Elizabethan Mafia

Although we touched on the concept of distance in our discussion of the Four Grounds I think the importance of this aspect of the art of defense warrants taking time to discuss it in more depth.

Distance is a fundamental concept of fighting. It’s every bit as important as maintaining a good guard or being able to execute a valid attack or parry. In some ways it’s possible more important. A fighter must have a good understanding of distance so that he will be able to stand so that he is outside of his opponent’s range but close enough to his opponent that he can still reach him with a step forward and an attack. With a proper understanding of distance a fighter knows when he’s within range of his opponent and open to attack, when he’s well outside his opponent’s range and perfectly safe, or when he’s found that sweet spot where he is safe but his opponent is within his range and open to attack. Thus it’s important to understand distance and range and be able to asses not only your range but also that of your opponent.

For example, let’s say that fighter A and fighter B are standing 5 feet apart. For simplicity, say they both have an arm reach of 2 feet, which means that with their arms extended they still have one foot of distance between them. Now, give each fighter a standard 36-inch weapon. Now each fighter, with their arm extended, has approximately a 5-foot reach or range of attack, due to their 2-foot arm reach and additional 3-foot sword length. At a distance of 5 feet, neither fighter has to move at all to reach their opponent.  If we change the distance between them to seven feet they can no longer simply reach each other by extending their arm but each is still well within attack range with a simple advance or small lunge.  However if we give fighter B a 40-inch weapon he is now 4 inches closer to fighter A than fighter A is to him.  There will also be a distance at which fighter B can strike fighter A without having to do anything more than extend his sword but fighter A will have to do more work to attack him

This is a very basic example but it highlights the importance of understanding not only your own range, but also the range of your opponent. Once you understand these ranges you are able to determine not only when you are within range to attack your opponent but also when you are within their range and in danger of being attacked yourself. Once you have obtained an understanding of range and distance you can then manipulate them to your advantage.

The best way to gain a true understanding of distance is by practicing with other fighters. The truth of the matter is there is no better way to learn distance than in a combat situation. If that is not possible, Swetnam recommends that a fighter may gain a good knowledge of distance by practicing alone and using a wall to represent one’s opponent. When using a wall for practice a fighter should be standing with his rear foot approximately 12 feet from the wall and should be practicing with a rapier approximately 4 feet long.

Distance is a fundamental concept of fighting. It is important that a fighter understand and be able to determine not only their body’s distance from their opponent, but also the distance covered by his and his opponent’s range of attack. It is vital that a fighter have an understanding not only his own range, but also the range of his opponent. Once he understands these ranges he will be able to determine not only when he is within range to attack his opponent but also when he is within their range and in danger of being attacked himself. Once a fighter has obtained an understanding of range and distance he can then manipulate them to his advantage.

*originally published to my blog 4 November 2009

I know a lot of tall fighters and a lot of not-so-tall-fighters.  I am a not-so-tall-fighter.  I’m not short by any means but at 5’7” I’m usually shorter than the 6’-ish fighters I generally face.  I know a lot of average and shorter fighters think that height gives tall fighters and automatic advantage but that isn’t really true.  All statures have their own inherent advantages and disadvantages.

A look at historical thoughts on the subject

In his Paradoxes of Defense Silver sets up a dialogue between a master and student about whether a tall man or an average man has the advantage in a fight if both men have a “perfect knowledge” about their weapons. Silver maintains that the tall man always has the advantage over the average man because the taller man has a longer reach, does not have to move as far to gain the “true place”, his pace is longer, and because he is taller his proper sword length is longer than that of an average man. Because of this advantage, the shorter man must be careful not to fail in any part of his fight or he is in great danger. As long as he maintains a true fight and fights in the true time he will still be able to defend himself even though his taller opponent has the advantage.

A perusal of Saviolo’s Practice shows that, in general, he likely would have agreed with Silver’s thinking. He says that if a tall man is fighting a shorter man, the taller fighter may have a great advantage over his shorter opponent due to his longer reach and greater stride, provided that he know how to properly put himself “in ward”. However, if he doesn’t understand proper warding the shorter man could have the advantage. If the taller fighter loses his point the shorter fighter could easily attack him from underneath with a stoccata or a passata.

My thoughts

Personally I tend to believe that each stature holds its own inherent advantages and disadvantages.  A taller fighter generally has the advantage of a larger range.  While tall, average, and even shorter fighters are all fairly just as likely to use the same lengths and kinds of blades, taller fighters are more likely to have longer arms and longer legs, giving them a greater range from which to fight.  Often a shorter fighter will find he needs to use a longer blade to equal the ranger of the taller fighter with a more standard blade.  A taller fighter as has the advantage of being able to more easily make attacks from a higher line than the shorter fighter which does give him some advantage.  However, that doesn’t mean he has all the advantage.  A shorter fighter does have to come further inside a taller opponent’s range in order to make his attack, but once inside his opponent’s range his stature and arm length then become more of an advantage allowing him greater maneuverability in closer quarters.  In this situation a shorter blade can provide even greater advantage for the shorter fighter because he does not have to draw back as far to execute additional attacks.  Similarly, attacks from a lower line are also easier for a shorter fighter.  He’s already closer to the lower line than his taller opponent so executing and attack from that line is not as difficult.

A major part of being successful in fencing is making what you have work for you.  Every body type has its own inherent advantages and disadvantages but not all fighters see that.  Just because you are shorter than your opponent doesn’t mean you can’t be successful.  Pit your advantages against their disadvantages and make them pay for it.

*originally published to my blog 1 March 2010

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 3^rd 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.

*originally published to my blog 24 September 2009

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.

*originally published to my blog 17 September 2009