Swetnam, maths and distances.

I have already established that Swetnam counts in base 3. That is- there are 3 ways to do this. way one, way two, way three, way three one, way three two and way three three.

It seems that he has two measurements of distance based on this counting method. Three feet or twelve feet. This leads me to believe that three is a short measure and twelve is a long measure. So, how long is a foot?

Today in the Park

Fightcamp is coming up and I've realised how little sparring I've done since the winter. In fact I've been mostly theory and drilling (poorly) for the past 5-6 months. This means that I will get my arse handed to me in competition.


So, in an attempt to get past that, I spent today in the park with the Saturday Scrappers.  Well, two of them, and tried to get back up to speed. Not entirely successfully though.  I don't think I'm going to be much of a longswordsman, I prefer keeping my hands forward and they tend to creep to places that are only vulnerable because some fool forgot to put a complex hilt on my sword.  I'm certainly not going into competition until I've got that sorted out. Especially with the new synthetic swords- They're  pretty safe, you'll get some good bruises from them, but I really don't want to risk my knuckles in really hard play until  I'm more confident with my guards. Hand injuries are terribly inconvenient.



Since it seems I'm flexing my teaching muscles a bit more, I thought I'd run through a few ideas with the guys. Drills, basic concepts and a little sparring and analysis. Capo-esque for the sparring- It was more a matter of shouting "hold" explaining why they should move their blade in a specific way and then watching them do it a bit more- and Swetnam for the drills and explanations (I only have one dagger). The scrappers are longsword to a man, so I get to worry about the intricacies of rapier rather than distance and all of that.

I am starting to have quite a bit of confidence in my Swetnam interpretations, obviously they need improvement, but I know they're going in the right direction. Today was the first time I saw it from the outside and explaining it to people who were not my esteemed and honourable maestro.What  gives me confidence in my interpretation is how little movement is needed to defend- twist the dagger, straighten the blade and your opponent almost impales himself for you..
 
I set up the drill like this:

A takes the dagger in his left hand and holds in a guard.
B Thrusts at A's face
A parries with the dagger,   After they're used to the idea of blocking with their left, I give the defender a sword and tell them to reply with a thrust at the same time.

Repeat with other guards.

I chose this way for two reasons, as mentioned before I only have the one dagger, the other reason is that it forces you to get used to the concept of an off-hand weapon. I know the scrappers are competent fighters and not exactly a good benchmark for difficulty- however, the cackles and mild swearing as they kept on inconveniencing the attacker or suddenly finding a sword in their face suggests I've found a nice little drill to build up the reflexes and that I have got the guards held properly. They also followed movements through, which I didn't tell them about and pulled them off almost identical to how I think Swetnam describes it.

All in all, a really productive day and a good reminder of why we started these sessions in the first place.

Understanding.

I am a great advocate of teaching as a method of understanding something- So, in a bid to improve my
Capoferro skills and get a local sparring partner, I have started to instruct a lady who doesn't get on too well
with my honourable and esteemed maestro's teaching methods...These things happen, we've all had teachers who were good but not good for us.

Why does teaching help you understand a subject?

Well, I have said this before- revisiting the basics is essential. They are the basics for one reason alone- they are what you will use the most. And it doesn't really matter what system you use for a lot of them, the principles are basically interchangeable. Distance is always going to be knowing where you can stand to hit someone, footwork is always going to be about moving in and out of distance. Guards are related to a specific system, but the reasons for them and why they work are not. Methods of striking are dictated by the blade you're using but are still basically stab 'em or poke 'em while staying behind your blade. You will use these regardless of what weapon and style you finally choose. They'll vary a little here and there, and a lot comes down to personal preferences, but in the end- a solid base in these will hold you in good stead regardless of what you have in your hands.

The basics can get a little tedious after a while.  They are essential, but you will get bored with them until you've realised that your disregard for them is the reason behind that lovely bruise developing on your arm. Which brings me on to the next point.

There's a tendency to reach plateaus and stagnate in this kind of thing. You can get into your patterns and you don't push through to understand something that's been responsible for a different bruise because each time you do it wrong you get hit so your old instincts come into play and you avoid the blow in a different manner- making it harder for you to break through to the next level of understanding.

The best way to slow things down is to try to teach someone else.  Firstly you have to ask questions of the text- why is it like this, what's the best way to demonstrate it, how does this tie in with everything else, and so on. Then, during demonstration and explanation, you will realise you've missed a bit or the person you're teaching will ask a question that you really have to think about. This is good. It's even better when the person you've just explained it to replies with a sentence you wish you wrote.

And all through this process, you're teaching someone that you didn't even notice turning up to lessons. You. As you help that beginner, you're putting yourself through drills you long gave up on because they're boring or you had done enough. You're solidifying the basic rules of a fight.

Then there's the reward of a job well done. Just enjoying the dawn of realisation when an 'impossible' task is made possible and the allegedly complex is proven to be quite simple.

People think that sword fighting is complex, it's not. It has things that everyone agrees on and the rest is a matter of personal preference. What happens in a fight (especially competition) is that things go quickly and you never quite see the stages that make them up- that's the point. So you get a blur of movement, a few exchanges and then someone is hit. Daunting if you don't know how straightforward it is.

Today's session was an hour and a half. I reinforced the guards (which were discussed at an earlier time) then covered stepping into distance, controlling your opponents blade and recognising when your blade is being controlled and stepping out of distance as soon as possible. When she gets these down perfectly, it won't be a thrilling fight but it will be a very, very long one that she might win by accident.

Drink lots of water.

I seem to have let the Saturday sparring slide into the background.  There's a combination of reasons for this, and a few of them are practical.

These are due to the lovely English weather and the antiquated public transport system we have over here. A quick history lesson for those who are not familiar with this amazing city.  The London Underground was the first underground railway line in the world. The first excavations were over a century ago and, as such, there are limitations. The platforms and passageways are fairly small, sometimes going all sorts of bizarre ways. It's not a nice thing to navigate while carrying a big bag of swords.  Adding to this, they've just turned King's Cross into an international station and so you have to deal with a lot of eejits who can't follow basic courtesy like "don't stand in doorways". They've also got bags about the same size as mine. It can be quite a stressful journey at the best of times.

Anyway, back to the heat issue. If you ever come to this fair city and enjoy a pleasant day. WALK. It is for your own good. You do not want to be on the tube, it gets stifling, busy, and very hot- this is England, we don't make provisions for strange things like sunshine and warm days, we're only just getting the first air conditioned tubes. Buses are not much better, and so travel will leave you feeling dehydrated  before you even start fighting.  This is not a good position to be in.

Fighting is hot and sweaty work. The padding and mask only serve to make it worse. I urge you to overestimate your need for water. You don't have to drink it all, but you'll be damn glad the extra litre is there. Be aware of the warning signs.

Heatstroke symptoms are:

• headache
• dizziness
• disorientation, agitation or confusion
• sluggishness or fatigue
• seizure
• hot, dry skin that is flushed but not sweaty
• a high body temperature
• loss of consciousness
• rapid heart beat
• hallucinations

 Dehydration:

• thirst
• less-frequent urination
• dry skin
• fatigue
• light-headedness
• dizziness
• confusion
• dry mouth and mucous membranes
• increased heart rate and breathing

Some of these you might not notice, some you might not have.  However, keep an eye out for them in both yourself and the people you train with and don't try to push through them. Everyone gets more training in if you don't faint.

Remember, hitting each other with swords is fun- treating injuries and life threatening problems is not.

Swetnam and footwork.

If any of you have tried your own interpretations, you will recognise that some bits are bloody useless, some bits terribly vague and some bits are downright contradictory. This, combined with a lack of editing can cause it to be a nightmare. You will get things wrong and you will have to revisit and revise ideas.

For the sake of clarity and honesty, I am only working on a small portion of Swetnam- I may go on to work with other aspects later, but I am picking up the bits that are of interest to me. In fact, for all I know, he may have extensively written on footwork elsewhere in his book.  However, he does not mention it in the bit I'm reading.

OK, he says something about a passing step here and there. However he doesn't say if it's passing offline or passing straight. And so it is a matter of trial and error- does a straight passing step bring you within range of his offhand weapon. He even throws in useful asides about void of the foot.

I've figured out (mostly) what the arms should be doing and it seems to lead the legs.  It seems to be closing at an angle, driving you offline and keeping your opponent at two movements to your one. This thought means that I'm going to have to revisit my concepts of "passage". After all his insistence on thrusting straight, it was hard to imagine passage being diagonal. However, adjusting that thought a little means one or two odd instructions sound a bit easier. I digress- There's just this pattern of movement that feels natural, your feet follow your body, a little twist here and there moves you out of danger and gives you greater reach.

This also adds another layer (although, one Swetnam approves of, he frequently says something along the lines of "if it doesn't feel right, don't bet your life on it")-  am I doing this footwork because it is correct, or does it just 'feel' right. I consider myself an adequate fighter, take that to mean what you will, there is a lot of room for improvement and I am prone to foolish mistakes especially pausing in transitions. Part of the learning process is to admit and be comfortable with your weaknesses- which I would happily list if there wasn't a competition coming up soon- especially when looking at new sources or attempting your own interpretations. We all have preferred actions and it can be tricky telling the difference between preferred and correct, especially when something is counter intuitive (for example stepping into a blow).

There isn't much to work from (I'm covering the rapier and dagger), but that is not a bad thing. In fact, a lot of the confusing bits start to make sense when you realise that instead of a "true" guard that protects from all harm, he uses his "true guard" as a beginner's position, one that allows your flinch reactions to protect you and gain a feel for the subtleties of distance, timing, reading your opponent, having two hands to block with, and so-on. Most of his true guard waffle is loose guidelines for fighting with sword and dagger and things that you will learn by practising from that position. By the time you get to the end of it, you're given guards and that's it- only a few common errors are mentioned.

People tend to confuse simple with lazy. True simplicity comes from reducing all the needless movement and faff from something. You need simplicity in a fight, the more you need to think, the more delay you have between thought and action. You don't want to have to refer to a flowchart if someone is poking you in the face with a sword.

I think, once understood, Swetnam is a very simple system that allows quite complex outcomes.