| Author |
Message |
|
Martin Wilkinson
|
 Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | If the target or buckler alone were enough ward a strong blow, you could carry the shield high and the sword low.
|
Can i suggest you try that. Shields are knackering things to hold in a set position (at least in my experience), especially a high guard.
Shields are really quite stout things, i suspect they could take a blow from a stave, and i have no doubt they could take a longsword cut.
"A bullet you see may go anywhere, but steel's, almost bound to go somewhere."
Schola Gladiatoria
|
|
   |
 |
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Benjamin,
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Quote: | | However, let me ask - you've read the staff section many times, how often have you/do you train it? |
I do solo drills with a hickory staff of perfect length fairly often, but I've yet to do much more than that. If there's a way to spar safely with staves, I don't have the equipment for it. I'm going to start doing drills with some of my sparring partners soon, I hope. |
You'll need some armour. But you really won't appreciate how much speed and power the staff has, or conversely, how much resistance a shield provides, until you can actually do some of the plays at speed and then freely strike at each other.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | ]
| Quote: | | So a *shield* can defend a blow single, even a buckler. |
Yes, a blow from a one-handed sword. Extending this a full blow from a staff is something of leap. |
No, it isn't. Again, note that when he divides the weapons, he only tells us that the sword and dagger must ward double vs. the staff. He is silent in Paradoxes on staff vs the shields, but they are clearly not included in his example. But his discussion of the necessities of the dagger parrying double accords with his discussion of the weapon system, in all cases. Likewise, he advises us that buckler wards double or single. Conversely, the entire purpose of a target is that it wards *single* - that's why you carry a 24 - 36" shield! And I can tell you from experience that it is more than capable of warding a staff blow, even a very hard one, all by itself.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | However, the sword and buckler and the sword and target are *not* included on this list, and clearly *can* stop a blow. |
Again, this is something of leap. Given Silver's hierarchy of weapons, it does seem that two swords & bucklers or swords & targets are too strong for one short staff. Silver doesn't say exactly why. From the start of the Paradox, though, as you've quoted, we know the sword & dagger and the sword & target have to choose between warding high blows or warding low thrusts. If the target or buckler alone were enough ward a strong blow, you could carry the shield high and the sword low.
|
[/quote]
Again, no offense, but I've done it quite a few times for nearly two decades - a shield can stop a staff just fine. The buckler is a bit trickier, because you need to displace the blow, but a large shield will just stop the blow dead. The problem isn't the shield, it is the sword. You can carry the sword low all you want, but it is a first-class lever of about 2.5 lbs mass being applied in resistance to a third-class lever of about half-again that mass. As to why two bucklers or two shields are too much to deal with, Silver himself does not expressly say it in this passage, but anyone who has engaged in any sort of reenactment/SCA/boffer battle knows why - the shields simply cover too many targets and can resist too much force - the shieldmen will run you down, precisely as you suggest.
Honestly, I think once you start playing with the staff against another staff man and then other weapons, a lot of this will make more sense.
Best,
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You'll need some armour. But you really won't appreciate how much speed and power the staff has, or conversely, how much resistance a shield provides, until you can actually do some of the plays at speed and then freely strike at each other. |
I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'll keep on relying on the text. Feel free to dismiss whatever I write if you please, but don't expect me to shut up.
Yes, it is. In Brief Instructions, Silver wrote about sword & buckler against sword & buckler and against sword and dagger. Because of this, he was most likely referring to blows from a single-handed sword, not a staff.
| Quote: | | He is silent in Paradoxes on staff vs the shields, but they are clearly not included in his example. |
Not silent. Silver wrote that both the sword & buckler and the sword & target had two options against a staff man. One is to hold the ward high, in which case you'll be unable to defend against low thrust. The other is to hold the ward low, in which case you'll be unable to defend against a high blow.
| Quote: | | Again, no offense, but I've done it quite a few times for nearly two decades - a shield can stop a staff just fine. |
That's great, and I believe you. However, according to Silver, a shield can only do this when carried high.
| Quote: | | You can carry the sword low all you want, but it is a first-class lever of about 2.5 lbs mass being applied in resistance to a third-class lever of about half-again that mass. |
Half-again that mass? So your short staff weighs under four pounds? Interesting. I prefer a rather heavier staff. Anyways, a staff thrust can by put by with only two fingers, as David Lindholm shows in his book on staff combat. Of course, it depends on how the staff's held and so on.
On the subject of weight, have you tried a full against a man with sword and dagger running in? If so, did it knock him down?
| Quote: | | Honestly, I think once you start playing with the staff against another staff man and then other weapons, a lot of this will make more sense. |
None of that changes what Silver wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'll keep on relying on the text. Feel free to dismiss whatever I write if you please, but don't expect me to shut up. |
I don't expect you to, and I wasn't trying to offend you. You have me at a disadvantage, because my bio in the WMA community is quite public and pretty-well known. There are people on this forum who have seen me teach or fenced with me, and other known instructors in Silver's style, such as Steve Hand and Terry Brown, can evaluate what I do or don't know about old George. I recognize you from forums and some good posts, but I don't know how long you've been training, with whom, or even where you live, so the only way I can get any context is to ask. I hope you understand that.
On the other hand, I do think it is fair to say that many people in this community have been working with and using Silver for a long time, and having done so weapon in hand just might have a better understanding of the text. That isn't a derrogatory statement. I studied a number of martial arts over the years. One was aikido, in which I got a brown belt. That and $2.75 will almost get you a drink at Starbucks.  But my point is that during that time I read a lot of books and watched a lot of video on aikido. I can still probably tell you a lot about aiki and why this or that technique works, but a lot of it wouldn't be genuine insight, and on many points I'd just be flat wrong, because I didn't have the practical experience to understand what the author's wrote or were trying to say.
So I'm not trying to insult you or imply I have some kind of "secret understanding" of the text - I don't. But by the same token, when you have worked with the material for a time, with a partner and against an opponent, the ability to link the material becomes greater. Case in point, the discussion on whether or not the shield can block single, which we'll go over at length in a moment!
| Quote: |
Yes, it is. In Brief Instructions, Silver wrote about sword & buckler against sword & buckler and against sword and dagger. Because of this, he was most likely referring to blows from a single-handed sword, not a staff. |
Yes and no. While that is correct that the techniques reference back to sword and dagger, in each section of this work, Silver establishes the basic wards and methods of his weapon. In this, he writes in the same fashion as most pre-1600 masters. Should we assume that the staff only uses its wards against another staff? Or the bill against a bill? So the point here - and if you've seen a facsimile of the original manuscript, you'll also know that Brief Instructions is nothing like a finished work, it's very much a draft - is that the buckler basically uses the wards and plays of sword and dagger, but it can ward single and double. The idea that the buckler can parry single, regarless of what it is facing, is also born out in the Italian and German tradition, and is how it is generally depicted in martial iconography, so the idea that this is a truism of sword and buckler combat is hardly far-fetched.
If you think otherwise, that's cool, but what is the specific evidence?
| Quote: |
Not silent. Silver wrote that both the sword & buckler and the sword & target had two options against a staff man. One is to hold the ward high, in which case you'll be unable to defend against low thrust. The other is to hold the ward low, in which case you'll be unable to defend against a high blow. |
and...
| Quote: | | That's great, and I believe you. However, according to Silver, a shield can only do this when carried high. |
That's fine, but that doesn't require him to do so *double*, which is what we're arguing. The large shield is a ward in and of itself, indeed, part of its weakness, per Silver, is that outside of the guards of variable fight, the size of the shield gets in the way of the sword. Seeing as Silver doesn't tell you to ward double with the shield in this section, the one time he discusses it, he tells you that the defining characteristic of the buckler (let alone the round target) is that it can parry single as well as double, singles out the sword and dagger (which he tells us must ward double) for his example, I don't see why you have so many problems with this notion. Especially when the same technique - shield high to ward blows, low to ward the thrust - is taught by Marozzo for the large shield vs. polearms, and even by Macbane, in the 1700s, for small targe vs. bayonet.
| Quote: | | Half-again that mass? So your short staff weighs under four pounds? Interesting. I prefer a rather heavier staff. Anyways, a staff thrust can by put by with only two fingers, as David Lindholm shows in his book on staff combat. Of course, it depends on how the staff's held and so on. |
The staff I have handy is 8 feet x 1.5" (a little short for Silver, typical for most other English masters) made of Ash and it weighs 3.7 lbs. Unless you've shod the staff, that's a pretty typical measurement.
| Quote: | | On the subject of weight, have you tried a full against a man with sword and dagger running in? If so, did it knock him down? |
It blasted right through his guard and hits him on the head as if he had made no parry. I wasn't trying to kill the man, so no, it didn't knock him down. But it did make him stop dead and take five to shake it off. That was through a 14g barbute.
| Quote: | | Honestly, I think once you start playing with the staff against another staff man and then other weapons, a lot of this will make more sense. |
None of that changes what Silver wrote.[/quote]
Benjamin, this is the second time in two days, on two different forums that I've posted a fairly general comment on Silver's staff play, or just stick combat in general, and you've decided to take me to task and imply that I haven't read/understood the material.
I haven't said anything that doesn't accord with what Silver wrote. Again, I freely gave everyone some short notes on Silver's staff section (which I'm rapidly regretting), to help them with adapting it for the sword, of which *one* comment was this:
When fighting against sword and shield or other staff weapons, blows can be parried, so be careful, using a judicious combination of thrusts and blows.
The fact that Silver feels that the staff has the advantage doesn't mean the weapon can't be parried, nor does he say it can't be. Silver tells you they can - otherwise you wouldn't need to alternate blow and thrust at all, you'd just hit him and be done with it. Here is what he says:
Now for the vantage of the short staff against the sword and buckler, sword & target, two handed sword, single sword, sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard, there is no great question to be in any of these weapons. Whensoever any blow or thrust shall be strongly made with the staff, they are ever in false place, in the carriage of the wards, for if at any of these six weapons he carries his ward high & strong for his head, as of necessity he must carry it very high, otherwise it will be too weak to defend a blow being strongly made at the head, then will his space be too wide, in due time to break the thrust from his body. Again, if he carries his ward lower, thereby to be in equal space for readiness to break both blow & thrust, then in that place his ward is too low, and too weak to defend the blow of the staff: for the blow being strongly made at the head upon that ward, will beat down the ward and his head together, and put him in great danger of his life. And here is to be noted, that if he fights well, the staff man strikes but at the head, and thrusts presently under at the body. And if a blow is first made, a thrust follows, and if a thrust is first made, a blow follows, and in doing of any of them, the one breeds the other. So that however any of these six weapons shall carry his ward strongly to defend the first, he shall be too far in space to defend the second, whether it be blow or thrust.
He then tells us that the sword and dagger, poinard and rapier and dagger *must* parry double.
I don't see how any of that flies in the face of one line of tactical advice I wrote myself derived from multiple points, including the section on staff vs. staff play. Regardless, I think I've explained my point textually, and I why I think my physical practice has backed-up my analysis of the text. You clearly don't agree, and that's fine, but rather than saying "I'll stick with what Silver wrote", can you perhaps tell me:
1) Where does he *specifically* tell you that the shield must parry the staff double?
2) If so, how do you reconcile that to the fact that he specifically tells you that the sword and target can't use Gardant Fight because of its size, which would be the most likely way to block a staff blow double with this weapon combination?
3)If there is no clear textual evidence that the buckler or the shield can't parry single, then what are you basing your conclusion on?
4) Finally, how does this piece of advice:
"And here is to be noted, that if he fights well, the staff man strikes but at the head, and thrusts presently under at the body. And if a blow is first made, a thrust follows, and if a thrust is first made, a blow follows, and in doing of any of them, the one breeds the other."
Not accord with "use blows and thrusts judiciously", that is, with a plan?
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think this may be something of a misunderstanding. I don't think Silver addressed how to block a staff blow with a shield. My main complaint was the distinction you made between fighting against a shield and fighting against the other five weapons. Silver gave exactly the advance for fighting man with sword & target as a man with a single sword or sword & dagger. While I'm sure fighting against the shield makes a difference, Silver didn't think it mattered enough to mention. In either case, Silver instructed the staff man to strike and then thrust, or thrust and then strike.
Your points 7 and 8 implied that the staff man should strike more against the sword & dagger and less against the sword & target. I still don't see how this works according to Silver's instructions. He was very clear about striking after thrusting and thrusting after striking.
Anyways, it's really a minor quibble, and I'm sorry it's caused such trouble. I am interested to hear your experience sparring against sword & shield with the staff. I wish I could do the same. Next to you, I don't have any credentials. I'm just a guy who's read Silver many times. I spar with my buddies with RSWs fairly often, using Silver's style as best I can, but I don't have any official training.
| Quote: | | The idea that the buckler can parry single, regarless of what it is facing, is also born out in the Italian and German tradition, and is how it is generally depicted in martial iconography, so the idea that this is a truism of sword and buckler combat is hardly far-fetched. |
Well, according Meyer, the rapier (a sword much like Silver's) could block the partisan single (with the flat, no less). We know the masters didn't agree about everything. More interestingly, you included the sword & buckler in your point 7, giving special ability to block the blow only to the sword & target.
| Quote: | | The staff I have handy is 8 feet x 1.5" (a little short for Silver, typical for most other English masters) made of Ash and it weighs 3.7 lbs. Unless you've shod the staff, that's a pretty typical measurement. |
There's no clear right or wrong on the matter, but I have trouble believing a staff of that weight can give blows as strong as Silver's staff blows seem to have been. I like the weight of around five pounds suggested by Paul Wagner in his book on Silver. Also, consider that glaives and partisans are grouped along with staff. Partisans commonly weigh around six pounds. It seems odd to me that Silver's staff would weigh that much less than the other weapons on perfect length.
| Quote: | | It blasted right through his guard and hits him on the head as if he had made no parry. I wasn't trying to kill the man, so no, it didn't knock him down. But it did make him stop dead and take five to shake it off. That was through a 14g barbute. |
Wow. Sounds fun. Makes me wish I had the gear to try that. I am considering getting a couple of RSW polearms from Lance.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys,
While everyone has been pretty well behaved and civil so far, some tensions seems to be rising here and there. Let's keep the civility going. )
Thanks!
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | I think this may be something of a misunderstanding. |
That's cool, you know how electronic communication is, however. I've learned it's better sometimes just be direct.
| Quote: | | I don't think Silver addressed how to block a staff blow with a shield...Silver gave exactly the advance for fighting man with sword & target as a man with a single sword or sword & dagger. While I'm sure fighting against the shield makes a difference, Silver didn't think it mattered enough to mention. |
Understood, but I think we can come to that understanding indirectly, but fairly clearly, thorugh his discussion of advantages, the virtue of the buckler over the dagger and the wards used with the target. I think what supports that is that he drops the buckler and shield from his advice later in the same paradox.
| Quote: | | Your points 7 and 8 implied that the staff man should strike more against the sword & dagger and less against the sword & target. I still don't see how this works according to Silver's instructions. He was very clear about striking after thrusting and thrusting after striking. |
That wasn't my point, so that may be the problem. My notes, at least as I read them now (the electronic file was created in '99, which means its probably older than that.) was that you can strike freely against the sword and dagger because they cannot charge in and they cannot block single, whereas remember that with the latter weapon they *can* block single and they can block double, so be careful. The actual technique doesn't change, what you need to be prepared for does. We can disagree on that, but is my point clearer?
| Quote: | | Next to you, I don't have any credentials. I'm just a guy who's read Silver many times. I spar with my buddies with RSWs fairly often, using Silver's style as best I can, but I don't have any official training. |
That doesn't invalidate your experiences, just keep working on it.
| Quote: | | More interestingly, you included the sword & buckler in your point 7, giving special ability to block the blow only to the sword & target. |
Touche', but that's one of the areas where my opinion's changed in the last 8 years. So consider the notes ammended!
| Quote: | | There's no clear right or wrong on the matter, but I have trouble believing a staff of that weight can give blows as strong as Silver's staff blows seem to have been. |
You'd be surprised. Remember, velocity generates more power than mass. But again, this is an unshod staff, and yes, most functional polearms need to cap out around 6 lbs.
I think Silver gives the advantage to the staff because of speed vs. length. It controls measure over the two-handed sword, axe, halberd or bill, but is not beyond perfect length.
| Quote: | | Also, consider that glaives and partisans are grouped along with staff. Partisans commonly weigh around six pounds. |
Sure, but so is the longsword, which is about 3.5 - 4.5 lbs. I think we sometimes make his associations fit more closely than the man himself did. But as you said, we can't know.
| Quote: | | It blasted right through his guard and hits him on the head as if he had made no parry. I wasn't trying to kill the man, so no, it didn't knock him down. But it did make him stop dead and take five to shake it off. That was through a 14g barbute. |
Wow. Sounds fun. Makes me wish I had the gear to try that. I am considering getting a couple of RSW polearms from Lance.[/quote]
Yeah, it kinda was. Now interesting note - not from Silver. We found that if the sword is on top (so think something like TG with the dagger behind as the brace) you have a stronger ward than the other way around. Aaron was a good sport for learning this the hardway....
Best,
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The actual technique doesn't change, what you need to be prepared for does. We can disagree on that, but is my point clearer? |
Yeah, and I don't think we disagree. I don't doubt that a shield can block a stout staff blow without any help from the sword.
| Quote: | | Sure, but so is the longsword, which is about 3.5 - 4.5 lbs. I think we sometimes make his associations fit more closely than the man himself did. But as you said, we can't know. |
The longsword has the same fight, yes, but the glaive and partisan are in exactly the same category as the short staff. They share the short staff's advantages against everything else.
The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike.
| Quote: | | We found that if the sword is on top (so think something like TG with the dagger behind as the brace) you have a stronger ward than the other way around. Aaron was a good sport for learning this the hardway.... |
That sounds fairly similar to what Swetnam suggested against the staff:
Now the best guard with a Sword and Dagger, or Rapier and Dagger, against a Staffe, is this, put your Dagger on the in-side of your Rapier or Sword, and join them both together, making your cross with them within a foote or thereabouts of the hilt of your Rapier or Sword, and looking cleere with both your eyes under them, or betwixt both your weapons, and then if your enemy charge you with a blow at your head with his Staffe, beare them both double against the blow, and having defended it, turne your point and turne your knuckles inward of your right-hand, and so to goe in amaine upon him.
But is he charge your with a thrust, then presently let fall the point of your Rapier down-ward, and force him downe the more stronger, and more quicker with your Dagger, for to that end I doe appoint you to put your Dagger in the in-side of your Rapier or Sword. Loe in this manner you may defend either blow or thrust of the Staffe, yet I must needes confesse, there is great oddes in the Staffe, if the Staffe-man bee verie skillful, but otherwise the Rapier and Dagger hath the oddes being furnished with skill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic