MASTER OF DEFENCE by Wagner

[Benjamin Smith]

Here is a published presentation by a Mr. Paul Wagner I found on Paladin Press. It contains George Silver's works, and apparently some commentary about them. I'd like to know if anyone has read it yet? If so, or if not, we should get a review going for the website.

[Jay Vail]

Here is a published presentation by a Mr. Paul Wagner I found on Paladin Press. It contains George Silver's works, and apparently some commentary about them. I'd like to know if anyone has read it yet? If so, or if not, we should get a review going for the website.

Yeah. It's a good source for Silver. There is an excellent chapter in it analyzing his principles of time, place, distance, judgment and measure that everyone should read, regardless of martial system.

[Allen Johnson]

I too have looked at that book for some time now.
One of the drawbacks, from what I have heard, is that it does not contain the whole of his manuscript. It's pretty easy to find online but it would have been nice to have it in the book as well.
But this is still on my "to get" list...

[David Kite]

I too have looked at that book for some time now.
One of the drawbacks, from what I have heard, is that it does not contain the whole of his manuscript. It's pretty easy to find online but it would have been nice to have it in the book as well.
But this is still on my "to get" list...

Now that I had not heard! I have not taken, nor had the time to compare editions of Silver to see, but do you happen to know which parts? Of course, since you say this is something you have only "heard" from others, this could be pure rumor, and therefore unfounded. Interesting, nonetheless.

I also recommend getting the book. There is definitely good material to be read.

David Kite
GFS, ARMA in IN

[Kyle Horn]

Now, I'm new to both ARMA and historical swordplay, so please take what I say with a grain of salt. But, if you liked Wagner's book, you might also be interested in the book by Stephen Hand, who subsequently wrote one of the chapters, and co-authored another, in Wagner's Master of Defence. Hand's book, English Swordsmanship: The True Fight of George Silver, Vol. 1, reads a lot like Tobler's Fighting With The German Longsword. In my personal opinion it's a great place to start with Silver (after actually reading both his original works, of course), especially for the novice, since Silver's works are predominantly text, making it a bit harder to digest than a heavily illustrated fecthbuch. At least, that's my personal opinion anyway.

[Benjamin Smith]

Well the issue is that I haven't read it and we have a section for book reviews on the Website, and as the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts I think we should review every work put out on the subject as a matter of principle and for the benefit of our membership and people who read what we say.

[Allen Johnson]

Here are some reviews that express their concerns about the book. I do, of course, take them with a grain of salt since I have not read the book in question nor know the experience and knowledge base of the people who commented on it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158160 ... J11VABZ5KG

I also own Stephen Hand's Silver book. Out of all of his books, I feel this one is his best effort. This one seems a lot more researched and thought out than his others. It is not without its misconceptions (or at least what I feel are misconceptions) however.

I still feel a better treatment of Silver and other Enlgish swordmasters is vastly needed.

[Randall Pleasant]

I too have Stephen Hand's Silver book. I admit that I have not fully read the book and have not work with Silver much I have see some problems with his interpretations. Although I heard about Hand holding his sword straight over his head, I just about fell out of my chair when I saw the pictures in the book of him doing so. I am sure the book has value but don't just take it with a grain of salt, keep a box of salt near. Hand's interpretation of Silver appears to much better then his application of Silver.

[Kyle Horn]

Allen, now I actually haven't read Wagner's book either, but I have read both of Silver's works, and Silver's Paradoxes of Defence is, in effect, one giant diatribe against Italian rapier play in England (along with mentioning bits and pieces of the "true" way to fight). So I'm highly suspicious of the two negative reviews on amazon. Especially since both cite their disappointment with Wagner's "derogatory" view of rapiers, which sounds like something right out of Silver's mouth.

Randall, forgive me for my potential ignorance, but I'm not entirely sure why holding the sword straight over the head is incorrect. If you're talking about Silver's Open Fight, then yes, Silver explicitly states this in his Brief Instructions Upon My Paradoxes Of Defence:

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.

From what I can gather, this is NOT a stance you use when you're, as Silver would put it, Within Distance (a distance where your opponent can hit you without stepping). I believe the basic idea was that attacking an opponent in Open fight required you to step and then swing, while your opponent could simply swing as you're stepping in, making it a good stance for counterstrikes and beats. The justification for this has to do with Silver's four True Times, which I'll refrain from elaborating on, for the sake of keeping this post moderate in length. For an explicit example of its use, Silver writes:

If 2 men fight both upon open fight, he that first breaks his distance, if he attempts to strike the other's head, shall be surely struck on the head himself... this will that be, because the length of time in his coming in.

In terms of straight over the head versus a little to the side, I'm looking at Hand's book right now, page 41, and he appears to hold it a bit to the side, and not straight over his head. Though feel free to cite pages where he holds it straight overhead.

Likewise, a stance where the sword is held over the head can be seen in Talhoffer on plate 223 (the first messer plate), and bears a striking resemblance to vom tag in Solothurner's fechtbuch and Palus Kal's fechtbuch (http://www.thearma.org/essays/StancesIntro.htm), with the main difference being that both previously mentioned vom tag's have the sword in front of the head, as opposed to behind the head, as depicted in Hand's interpretation of Silver, and on Talhoffer's plate 223. Likewise, I believe Fiore dei Liberi had a stance where the sword was held on the back, where it arguably would have been harder to bring into play than either Silver's Open fight or Vom Tag.

It's also important to mention that there are great philosophical differences between German swordsmanship and English swordsmanship, particularly that of Silver. While those of the Liechtenaur school stress striking first, and keeping initiative, Silver stressed defense over offense, hence the phrase "Master of Defence". These differences may make Silver foreign to those more familiar with German swordplay. In reality, if we could go back in time and let, say, Leckuchner and Silver debate the finer points of swordsmanship, we would probably find that they would have quite the heated argument. There isn't necessarily any "true" art of the sword, superior to all others, no matter how much any ancient or modern master might insist (Silver himself was rather insistent) . This doesn't just apply when comparing swordsmanship from the east and west. It also applies when talking about two different styles in the west.

I'm not here for an argument, honest! But I'm always up for a good debate. Because WMA has been "dead" for quite some time, there is no way to check our interpretations entirely to make sure they're accurate to what our ancestors did, step for step. Everyone's interpretation is bound to be a bit different, by sole merit of the lack of complete information we have to work with. There may be several interpretations that fit the source material completely, and the only thing that can change their "validity" is the appearance of more source material. This is not to say that Hand's book resurrects Silver perfectly, which Hand himself admits in the preface, stating that the "interpretation of historical fencing treatises is a funny process", and that his "interpretation continues to evolve". However, considering the paucity of English fight texts, and the fact that he's really the first person on the scene to publish an interpretation of Silver's "true fight" (at least as far as I'm aware, anyway), I'd say it's a pretty good start. After fifteen years of studying Silver, I'd imagine that Hand's grasp of the subject is probably a bit above my own.

[Brian Hunt]

The thing I find funny about George Silver's works is the the fact that here we have English texts about how to use a sword, that don't need to be translated but can be easily read by any english speaking person and they have caused more heated online debates over meaning and the turn of a phrase than any other manuscript I have seen. It is almost like the act of translation forces us to better see and understand what the german and Italian masters are saying to us than what we can with Silver.

just an oberservation on my part.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Allen Johnson]

good observations Brian!

Randall- I think you're observation of Hand's interpretation being better than his application is a very good one.

High Ward in Open Fight- Silver states
"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."
Hand interprets "aloft above your head" as almost straight up. Virtually no bend in the elbow. You can still hold the hilt "aloft above your head" with a bend in your elbow. Why bend? Try cutting with your elbow locked using no bend- it isnt very effective. In order to generate the right about of force, you need that elbow to bend. If you keep your arm straight, then bend, then strike, you are wasting a motion (and therefore valuable time) that you would have if you held your arm bent in the first place. Reguardless, the other caveat to all this is the second half of Silver's statement where he says, "which is best, yet use that, which you shall find most apt, to strike, thrust, or ward." This is talking about being physically effective. You can strike, thrust, and ward much faster and more effectivley when your high ward is held with your elbow bent. That way, the gun is cocked and ready to fire. Try punching someone with your arm already extended- dosent work too well. Same principal here.

I would hesitantly agree with the observations Kyle made on the seeming emphasis of Defence in English fencing over the seeming emphasis on Offence in German fencing. However, dont for a second think that defence means passive. In swordplay, defence exists to provide a method for more effective offence. English emphasis on defence is no different than the Germans emphasising taking the "vor". No one is fooled into thinking defence is just keeping yourself from being hit. You will never win the day unless you attack. And Silver certainly talked about that.

This is another good example of how statements from the manuals must be matched with agressive and athletic action to get the full breadth of their meaning. It has to make sense from both the angle of the text and the angle of the action. We know the essence of the action by remembering and practicing the aggressive and violent nature of the topic at hand.

On a side note...
For all those people who think that true rapiers were effective cutters need to look no further than our man Silver here. Silver bashes the rapier because it is not good for the total fight; which includes thrusts AND cuts. If circa 1600 rapiers were effective cutters then Silver would have nothing to rail against! Just more evidence that vidicates those who read them against those who claim otherwise.

[Kyle Horn]

Brian- good point! What might contribute to this is an assumption that modern english is identical to Silver's, which could be greatly misleading. I wonder if German scholars of the sword have similar issues with the german masters, or Italian scholars with the italian masters. Anyone have friends in Germany or Italy? I'd also like to add that Silver leaves us no pictures of his stances or attacks. Truly, a picture, no matter how crude, is worth a thousand words. Reconstructing Silver is akin to trying to learn golf by reading a book written by Tiger Woods, with no pictures, after golf had ceased to exist as a game for hundreds of years.

Allen- I'm not exactly sure how I turned into the unofficial Stephen Hand advocate, but this definitely wasn't my intention, since I have some grievances with some of his interpretations as well. I'm just wary of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That being said, Hand wears some very puffy sleeves in much of his book, making it hard to determine exactly how much he bends his arm. On page 40 he makes it quite clear that he holds his arm "straight but not locked", though by definition, if you elbow isn't locked it has some bend to it. I entirely agree with you that keeping your elbow locked would be absurd, for the reasons you pointed out. Likewise, I personally prefer a bit more bend to the elbow than Hand advocates. The two others posing in the pictures throughout the book would seem to agree, as they exhibit much more elbow bend than Hand in their Open fight (Joseph: page 134, Graeme: page 100). I think it really comes down to how much elbow bend is sufficient, and at what point you have too little or too much bend. It's likely that there are a range of "correct" elbow bend angles that result in useful and swift blows. Hand also seems to advocate rigorous practice, so I would think it odd if he were using so little bend that it was detrimental to his strike speed. The bottom line, though, is that elbow locking IS BAD, and this implies some bend is necessary, though let us not be too quick to condemn a slight bend vs a larger bend. I know the German schools tended to exhibit a fairly healthy bend when holding the sword aloft, but we're trying to talk English swordplay, so we really need to find more historical precedent before declaring what the English deemed to be enough bend in their Open fight.

On a related note, the guy on the cover of Masters of Defence seems to have only a marginal bend of the elbow; is that image from a historical source? Or was it recently drawn?

As to your other comments, Allen, I wholeheartedly agree with your paragraph about the English stressing defense and the Germans stressing offense. I apologize for my somewhat simplified statement, since Silver himself advocated strong, aggressive defenses, that left the opponent open for an unhindered riposte or a grapple. At the end of the day, both German and English swordplay was about getting your opponent in a position where you could strike him, and he couldn't easily strike you back, even if philosophically they differed in how they described getting to that position. This was also one of Silver's gripes about Italian rapier play: in his perception, Italian fencers never won a position allowing for a riposte without the danger of being impaled on your enemy's blade. If you're looking for a good old fashioned anti-rapier bashing, Silver is the guy to turn to for sure.

I also agree that we could certainly use more people scrutinizing English swordplay. Compared to German or Italian swordplay, much less is known, but that doesn't mean it deserves any less attention! It's important in any subject to have a good dialog between scholars, and I feel that even now this is still somewhat lacking in the study of English schools of Defence.

[Martin_Wilkinson]

On a side note...
For all those people who think that true rapiers were effective cutters need to look no further than our man Silver here. Silver bashes the rapier because it is not good for the total fight; which includes thrusts AND cuts. If circa 1600 rapiers were effective cutters then Silver would have nothing to rail against! Just more evidence that vidicates those who read them against those who claim otherwise.

Allen, i agree with most of what you say, but this i disagree with, I understand it as Silver is attacking the Italian method of Rapier usage, not the Rapier itself, if the weapon couldn't cut, it couldn't be used to fight the true fight, but Silver was willing to fight Vincientio with Single Rapier and Rapier and Dagger.

Yes, he also dislikes the length of them, hence the comment about small boys being able to put them aside.

It is worth pointing out that Silver was English, and everything that involves, including Xenophobia. The Rapier was an Italian "invention" (I don't know where the Rapier came from, but that's just my understanding of part of Silver's views on them) and the system most commonly taught to the more fashionable part of society was Italian, so it seems to me that Silver really wanted to remove the foreign element from engagements between his own countrymen.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not defending Rapiers, personally, i really don't like them, but then again Silver being the first Manual i read may have something to do with that...

[Benjamin Smith]

Actually my impression is that Silver did in fact think of the rapier as an inferior weapon. Sections 11-15, and 19-21 he specifically criticizes the rapier as a weapon, and not just the Italian style, which he also criticizes at length. The most direct statment being

First I will begin with the worst weapon, an imperfect and insufficient weapon, and not worth the speaking of, but now being highly esteemed, therefore not to be unremembered. That is, the single rapier, and the rapier and poniard.

Having said that it is important to know that A) your point about Silver's Xenophobia seems to be correct, B) Silver himself learned how to use a rapier, apparently from a Spaniard, though he doesn't say who, and C) he reccomended that its study be continued as long as it was studied alongside the older and in his opinion more effective weapons.

My own experience with the rapier is limited. However my impression is that that while its style is straightforward, easy to learn, and effective, a skilled opponent has many more options open to him with other kinds of swords, it takes a tremendous amount of footwork, and very importantly it works best with a companion weapon, I prefer the dagger. I think it is a valid style, most particularly for persons who don't like grappling as the rapier, which likes to play at larger ranges, discourages it, and its companion dagger makes grappling very short.

There is one other unrelated point though. Neither Mr. Hand's nor Mr. Wagner's book is reviewed on our website. Someone who has read them should post a review for people here to review and offer feedback on and then we should "make a motion" if you will, to put it in the Book Reviews section. If I wasn't in the middle of grading 270 papers for the end of the semester and writing my own finals I'd do it myself, but unfortunately I don't have any sort of time, or money to buy them with yet, and won't for a while.

[Martin_Wilkinson]

Actually my impression is that Silver did in fact think of the rapier as an inferior weapon. Sections 11-15, and 19-21 he specifically criticizes the rapier as a weapon, and not just the Italian style, which he also criticizes at length. The most direct statment being

First I will begin with the worst weapon, an imperfect and insufficient weapon, and not worth the speaking of, but now being highly esteemed, therefore not to be unremembered. That is, the single rapier, and the rapier and poniard.

How did i forget that?

Thank you for pointing it out to me, i think i really need to reread Silver now.