields (or very large bucklers, by probably most people’s standards/definitions). Currently I seem to enjoy medium sized strapped shields the most (for example I like a 22” targe over a buckler, and seem to derogate from Silver in that regard). Also I like large center-grip round shields. Sometimes I can’t fight the impression there must’ve been almost as many styles of shields as swords, at times.
Spend some time with Meyer’s polearms section, wonderful stuff, wonderful. Again, Roger Norling must be given huge credit from my part.
What I appreciate about Silver is his description of different weapons (much like Meyer). Rapiers or other weapons specialized for duels or a rather narrow set of circumstances aren’t of much interest to me. I’m sure Silver’s intentions to go after Saviolo weren’t purely for academic reasons. Of course the weapons and approaches they discussed where influenced by each man's specific cultural and social environments, with Silver being the more “conservative”, probably. I think he meant to criticize the mindset behind the rapier (although admittedly there are many variations amongst what could be rapiers, none of these having a "closed hilt" and few being of "perfect length" or having a good cutting geometry) just as much as the weapon. It’s a weapon specialized for a certain environment, a certain mindset, be it in a duel or on the street or battle-field (in a way that could be said about most weapons, in that sense about smallswords, too, but those have a number of advantages over a “rapier”, imo).
On the street or battlefield you cannot choose the number of your opponents or their way of approaching you. Also the individual seldom has control over (m)any other circumstances in these matters.
A man can walk away from a duel and must not spend one more thought on that. Rapiers or other specialized weapons won’t get much love from me, and rapierists just enough so they don’t come to their mind to prick me
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on May 14, 2020 17:00:46 GMT
I'm still a longsword/hand and a half sword type of guy though. Well, the two-hand sword has the vantage over the short sword
|
|
|
Post by demented on May 14, 2020 18:17:28 GMT
Silver is somewhat universal but there are styles I dont feel he blends with but that could be an interpretive thing. By sword and shield do you mean buckler, target , or kite? I'm not so much a shield guy...and if you want to discuss real semprini then pole arms also deserve a mention. Absolutely terrifying weapons. I'm still a longsword/hand and a half sword type of guy though. An unrelated thing I find funny is Silvers choice in going after Saviolo who is much more of a hybrid style of Spanish and Italian. Saviolo himself was also a military man and his style is far different than the typical Italian rapierists such as Giganti or Fabris. A matter of fact its much more defensively minded. I very much agree on that not every general rule applies equally well (or better said: are of equal importance) under every situation/set of circumstances (mindset, characteristics of the weapons, environment etc.).
By sword and shield I generally mean larger shields (or very large bucklers, by probably most people’s standards/definitions). Currently I seem to enjoy medium sized strapped shields the most (for example I like a 22” targe over a buckler, and seem to derogate from Silver in that regard). Also I like large center-grip round shields. Sometimes I can’t fight the impression there must’ve been almost as many styles of shields as swords, at times.
Spend some time with Meyer’s polearms section, wonderful stuff, wonderful. Again, Roger Norling must be given huge credit from my part.
What I appreciate about Silver is his description of different weapons (much like Meyer). Rapiers or other weapons specialized for duels or a rather narrow set of circumstances aren’t of much interest to me. I’m sure Silver’s intentions to go after Saviolo weren’t purely for academic reasons. Of course the weapons and approaches they discussed where influenced by each man's specific cultural and social environments, with Silver being the more “conservative”, probably. I think he meant to criticize the mindset behind the rapier (although admittedly there are many variations amongst what could be rapiers, none of these having a "closed hilt" and few being of "perfect length" or having a good cutting geometry) just as much as the weapon. It’s a weapon specialized for a certain environment, a certain mindset, be it in a duel or on the street or battle-field (in a way that could be said about most weapons, in that sense about smallswords, too, but those have a number of advantages over a “rapier”, imo).
On the street or battlefield you cannot choose the number of your opponents or their way of approaching you. Also the individual seldom has control over (m)any other circumstances in these matters.
A man can walk away from a duel and must not spend one more thought on that. Rapiers or other specialized weapons won’t get much love from me, and rapierists just enough so they don’t come to their mind to prick me Actually Saviolo's rapier is actually a lot shorter for that reason and you can cut with it. His views I think line up with Silver's to a certain extent but he's a filthy Italian so... Meyers rappier/sidesword is pretty close to Saviolos rapier really but still more cut oriented than the rapier. Meyers most combat oriented weapons are the rappier and pole arms, the rappier was being carried by a lot of people in Germany around his time, it was the sidearm of choice for most Germans even though it was foreign. I agree about Meyers pole arm material, I dont train with them yet but his instruction is very clear and builds off his other weapons really well. Considering it would've been his main weapon and a firefighting tool when he was on militia/gaurd duty for his guild its easy to see why its so good. Unlike Mair Meyer wasnt a hobbyist and most certainly seen combat in his time.
|
|
|
Post by demented on May 14, 2020 18:18:55 GMT
I'm still a longsword/hand and a half sword type of guy though. Well, the two-hand sword has the vantage over the short sword Too bad Silver didnt give much, if any(?) instruction on two handed swords.
|
|
|
Post by demented on May 14, 2020 18:19:33 GMT
I very much agree on that not every general rule applies equally well (or better said: are of equal importance) under every situation/set of circumstances (mindset, characteristics of the weapons, environment etc.).
By sword and shield I generally mean larger shields (or very large bucklers, by probably most people’s standards/definitions). Currently I seem to enjoy medium sized strapped shields the most (for example I like a 22” targe over a buckler, and seem to derogate from Silver in that regard). Also I like large center-grip round shields. Sometimes I can’t fight the impression there must’ve been almost as many styles of shields as swords, at times.
Spend some time with Meyer’s polearms section, wonderful stuff, wonderful. Again, Roger Norling must be given huge credit from my part.
What I appreciate about Silver is his description of different weapons (much like Meyer). Rapiers or other weapons specialized for duels or a rather narrow set of circumstances aren’t of much interest to me. I’m sure Silver’s intentions to go after Saviolo weren’t purely for academic reasons. Of course the weapons and approaches they discussed where influenced by each man's specific cultural and social environments, with Silver being the more “conservative”, probably. I think he meant to criticize the mindset behind the rapier (although admittedly there are many variations amongst what could be rapiers, none of these having a "closed hilt" and few being of "perfect length" or having a good cutting geometry) just as much as the weapon. It’s a weapon specialized for a certain environment, a certain mindset, be it in a duel or on the street or battle-field (in a way that could be said about most weapons, in that sense about smallswords, too, but those have a number of advantages over a “rapier”, imo).
On the street or battlefield you cannot choose the number of your opponents or their way of approaching you. Also the individual seldom has control over (m)any other circumstances in these matters.
A man can walk away from a duel and must not spend one more thought on that. Rapiers or other specialized weapons won’t get much love from me, and rapierists just enough so they don’t come to their mind to prick me Actually Saviolo's rapier is a lot shorter for that reason and you can cut with it. His views I think line up with Silver's to a certain extent but he's a filthy Italian so... Meyers rappier/sidesword is pretty close to Saviolos rapier really but still more cut oriented than the rapier. Meyers most combat oriented weapons are the rappier and pole arms, the rappier was being carried by a lot of people in Germany around his time, it was the sidearm of choice for most Germans even though it was foreign. I agree about Meyers pole arm material, I dont train with them yet but his instruction is very clear and builds off his other weapons really well. Considering it would've been his main weapon and a firefighting tool when he was on militia/gaurd duty for his guild its easy to see why its so good. Unlike Mair Meyer wasnt a hobbyist and most certainly seen combat in his time.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on May 14, 2020 18:58:53 GMT
Actually Saviolo's rapier is a lot shorter for that reason and you can cut with it. His views I think line up with Silver's to a certain extent but he's a filthy Italian so... Meyers rappier/sidesword is pretty close to Saviolos rapier really but still more cut oriented than the rapier. Meyers most combat oriented weapons are the rappier and pole arms, the rappier was being carried by a lot of people in Germany around his time, it was the sidearm of choice for most Germans even though it was foreign. I agree about Meyers pole arm material, I dont train with them yet but his instruction is very clear and builds off his other weapons really well. Considering it would've been his main weapon and a firefighting tool when he was on militia/gaurd duty for his guild its easy to see why its so good. Unlike Mair Meyer wasnt a hobbyist and most certainly seen combat in his time. I can see where you’re coming from with seeing the similarities. However there are huge, enormous differences, too. One of the greatest being Silver’s preference of the open fight and its strategies/implications. The thing with the rapier is that it’s really hard to beat in a one-on-one fight. So if you see one rapier on the streets you’ll soon get to see a lot others – with all the dangers it brings with it multiplying, too.
But I’ll leave it to Silver criticizing the rapier (may it be longer or shorter).
Halberds are fantastic weapons and very fun to play with.
|
|
|
Post by demented on May 14, 2020 20:23:16 GMT
I can see where you’re coming from with seeing the similarities. However there are huge, enormous differences, too. One of the greatest being Silver’s preference of the open fight and its strategies/implications. The thing with the rapier is that it’s really hard to beat in a one-on-one fight. So if you see one rapier on the streets you’ll soon get to see a lot others – with all the dangers it brings with it multiplying, too.
But I’ll leave it to Silver criticizing the rapier (may it be longer or shorter).
Halberds are fantastic weapons and very fun to play with. rapier fighting like what Saviolo taught is different than Meyer , no arguement there but rapiers were still used plenty on battlefields and Saviolos style used cuts and defenses against cuts more so than the regular Italian rapier and it was much shorter for faster recovery. I think Silver just grouped them all together because he was pissed at Italians and wanted them to get off his lawn. Comparing Saviolo to regular Italian rapier is like saying Silver and Swetnam are the same because thier English. Meyers rappier is super similar to Bolognese sidesword , he even admits the rappier is foreign. Same with dagger material. Even the provoker, hitter, taker is something taken from the Italians, as far I know.
|
|
|
Post by demented on May 14, 2020 20:29:30 GMT
I think it wouldve been funny to see how a conversation between Fiore and Silver would go down.
I picture something similar to that scene in the movie "The Replacements" with John Farveau , where he stares the thugs down at the table.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on May 14, 2020 21:05:26 GMT
I can see where you’re coming from with seeing the similarities. However there are huge, enormous differences, too. One of the greatest being Silver’s preference of the open fight and its strategies/implications. The thing with the rapier is that it’s really hard to beat in a one-on-one fight. So if you see one rapier on the streets you’ll soon get to see a lot others – with all the dangers it brings with it multiplying, too.
But I’ll leave it to Silver criticizing the rapier (may it be longer or shorter).
Halberds are fantastic weapons and very fun to play with. rapier fighting like what Saviolo taught is different than Meyer , no arguement there but rapiers were still used plenty on battlefields and Saviolos style used cuts and defenses against cuts more so than the regular Italian rapier and it was much shorter for faster recovery. I think Silver just grouped them all together because he was pissed at Italians and wanted them to get off his lawn. Comparing Saviolo to regular Italian rapier is like saying Silver and Swetnam are the same because thier English. Meyers rappier is super similar to Bolognese sidesword , he even admits the rappier is foreign. Same with dagger material. Even the provoker, hitter, taker is something taken from the Italians, as far I know. Yes, I remember reading somewhere about Meyer training in Italy. I am not too familiar with Saviolo, only read the chapter in Hand’s Swordplay in the Age of Shakespeare. I think Silver must have been at least somewhat familiar with Saviolo’s teachings, even writing about how one of his fellows dies by the hands of someone “not standing much upon his skill, but carrying the valiant heart of an Englishman”. I guess his critique on Saviolo, and his style/weapon in particular would not have differed very much from his general opinions on rapiers (blade still too long, footwork being too complicated, not enough protection vs. other weapons etc.).
|
|