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.