Silver and the Rapier.

As I'm sure I've stated before, my introduction to HEMA was through Paradoxes of Defence and it would be foolish to pretend that bias and language of understanding isn't my default setting when working on concepts. While I'm prepping for the class (and all that entails) I'm trying to throw my net a bit wider so I can avoid tunnel vision and see how concepts relate to each other. I don't believe that there's one ultimate fighting system (unless you count "whatever keeps you intact") and what is devastating in one pair of hands can be useless in others. This means that rote based plays have a limited appeal me- they're good for getting the grasp of a concept but beyond that, it's quite artificial. Once the basic moves are in, you need to work on feints and getting the feel of them, and especially on not knowing if something is going to be a feint or not. (anyway... I digress) So, I've picked up Silver again, to see if I can find some kind of framing device for my thoughts and I think there's a decent amount of room for "why he said this about the rapier, and why it's wrong". After all, how the methods and techniques interact is a valuable point of HEMA- London being as cosmopolitan as it is/was/will forever be means that you were likely to meet other schools and fight against different styles. Which means there's a lot of influence and mixing of ideas and concepts. Swetnam advises against being cocky if you see a sloppy guard- simply because of the variations in schools. It may be a sure guard that you are unfamiliar with and you should hold judgement unless you really know your lines of attack. Which comes back to the "what Silver said" idea. I should compile all his rantings about the schools of the rapier, read what he says and compare it to the other sources. Ending with what I suspect will turn out to "and this is why Swetnam says do this"