I guess this is the strangest part of rapier and dagger- the fact that your off hand can be used to defend and attack. Once you start with it, you realise how bloody obvious it is to have that option.
It brings another dimension to the fight because you have two ways to close the line and allows a lot more defence in general. Anyway...
From True Guard there's two (main) ways to defend with the dagger, turning point up and scooping the blade towards your sword arm or turning point down and pushing towards your dagger side. This should be timed with an attack wherever possible. Getting the combination of defence and attack down into one fluid movement is a bit tricky.
There is also a question about the best way to progress with fighting- Saviolo says rapier first, Swetnam says dagger and rapier first. Fun says bring the dagger in as soon as is sensible.
I started with single rapier (well, I started with botch-job shinai- utterly crap for thrusting and equally bad for blade feel- and didn't get my hands on steel until my first Fightcamp competition. But that's another story). And until I find a cheaper, more sensible way to bring in the dagger- financial matters means that I will have to teach in that order. Newspaper daggers are ok for a little while, but they don't exactly ooze professionalism.
As a teacher I want to bring the dagger in quickly, it highlights the differences between what we do and sport fencing. Putting a dagger in the hand gives another reason for not throwing your arm back as you lunge.
Bringing in the dagger is a discipline in itself and it really helps dispel the girly-car-aerial prejudice that can exist with the more... robust longswordsmen. Breaking it down so it's not too intimidating for the newbie is fairly easy- there is always an ohshitohshitohshitohshit reaction. (If the dagger is in the right place at the beginning and your sword fails to block- wave dagger about while saying ohshitohshit, and you're likely to keep safe)
Changing the beat of "blimey, that worked" into "why am I not dead" into "man, that was cool" to "Oh crap, he's going to hit me again" to that mutual pause and grin before grappling starts and then to beat all of those/go through all of them in the blink of an eye and just see the new opening... that's the challenge.
The dagger is an absolute game changer. If you're looking at longsword against rapier and dagger- The strengths of the longsword are compromised. The speed you can change lines is met with a waiting dagger. A rapier's range is greater, but if your opponent gets close that dagger is coming in.
I'm not confident about being on the receiving end of steel longswords and the nylons (rightfully) don't hold up well against steel. And the whole protection aspect of it all requires different tools. Which is a shame, because I think it would be good playing against the longsword. Especially with the dagger- something that really helps protect one of my weak spots (especially when compared to longsworders who love it). I'm fairly rubbish at grappling, I tend to concentrate on distance control and don't let people get near enough to try it. This is difficult to do with single rapier. Once they're past the point, there's not much you can do apart from run backwards. Bringing the dagger in means that, while they're concentrating on controlling your sword, your dagger hand can do sewing machine impressions.
As I've said before, weapon choices are no longer about what is "better". We're reconstructing an art and the chances of us using swords in anger is remarkably tiny. We can bring some of the skills into a self defence scenario, but the most likely "weapon" is going to be a cane or stick of some sorts.
So on the important aspects of fun, enjoyment and tactics- the dagger brings a lot to the fight. If you enjoy single rapier, I'd highly recommend playing with dagger as well. If you think single rapier is missing something, I'd also recommend playing with the dagger.
Friday 30 September 2011
Wednesday 28 September 2011
Thoughts made solid.
There is a curious phenomenon with an interest that is so physically and mentally intensive as HEMA, and that is the loss of words.
Sometimes I see sword fighting as a language. The idea is to become fluent enough so that you don't stumble and pause before answering your opponent.
You have ideas like exchange, expression, riposte, answer and so-on all floating around the fight and essentially it's a very physical and pointy dialogue. Because of this, you get to learn a lot about someone with the way they hold themselves under pressure, how easy they are to provoke and.. well. It's a difficult thing to explain to non-fighters.
However, after immersion in that kind of environment, it becomes very easy to lose your native tongue for a while. Your thoughts and methods of expression are very physical.. and even with my mastery of English, I'm struggling to find the right words for the process of changing headspace or even what the fighting headspace actually is. It is not to be confused with competition headspace (which is what happens when you have something to lose).
So, as I wind down from a really interesting and useful event. I find myself thinking in postures, positioning and gestures rather than words. I suspect this is a good thing, since it means that I'm internalising what I have been working on.
But it is strange feeling your body want to move in a way that would literally put your point across.
Sometimes I see sword fighting as a language. The idea is to become fluent enough so that you don't stumble and pause before answering your opponent.
You have ideas like exchange, expression, riposte, answer and so-on all floating around the fight and essentially it's a very physical and pointy dialogue. Because of this, you get to learn a lot about someone with the way they hold themselves under pressure, how easy they are to provoke and.. well. It's a difficult thing to explain to non-fighters.
However, after immersion in that kind of environment, it becomes very easy to lose your native tongue for a while. Your thoughts and methods of expression are very physical.. and even with my mastery of English, I'm struggling to find the right words for the process of changing headspace or even what the fighting headspace actually is. It is not to be confused with competition headspace (which is what happens when you have something to lose).
So, as I wind down from a really interesting and useful event. I find myself thinking in postures, positioning and gestures rather than words. I suspect this is a good thing, since it means that I'm internalising what I have been working on.
But it is strange feeling your body want to move in a way that would literally put your point across.
Monday 26 September 2011
Tells and telegraphing are bad.
Shortly after he describes True Guard, Swetnam goes on about hawks for a bit. This is a long winded and rather pretty digression but it eventually comes to a point. The hawk may be fast, but you get precious seconds to prepare when you see their muscles bunch just before they launch into the air.
Recognising tells and reading your opponent is very important- so is eliminating your own tells. Anything you can do to reduce the window where your opponent can legitimately defend himself is a good thing. Preventing telegraphing is also useful in tricking your opponent into believing that a feint is real.
Blade contact allows you to read intent by feel, this works both ways and your opponent can do the same. If your blades are touching- assume that you're shouting out exactly what you're going to do. You may think this is all bollocks, but contact mind reading has been used as entertainment for at least a century and Derren Brown can find an object hidden in Venice using this skill. You will be able to tell that your opponent is about to disengage, become more sensitive and you'll know a lot more.
However, the majority of the reaction time is controlled by keeping distance and framing a good guard- making sure they have to move more to hit you that you need to move to defend yourself and keeping lines closed.
Everyone regardless of school, weapon or suchlike seems to agree that timing and distance are essential. There's a lot of words spouted about what "good time" is, but distance appears to be universal- The longest reach of the two people, plus one inch. (of course, then you've got to close under guard and stuff when you're short or strike as they recover). Recognising tells helps you maintain this distance, your opponent's posture changes when he thinks you're in their range and you can react accordingly.
Recognising tells and reading your opponent is very important- so is eliminating your own tells. Anything you can do to reduce the window where your opponent can legitimately defend himself is a good thing. Preventing telegraphing is also useful in tricking your opponent into believing that a feint is real.
Blade contact allows you to read intent by feel, this works both ways and your opponent can do the same. If your blades are touching- assume that you're shouting out exactly what you're going to do. You may think this is all bollocks, but contact mind reading has been used as entertainment for at least a century and Derren Brown can find an object hidden in Venice using this skill. You will be able to tell that your opponent is about to disengage, become more sensitive and you'll know a lot more.
However, the majority of the reaction time is controlled by keeping distance and framing a good guard- making sure they have to move more to hit you that you need to move to defend yourself and keeping lines closed.
Everyone regardless of school, weapon or suchlike seems to agree that timing and distance are essential. There's a lot of words spouted about what "good time" is, but distance appears to be universal- The longest reach of the two people, plus one inch. (of course, then you've got to close under guard and stuff when you're short or strike as they recover). Recognising tells helps you maintain this distance, your opponent's posture changes when he thinks you're in their range and you can react accordingly.
Friday 23 September 2011
True Guard with Rapier and Dagger
Ok. I guess I'll start in the same way as Swetnam, by describing his true guard. This is basically so you can follow what I'm saying. In the book, he describes this as a guard and then most of his principles and explanations appear attached to it. After reading, smacking my head against the table, ordering more beer, smacking my head against the table and so-on. I decided to separate True Guard from the principles and treat it in the way he's treated the other guards. So:
I can see what he means about this being a great beginner's guard. Flinch reactions from this position are effective- you can deflect the attack over your sword shoulder (if you remember to drop the tip of your rapier and thrust) or you can pass to your dagger side. You can have quite a healthy exchange without being hit, even if you start to panic a little.
Also, the position of the dagger means that you're not as vulnerable if you choose to attack a leg. The traditional "pull back your leg and wallop him on the head" doesn't work as well when the dagger is covering that line. It's still not a great idea to go for that as a target, but it's no longer really, really stupid.
True Guard with the Rapier and Dagger:There is a question about the angle of the dagger- he says to have it sloping towards your right shoulder, but in practice that makes the knuckles on the dagger hand far too vulnerable and requires you to keep the rapier back quite a lot to maintain a small distance between points. Pointing the dagger forwards a little means that your knuckles gain a lot more protection and you can extend the rapier hand forward into something closer to what we recognise as third. This question cannot be a matter of closed/open hilt on the dagger as he explicitly talks about this difference elsewhere.
How to hold this guard:
Rapier low- in line with trouser pocket. Hilt of dagger in line with with left cheek, point sloping parallel to the right shoulder. Both arms straight. Tips of blades to be close together. If the gap between the blades is too much- move the rapier hand backwards until the points are near.
Why this guard:
Protects against wrist blows, stops rapier from being tied up by dagger.
It's “True” because it's for beginners rather than being perfect. It allows the beginner to play and discover principles without getting too hurt.
I can see what he means about this being a great beginner's guard. Flinch reactions from this position are effective- you can deflect the attack over your sword shoulder (if you remember to drop the tip of your rapier and thrust) or you can pass to your dagger side. You can have quite a healthy exchange without being hit, even if you start to panic a little.
Also, the position of the dagger means that you're not as vulnerable if you choose to attack a leg. The traditional "pull back your leg and wallop him on the head" doesn't work as well when the dagger is covering that line. It's still not a great idea to go for that as a target, but it's no longer really, really stupid.
Wednesday 21 September 2011
Assumptions.
I guess this is the place to start- and it's one of the hardest since I'm trying to list the things that I take for granted. I think I'll try to stick to the ones which don't quite come into "being a good fighter. That will be a different topic"
"All cuts are fatal". This isn't meant as in "that nick in your arm will kill you". However the gash will slow you down and make it much easier for a nastier blow to land. Being stabbed/cut hurts and pain is distracting. Therefore- don't get hit.
"If you survive, you don't want to be hanged". I think this is a peculiarly Swetnam trait. Somewhere around then, duelling had been outlawed in the city and this brings a more cautious attitude to the fight. If you did some of the capoferro techniques involving aiming at the right eye- you could be hauled up in front of the beak on a murder charge. So the legality of duelling has shaped the fight.
"Any hole's a goal" there's no point being picky about your target. If you can give a light cut and remain under cover it's as good as stabbing him through the heart. If a leg is exposed then go for it. Predicting exactly where and how you will hit an opponent is pretentious, egotistical tomfoolery and a bit silly, especially when "passing". If you can make a hole without getting hit- do it.
"Englishmen have a tendency to cut" this is another Swetnam specific, and from my experience this is pretty true. It's only fairly recently that longsword simulators have been safe on the thrust (well, not including feders) and so you'll notice a tendency to cut with most weapons. From behind a rapier, a cut still feels nice and I know I still go for them despite the fact that it would be wiser to thrust. This is also probably something to do with distance control and suchlike. But basically although rapier is primarily a thrusting weapon, it still cuts and people tend to use the cut first.
"Feints must be treated as if they were real" You must, at least cover a feint and a feint should be able to be moved into an attack on that line as well as the line you're trying to open up.
"Don't trust the other person to believe these assumptions" Just because you don't want to be up for murder, it doesn't mean your opponent is thinking that far into the future.
"All swords are sharp pointy things designed to cut and to thrust. Some types are better at one than the other, but they still work both ways." The differences between one handed, complex hilt swords are fairly moot. What works well for a rapier will work, just not quite as well, with a backsword and so on. Throwing these techniques away simply because you're not using the perfect sword for them is a stupid idea. You never know what may come in handy.
These assumptions will shape my interpretation in some ways- for example the shoulder becomes a "vital organ" and a thrust there is, in ways, preferable to a stab in the face, lungs or heart.
I may cover the assumptions that make a good fighter, regardless of weapon and school of thought later. It would certainly be helpful for putting lessons into blocks.
"All cuts are fatal". This isn't meant as in "that nick in your arm will kill you". However the gash will slow you down and make it much easier for a nastier blow to land. Being stabbed/cut hurts and pain is distracting. Therefore- don't get hit.
"If you survive, you don't want to be hanged". I think this is a peculiarly Swetnam trait. Somewhere around then, duelling had been outlawed in the city and this brings a more cautious attitude to the fight. If you did some of the capoferro techniques involving aiming at the right eye- you could be hauled up in front of the beak on a murder charge. So the legality of duelling has shaped the fight.
"Any hole's a goal" there's no point being picky about your target. If you can give a light cut and remain under cover it's as good as stabbing him through the heart. If a leg is exposed then go for it. Predicting exactly where and how you will hit an opponent is pretentious, egotistical tomfoolery and a bit silly, especially when "passing". If you can make a hole without getting hit- do it.
"Englishmen have a tendency to cut" this is another Swetnam specific, and from my experience this is pretty true. It's only fairly recently that longsword simulators have been safe on the thrust (well, not including feders) and so you'll notice a tendency to cut with most weapons. From behind a rapier, a cut still feels nice and I know I still go for them despite the fact that it would be wiser to thrust. This is also probably something to do with distance control and suchlike. But basically although rapier is primarily a thrusting weapon, it still cuts and people tend to use the cut first.
"Feints must be treated as if they were real" You must, at least cover a feint and a feint should be able to be moved into an attack on that line as well as the line you're trying to open up.
"Don't trust the other person to believe these assumptions" Just because you don't want to be up for murder, it doesn't mean your opponent is thinking that far into the future.
"All swords are sharp pointy things designed to cut and to thrust. Some types are better at one than the other, but they still work both ways." The differences between one handed, complex hilt swords are fairly moot. What works well for a rapier will work, just not quite as well, with a backsword and so on. Throwing these techniques away simply because you're not using the perfect sword for them is a stupid idea. You never know what may come in handy.
These assumptions will shape my interpretation in some ways- for example the shoulder becomes a "vital organ" and a thrust there is, in ways, preferable to a stab in the face, lungs or heart.
I may cover the assumptions that make a good fighter, regardless of weapon and school of thought later. It would certainly be helpful for putting lessons into blocks.
Monday 19 September 2011
All this umming and ahhing and false starts:
Well. I have been busy, but invisible. As I've mentioned I'm looking at Swetnam, but it's slightly more widespread and wibbly than that. The joys of the written word from an era before editors and spell check mean that my brain has threatened to seep from my ears at some point. It's also required me to have a look at the context of the whole thing. (And lots of going back and forth between chapters in Swetnam as well)
I can now run a competent lesson or three on Swetnam's rapier and dagger. But that's not good enough for me. You see, I like teaching. I like seeing people build on what I have done and create something much greater. I don't really care if I'm a good fighter or not- but I do care if I'm a bad teacher.
What was going to be a simple "pointy bit goes in the other person" exercise has actually bloomed into something much bigger. Not just because he cross references everywhere, but because of the cultural background that he writes from.
One of the key parts of Swetnam seems to be that everyone has their own methods of fighting and how they hold things and, being quite late, his work is a response to other methods. So, it's a matter of getting the details of what he would have seen and what he takes for granted. I'm not a purist when it comes to "the masters". Fighting does not exist in a bubble, especially European styles where everyone has tried to invade, enslave, conqueror and steal from everyone else.
Swetnam is a bit vague in places, which I think is fair- since precision is developed over time and you can't improve if you're dead (which is his basic reasoning behind the naming of his "true guard", it keeps you alive for long enough to become adequate) But without an idea of the threats he would have faced on the street, I cannot be sure of my interpretation. He was writing in early 17th century London. A city chock-full of random nationalities and foreign masters who said that they were the best and in an area where things were proven very quickly and, sometimes, fatally.
So what does this mean for me? I guess it means that I'm going to be working on how rapier and associated sword play occurred on the streets of my city and that I'm having to look into Saviolo as a counterpoint (and maybe a bit of Silver.. but not much).
It's going to be quite complex and a real pain in the arse in places- but my interpretation is going to be shaped by knowledge of his contemporaries. Ignoring the fact that students of Saviolo and Swetnam (and others.. but one step at a time) were in such close proximity means that I'd miss important points and clues given by context. I also suspect that Swetnam was used to teaching people who knew the longsword.. a situation I've found myself in.
If I want to be a good teacher- I have to know this stuff. And if I get this all down properly, I won't be teaching "Rapier and Dagger as described by Swetnam" but "Early 17th century sword play: Rapier and Dagger as it may have been seen on the streets of London." Which I like- after all, one of the reasons I'm doing HEMA rather than some oriental art is because of the cultural relevancy and the way it can bring some aspects of history to life.
I also believe that fighting is heavily defined by both culture and environment and that it is easy to lose this aspect of our understanding when we fight in gym halls and wide, open fields. Or when we talk about the "best" weapon/master/school/blah blah blah. The best? At least nowadays, is the one you like the most.
For me, the rapier makes much more sense as a weapon if you go into the City of London and explore the alleyways that litter the area. The layout hasn't changed much over a few centuries and if you grew up in a place like that, you would not think of a longsword as a valid weapon to carry. You can't use a powerful cutting weapon in a location where any good swing will take out more brickwork than flesh.
Anyway, I believe I'm starting to digress. I'll be trying to keep this updated a bit more- I'll be putting up things about my notes/interpretations and suchlike once I've translated my them into something that may possibly be understood by someone who isn't me... and I've figured out how to present them.
Once they're up- I will welcome constructive criticism. I know I'm missing bits and there are things that I've not stated because they are obvious to me and me alone. And sometimes I'm probably going to be just plain wrong.
I can now run a competent lesson or three on Swetnam's rapier and dagger. But that's not good enough for me. You see, I like teaching. I like seeing people build on what I have done and create something much greater. I don't really care if I'm a good fighter or not- but I do care if I'm a bad teacher.
What was going to be a simple "pointy bit goes in the other person" exercise has actually bloomed into something much bigger. Not just because he cross references everywhere, but because of the cultural background that he writes from.
One of the key parts of Swetnam seems to be that everyone has their own methods of fighting and how they hold things and, being quite late, his work is a response to other methods. So, it's a matter of getting the details of what he would have seen and what he takes for granted. I'm not a purist when it comes to "the masters". Fighting does not exist in a bubble, especially European styles where everyone has tried to invade, enslave, conqueror and steal from everyone else.
Swetnam is a bit vague in places, which I think is fair- since precision is developed over time and you can't improve if you're dead (which is his basic reasoning behind the naming of his "true guard", it keeps you alive for long enough to become adequate) But without an idea of the threats he would have faced on the street, I cannot be sure of my interpretation. He was writing in early 17th century London. A city chock-full of random nationalities and foreign masters who said that they were the best and in an area where things were proven very quickly and, sometimes, fatally.
So what does this mean for me? I guess it means that I'm going to be working on how rapier and associated sword play occurred on the streets of my city and that I'm having to look into Saviolo as a counterpoint (and maybe a bit of Silver.. but not much).
It's going to be quite complex and a real pain in the arse in places- but my interpretation is going to be shaped by knowledge of his contemporaries. Ignoring the fact that students of Saviolo and Swetnam (and others.. but one step at a time) were in such close proximity means that I'd miss important points and clues given by context. I also suspect that Swetnam was used to teaching people who knew the longsword.. a situation I've found myself in.
If I want to be a good teacher- I have to know this stuff. And if I get this all down properly, I won't be teaching "Rapier and Dagger as described by Swetnam" but "Early 17th century sword play: Rapier and Dagger as it may have been seen on the streets of London." Which I like- after all, one of the reasons I'm doing HEMA rather than some oriental art is because of the cultural relevancy and the way it can bring some aspects of history to life.
I also believe that fighting is heavily defined by both culture and environment and that it is easy to lose this aspect of our understanding when we fight in gym halls and wide, open fields. Or when we talk about the "best" weapon/master/school/blah blah blah. The best? At least nowadays, is the one you like the most.
For me, the rapier makes much more sense as a weapon if you go into the City of London and explore the alleyways that litter the area. The layout hasn't changed much over a few centuries and if you grew up in a place like that, you would not think of a longsword as a valid weapon to carry. You can't use a powerful cutting weapon in a location where any good swing will take out more brickwork than flesh.
Anyway, I believe I'm starting to digress. I'll be trying to keep this updated a bit more- I'll be putting up things about my notes/interpretations and suchlike once I've translated my them into something that may possibly be understood by someone who isn't me... and I've figured out how to present them.
Once they're up- I will welcome constructive criticism. I know I'm missing bits and there are things that I've not stated because they are obvious to me and me alone. And sometimes I'm probably going to be just plain wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)