Silver and stepping

[Stacy Clifford]

Something to keep in mind which I recall Di Grassi emphasizing that is relevant here, although I don't think is directly discussed by Silver:

When you step in to strike a blow, your foot is moving in a straight line while your hand is travelling in a circular motion. By this logic your foot, which is slower, is actually travelling a shorter distance than your hand to reach impact (with the ground and target). It has been generally agreed upon by most ARMA members I've talked to that the strongest impact is achieved when your feet and hands reach maximum extension (and thus impact) at the same time. Since your hand travels faster but farther, and your foot slower but shorter, the individual speed of your own muscles is going to affect the times at which you launch your feet and hands so that they both deliver force to the target simultaneously. For myself personally, I find that I begin moving both at about the same time (without breaking it down to the millisecond) and it works, but it would be interesting to know if everybody else finds this true for themselves also, or if one starts moving before the other on average. Please do your own test and post your results.

Also to be noted is that if you are thrusting, the hand will definitely reach maximum extension before the foot impacts the ground if both are launched at the same time, and I have been taught in both sport fencing and in ARMA that this is considered the correct form because it keeps your opponent at maximum distance for the longest period of time, minimizing their chances of reducing the range and counterattacking before your attack lands. This sounds very consistent with Silver's advice.

One minor personal interpretation: while Silver's "true place" means that you can strike without stepping to close distance, I think he would still advise you to make some sort of foot motion for the generation of power regardless of the distance. Being in the true place simply means that the forward motion of the foot will no longer slow your hand down in reaching the target (the primary point of his lesson), but it can still be used to aid in delivering a stronger blow with no ill effects.

[Andrzej Rosa]

Please view the actual video. Our fellow Casper, starting in ward of Ochs with his longsword,

I've seen this video before, but I checked it again now. He does start with different position than the one from which he delivers his final strike, but it actually supports my point. He has time enough to go from Ochs all the way to Vom Tag before he even moves his feet. If he wanted to thrust from Ochs or if he started in Vom Tag, he wouldn't be able to "start with the hand". That's what I'm saying all the time.

I did write before that this "sequence" is a simplification, because it ignores distance.

is clearly seen to start moving his hands/arms and hence swing his weapon before he starts stepping with foot/leg. The hands/arms & weapon movement happens a split-second prior to movement of the rest of his body, especially foot/leg. One may detect that whether viewing video of his Hau at full-speed or frame-by-frame.

Similar sequence of movement is indicated by the sequential photos of Zornhau in one of my PDFs.

Hence we each demonstrate German Hauen done in harmony with Silver's true-time principle for striking.

I never said that one contradicts the other. Silver was simply smart enough to form a coherent theoretical rule, which tells you which action you will have time to perform and which will work only in slow motion training. German masters seemed to emphasize power, Silver is more concerned with speed, but I don't see where one contradicts the other (beyond artificial difference between "allowing" to strike without stepping or not).

[Andrzej Rosa]

Andrzej, your weapon or your buckler are not in the true place.

Oh, my.
"For distance being broken, judgement fails, for lack of time to judge, and the eye is deceived by the swift motion of the hand, and for lack of true space with the dagger hand, which cannot be otherwise, for lack of circumference to defend both blow and thrust, "

So what the above paragraph means, according to you?

YOU are in it. It is the distance from your opponent that is measured by the length of the weapon plus the length of your arm. Naturally this means it will vary depending on the weapon you happen to wield at the time.

Because of this, guards or wards have nothing to with the location of the true place.

"and although the warder does perfectly see the blow or thrust coming, so shall he see his own ward so far from the true place of his defence,"

So how you interpret the above quote?

This is all very clear from Silver's discussion of the concept and from the quote from the Brief Instructions above.

Obviously you dispute not only my interpretation of Silver's words, but Silver's word themselves. Since you dispute this quote and you think other portions of Silver's work contradict the quoted statement, it is not helpful to make unsupported claims. It is more helpful if you cite the exact pages of his works where the alleged contradictions can be found.

I don't dispute Silver. I also agreed with your interpretation of the quoted by you passage of text. It's true, but not the whole truth.

[Jay Vail]

Andrzej, your weapon or your buckler are not in the true place.

Oh, my.
"For distance being broken, judgement fails, for lack of time to judge, and the eye is deceived by the swift motion of the hand, and for lack of true space with the dagger hand, which cannot be otherwise, for lack of circumference to defend both blow and thrust, "

So what the above paragraph means, according to you?

YOU are in it. It is the distance from your opponent that is measured by the length of the weapon plus the length of your arm. Naturally this means it will vary depending on the weapon you happen to wield at the time.

Because of this, guards or wards have nothing to with the location of the true place.

"and although the warder does perfectly see the blow or thrust coming, so shall he see his own ward so far from the true place of his defence,"

So how you interpret the above quote?

This is all very clear from Silver's discussion of the concept and from the quote from the Brief Instructions above.

Obviously you dispute not only my interpretation of Silver's words, but Silver's word themselves. Since you dispute this quote and you think other portions of Silver's work contradict the quoted statement, it is not helpful to make unsupported claims. It is more helpful if you cite the exact pages of his works where the alleged contradictions can be found.

I don't dispute Silver. I also agreed with your interpretation of the quoted by you passage of text. It's true, but not the whole truth.

Ours is at least a quasi-scholarly pursuit, and scholarship requires that you at least cite your sources so they can be checked. However, I am familiar with these fragments. They are on p. 24 of Paradoxes. The entire page contains Silver's discussion of why allowing your enemy to gain the true place is so dangerous for you in the context of the sword-buckler vs sword-dagger fight. Silver argues that the sword-and-buckler combination is the superior. He says so because

But I never knew anie, that wanne the Close withe the Dagger upon the Sword and Buckler, but did with himselfe out again: for distance being broken, judgement faileth, for lacke of time to judge, and the eie is deceived by the swift motion of the hand, and for lacke of true Space with the Dagger hand, which cannot be otherwise, for lacke of circumference to defende both blow and thrust, it is impossible for lacke of true Space in just time, the agent have gotten the true place, to defend one thrust or blow of an hundred.

In this passage, Silver clearly distinguishes between "true space" and the "true place." True place means as we have discussed: the distance necessary to hit an opponent without taking a step. True space refers to the distance required by your hand to ward his blows.

Your second fragment simply refers to the same problem. In its full context it reads:

"Likewise at the point within distance, if he stand to defend both blow and thrust with his Dagger, for lack of true space and distance, if he hath the best eye of anie man, and could see perfectly, which way the thrust or blow commeth, and when it commeth, as it not be be denied but he may, yet his space being too large, it helpeth him nothing, because one mans hand being as swift as another mans hand, both being within distance, he that striketh or thrusteth, hurteth the warder: the reason is this: the Agent being in the first motion although in his offence, further to go then the warder to defend, yet the warders space being too large, the blow or thrust wilbe performed home, before the warder can come to the true place to defend himselfe, and although the warder doe perfectly see the blow or thrust coming, so shall he see his owne ward so farre from the true place of his defense, that although he doe at that instant time, plainly see the blow or thrust comming, it shalbe impossible for him to recover the true place of his ward, till he is wounded."

"True place" here in part means the spot you need to put your defense to set aside the blow or thrust. It does not refer to "true place" as it relates to distance between you and your adversary. The two concepts are separate and should not be confused, and Silver, I am sure, does not mean you to confuse them.

The real point of Silver's discusion on this page is that when the enemy gains the true place (the distance required to strike or be struck without stepping), you have a difficult if not impossible task to defend against his attack. On the remainder of the page, he discusses why this is so.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Please view the actual video. Our fellow Casper, starting in ward of Ochs with his longsword,

I've seen this video before, but I checked it again now. He does start with different position than the one from which he delivers his final strike, but it actually supports my point. He has time enough to go from Ochs all the way to Vom Tag before he even moves his feet. If he wanted to thrust from Ochs or if he started in Vom Tag, he wouldn't be able to "start with the hand". That's what I'm saying all the time.

I did write before that this "sequence" is a simplification, because it ignores distance.

is clearly seen to start moving his hands/arms and hence swing his weapon before he starts stepping with foot/leg. The hands/arms & weapon movement happens a split-second prior to movement of the rest of his body, especially foot/leg. One may detect that whether viewing video of his Hau at full-speed or frame-by-frame.

Similar sequence of movement is indicated by the sequential photos of Zornhau in one of my PDFs.

Hence we each demonstrate German Hauen done in harmony with Silver's true-time principle for striking.

I never said that one contradicts the other. Silver was simply smart enough to form a coherent theoretical rule, which tells you which action you will have time to perform and which will work only in slow motion training. German masters seemed to emphasize power, Silver is more concerned with speed, but I don't see where one contradicts the other (beyond artificial difference between "allowing" to strike without stepping or not).

AR: You are making absolutely no sense. You clearly implied that the video showed movement opposite of sequence that Silver advocates (which it does not); and your assertion that the "sequence" which we advocate ignores distance is just plain wrong (look at the distance that Casper covers in his video, and the distance I cover and quantified in my PDF).

Our graphic presentations serve as de facto independently recorded and replicable illustrations of not only proper Hauen but also proper use of Silver's true-time. In other words, proof. You provide none yourself.

When you make cascading assertions that compound each other with contradiction, then your arguments are at best confused, at worst self-countering.

Silver's true-time is a method of moving properly in the fight. Stepping while striking is a congruent method of attacking most forcefully with a sword as advocated by German Fechten. Get it

[Andrzej Rosa]

"True place" here in part means the spot you need to put your defense to set aside the blow or thrust. It does not refer to "true place" as it relates to distance between you and your adversary.

That's exactly what I wrote.

The two concepts are separate and should not be confused, and Silver, I am sure, does not mean you to confuse them.

Of course they aren't exactly the same, because for example, as it is here discussed, a space of a buckler is "truer" than a dagger. But they are related enough to support my point. You can't put your dagger in the true place to ward off both a blow and a thrust, because its space is "too large" for a warder to react in time. So a true place has more meanings than one. That's what I wrote.

The real point of Silver's discussion on this page is that when the enemy gains the true place (the distance required to strike or be struck without stepping), you have a difficult if not impossible task to defend against his attack. On the remainder of the page, he discusses why this is so.

IMO the real point is about that a dagger makes a lousy shield. Some guys obviously insisted that they can defend themselves sufficiently with just a dagger and it irked Silver enough to make a paragraph about how wrong they were.

[Andrzej Rosa]

AR: You are making absolutely no sense. You clearly implied that the video showed movement opposite of sequence that Silver advocates

Because it does. The real strike was from Vom Tag position. All hand movement could have started from Vom Tag, or from Ochs, or from Plough, or Alber or a tail guard and the strike would look the same, so whatever happens before an actual strike is not so important. (Well, it builds momentum. Big deal.)

(which it does not); and your assertion that the "sequence" which we advocate ignores distance

Once more, and slowly this time. When I wrote that one should start from the slowest moving body part and end with the fastest (feet before hand and all that) I ignored distance for the sake of simplification. Long and fast move will take as much time as a short and slow. I put an asterix after my statement and hinted in explanation that I simplify things on purpose.

Our graphic presentations serve as de facto independently recorded and replicable illustrations of not only proper Hauen but also proper use of Silver's true-time. In other words, proof. You provide none yourself.

Proof of what? And how come you were able to prove that you guys understand Silver's timing principles? Up to now I've seen mostly *I can step faster than you can blow" type of arguments, "I don't know what you write about, but I'll prove you wrong anyway" type of arguments and "Silver said something in one context so it is universally right" type of arguments.

Well, looking at pictures can't be much worse.

Silver's true-time is a method of moving properly in the fight.

It's general enough statement that it isn't precise enough. Can one strike without stepping according to Silver or not? Is it possible to ward off a blow without stepping according to Silver or it isn't? Can one step without striking according to Silver or not?

I say that an answer to all of these questions is yes (within some context).

Stepping while striking is a congruent method of attacking most forcefully with a sword as advocated by German Fechten. Get it

In every situation or just in general? I simply don't know so I ask here a genuine question, not a provocative one.

[Stacy Clifford]

IMO the real point is about that a dagger makes a lousy shield. Some guys obviously insisted that they can defend themselves sufficiently with just a dagger and it irked Silver enough to make a paragraph about how wrong they were.

There is a certain amount of sense to this argument. In Di Grassi he tells you that to defend with a dagger you must move in close and stifle the strong of the sword (and I think every other master says pretty much the same), which I believe would correspond to Silver's true place for the dagger. In sparring with sword and dagger recently I have noticed that if I am not close enough to take a single step and achieve this block with the dagger as described (i.e. my space is too large), one of two things can happen: either the dagger gets knocked aside by the force of the blow at the outer end of the sword, or the attacker has time to change the incoming blow to dodge the dagger. A buckler can receive (more forceful) blows at a greater distance from the opponent without the same level of danger, and it seems as though it could be argued that its "true place" or "true space" for defense is not as close as the dagger's.

From this I would say that you can put yourself in the true place to defend with a dagger, but that it almost definitely puts you in the opponent's true place to attack you by doing so, whereas this is not necessarily the case with the buckler. I type this with fresh bruises on my dagger hand from learning this the hard way, so I agree that Silver could be arguing that a dagger makes a lousy shield since his argument rather neatly explains my evidence.

[Andrzej Rosa]

IMO the real point is about that a dagger makes a lousy shield. Some guys obviously insisted that they can defend themselves sufficiently with just a dagger and it irked Silver enough to make a paragraph about how wrong they were.

There is a certain amount of sense to this argument.

To me Silver in general makes sense. He hated rapiers with a passion, but his arguments against the use of them seem valid to me.

In Di Grassi he tells you that to defend with a dagger you must move in close and stifle the strong of the sword (and I think every other master says pretty much the same), which I believe would correspond to Silver's true place for the dagger.

In one sense it would, but in the paragraph we discussed recently true place meant mostly how high you carry your guard. One can defend a blow with a dagger if it is held high or one can defend a thrust if the guard is held low, but not both.

In sparring with sword and dagger recently I have noticed that if I am not close enough to take a single step and achieve this block with the dagger as described (i.e. my space is too large),

In one sense one may probably say that (closing in will close a "too large space"), but within a context of recently discussed paragraph IMO Silver means that one isn't able to block properly with the dagger from an intermediate position because one will lack time to move a dagger in the required place to block properly either a blow or a thrust or even both together.

Besides, (but I believe it is important) if you need to close in to defend with the dagger properly, your parries are inherently slow. That is what I find truly important about Silver. By using his hierarchy of the speed of motion one is able to universally predict if some action is practically doable or not very much.

The idea is as follows. If you need to move your feet to defend yourself, you give your opponent plenty of time to react to it. If he is able to counter your action without moving his feet, he has a good chance of prevailing (assuming similar skill levels and so on). Maybe somebody else, elsewhere and in different time was able to form a similarly useful principle, but I'm not aware of it, so I give credit for it to Silver.

one of two things can happen: either the dagger gets knocked aside by the force of the blow at the outer end of the sword, or the attacker has time to change the incoming blow to dodge the dagger. A buckler can receive (more forceful) blows at a greater distance from the opponent without the same level of danger, and it seems as though it could be argued that its "true place" or "true space" for defense is not as close as the dagger's.

In one sense "true place" means simply a distance, but I believe that the meaning of this term is a bit more universal.

From this I would say that you can put yourself in the true place to defend with a dagger, but that it almost definitely puts you in the opponent's true place to attack you by doing so, whereas this is not necessarily the case with the buckler.

Yes.

I type this with fresh bruises on my dagger hand from learning this the hard way, so I agree that Silver could be arguing that a dagger makes a lousy shield since his argument rather neatly explains my evidence.

He wrote a whole chapter about it, so I see no reason for "could". As they say, a month spent in the lab can easily save an hour in the library.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Casper] is clearly seen to start moving his hands/arms and hence swing his weapon before he starts stepping with foot/leg. The hands/arms & weapon movement happens a split-second prior to movement of the rest of his body, especially foot/leg. One may detect that whether viewing video of his Hau at full-speed or frame-by-frame.

Similar sequence of movement is indicated by the sequential photos of Zornhau in one of my PDFs.

Hence we each demonstrate German Hauen done in harmony with Silver's true-time principle for striking.

I suppose you are refering to the 4 pictures found at page 4 in this article?

If so, I can see some differences between what Casper does in the video and what you show...

Casper makes two movements with his sword, first backward to arm the cut and then forward to deliver it. He is stepping forward hence, if I understood the quotes correctly, he is not in Silver's true distance at the beginning. His cut ends approximately at the time when his foot lands. So yes, his arms are faster, and the first motion could be conceived as an entering technique.

In your sequence, you just make a move forward with your hands. Hence, you strike the target roughly halfway through your pace. This is because you did not slow your hands and Silver's principles still hold... At the end of your strike, on the fourth picture, it can be seen that your body has advanced further.

And yet I think your hands were slightly slowed down by the great arc up you did. So I believe you could have landed a significant strike even before half of your step.

Thus, either you were closer to your assumed target than Casper was, and the step is just there to generate momentum but you could have made your strike without it, either you were a full pace from the target and in that case, it might be tactically unwise to be forced to continue forward after the strike, or to strike before covering the distance. If it missed, you are putting the adversary in good position...

Silver's true-time is a method of moving properly in the fight. Stepping while striking is a congruent method of attacking most forcefully with a sword as advocated by German Fechten.

As I see it, Silver's true time is a tactical concept to avoid telegraphing. But since both strikes discussed here are out of Silver's true distance, perhaps it is unwise to apply the same principles to them?

If the point of the Zornhau is to generate power at the expense of tactical considerations, perhaps it does not have to respect true times? After all, we don't respect them when cutting firewood either

Regards

[Jay Vail]

"True place" here in part means the spot you need to put your defense to set aside the blow or thrust. It does not refer to "true place" as it relates to distance between you and your adversary.

That's exactly what I wrote.

No, I am afraid it isn't. You actually wrote:

True place regards both offence and defence. You are in true place if you are able to perform an action in time. The action can be offence or defence, so one doesn't have to be within reach of an opponent to be in true place. But with this little comment, I think that you are right in pointing that time and place are codependent in Silver.

This displays a fundamental confusion about what Silver means by "true place," and indicates a blurring of the distinction between it and "true space" for defense as covered on p. 24 of Paradoxes.

[Jay Vail]

As I see it, Silver's true time is a tactical concept to avoid telegraphing. But since both strikes discussed here are out of Silver's true distance, perhaps it is unwise to apply the same principles to them?

If the point of the Zornhau is to generate power at the expense of tactical considerations, perhaps it does not have to respect true times? After all, we don't respect them when cutting firewood either

This may be a quibble about the meaning of "telegraphing." I see Silver's emphasis on true times to be aimed at the problem of moving within distance without threatening a strike at your adversary. This type of movement invites a stop hit. I generally don't think of that as telegraphing. Are you using the word in this sense, however? (I tend to think of telegraphing as when you wind up to deliver the blow.)

Second, I think any blow, zorn included, must comply with the true times in order to be effective. But yes, you don't cut at an armed person the same as you do at firewood since firewood normally can't hit back.

[Jay Vail]

In one sense "true place" means simply a distance, but I believe that the meaning of this term is a bit more universal.

It is imprecise to argue the term "true place" has some universal meaning (apart from the singular one we generally assign it: the name for the optimal distance between you an adversary that allows a blow without stepping). At best, you can argue that Silver used the term to mean two completely different and unrelated things.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

As I see it, Silver's true time is a tactical concept to avoid telegraphing. But since both strikes discussed here are out of Silver's true distance, perhaps it is unwise to apply the same principles to them?

This may be a quibble about the meaning of "telegraphing." I see Silver's emphasis on true times to be aimed at the problem of moving within distance without threatening a strike at your adversary. This type of movement invites a stop hit. I generally don't think of that as telegraphing. Are you using the word in this sense, however? (I tend to think of telegraphing as when you wind up to deliver the blow.)

Yes, I was considering both of these problems. More the stop-hit problem, actually, moving your body first while in the true distance of the adversary. I think cocking back your weapon to strike would break the spirit of Silver's true time as well, isn't it?

I'm not really into Silver, but does he say that true times apply in entering techniques? Because I think these are actually the heart of the present controversy. If you are in true distance, you can strike without stepping (even if stepping adds power), and Silver says so, irrespective of what German masters said, which was the question asked by the original poster of the locked thread. If you are out, you are doing an entering technique, and then I don't know what Silver says...

To me, on Jeffrey's pictures, there is a problem because he hits faster than he steps. So he is not subject to the stop hit, but on the last part of the step he could be entering true distance without posing a threat. It might be how the Germans describe this strike, but it seems contrary to the true time/true distance theory.

I would think, but German longsword is not my area of interest, that German masters describe ways to attack on one step, with the first part posing a sufficient threat to enter a sort of true distance, but keeping control to avoid counters, and a last part with the hit proper when the opponent cannot get out. Entering and striking all in one step. In this case it could be that the first part of the hand movement is slower than possible, making it look like a true time motion out of true distance. This is more or less what Casper shows in the video.

[Andrzej Rosa]

No, I am afraid it isn't. You actually wrote:

True place regards both offence and defence. You are in true place if you are able to perform an action in time. The action can be offence or defence, so one doesn't have to be within reach of an opponent to be in true place. But with this little comment, I think that you are right in pointing that time and place are codependent in Silver.

This displays a fundamental confusion about what Silver means by "true place," and indicates a blurring of the distinction between it and "true space" for defense as covered on p. 24 of Paradoxes.

IMO you are confusing terms, not me. If your buckler can be in "true place" it must mean the position needed to defend an attack, at least in this context. "True space" means how much one is able to cover while holding a guard (and it's "true" if it provides sufficient cover, but "false" if it doesn't). Dagger doesn't cover much, so his "true place" for defense must be very precise for any type of attack or otherwise its space gets "too large".

BTW - ones guard can be in the "true place" to defend a blow, but one may still be out of reach of an opponent; for example if an opponent has a longer weapon, or is taller, or if he managed to throw an attack from an awkward angle.