George Silver his resolution upon that hidden or doubtful question, who has the advantage of the Offender or Defender.
Many ardently argue that the advantage lies with the aggressor, to the extent that in a fight between two individuals aiming to attack, the one who strikes or thrusts first is deemed to hold the upper hand. Conversely, others staunchly maintain the opinion that the defender, the warder, maintains an inherent advantage. However, these opposing viewpoints are at odds with both each other and the reality of effective combat, as demonstrated through concise examples.[1]
Should the advantage truly reside with the defender, it would imply that striking or thrusting holds no value. On the other hand, if the advantage belongs to the striker or thruster, then acquiring defensive skills becomes trivial, and seeking to defend at any point would be futile, given that defense is inherently disadvantaged. These examples make it clear that if combat is to possess any semblance of perfection, both sides' opinions are erroneous. If the striker or thruster indeed holds the advantage, the defender remains vulnerable to injury or even death. Conversely, if the defender holds the advantage, the striker or thruster struggles to defend themselves against the defender's advantageous counteractions, as the defender capitalizes on every attack directed at them.
Thus, my conclusion is this: if perfection exists within the realm of the Science of Defense, all prevailing opinions are misguided. To provide clarity and satisfaction to all, I offer this resolution: there is no inherent advantage or disadvantage for the striker, thruster, or warder individually.[2] Instead, significant advantage lies in each role—striker, thruster, and warder—but within a certain context.[3] In combat's perfected state, the advantage emerges within the interactions between the participants, irrespective of their roles. Put simply, whoever attains the advantageous position in terms of proper pace, distance, and timing holds the advantage—be it the striker, the thruster, or the warder. This, in essence, is my conclusion.
_______________________________________
[1] In combat the question of who is more advantageous, the offender or the defender, has always been debated. Silver provides the best answer: neither are more advantageous. He then elaborates on this answer by giving examples of the pros and cons of each.
[2] The aggressive fighter is typically the one who consistently is the first to attack and take the initiative. During a bout, this type of fighter will start most of the engagements and typically uses a combination of offensive techniques to over-power his opponent. It is readily acknowledged by the ancient fencing Masters that the fighter who seizes the initiative is at a great advantage over his opponent who then must defend and attempt to steal the initiative. Stealing the initiative from an aggressive fighter can be difficult as this type of fighter will continue their onslaught and close distance quickly without affording their opponent the ability to retaliate. Aggressive fighters typically move forward and linearly without fear of getting hit themselves. In the tournament scene the aggressive fighters are typically the ones with the most double-hits and are also more susceptible to after-blows. They give little thought to defense, and this is what makes them so dangerous – they don't care about being hit so long as they hit first. This is a calculated risk they willingly engage in. To defeat an aggressive fighter, one must be able to discern the opponent's weaknesses quickly: do they keep their point online, are they presenting an undefended opening, when they are quickly closing distance how will they react if you threaten their centerline? An aggressive fighter typically runs past good measure to close distance and this in and of itself is a weakness in that they are negligent in their defense and open to an off-line attack – always utilize lateral movement against an aggressive fighter as they are predisposed to a linear head-on clash. Also, if you are a strong grappler then the aggressive fighter typically puts themselves within grappling range and is often careless in defending against a grapple. Finally, don't just sit back and play defense without returning an offense or your opponent will have nothing to fear.
The defensive fighter can be a calculating fencer who awaits an opponent's attack to exploit an opening. Any time you attack, even in True Time, you are susceptible for a counterattack. It is the Defensive Fighter's prerogative to take advantage of this momentary opening. A wise defensive fighter understands where his opponent's openings are and when the opportune time is to target those openings. "Labor to parry well, rather than to hit at random by too much ambition or heat of passion." - Lonnergan
There are also defensive fighters who are unwise and typically unskilled – this is the fencer who stands in a stagnant guard like a statue unwilling to move and trying to remember a particular technique that he might use if his opponent attacks with technique A, B, or C. A good defensive fighter is not a stagnant fighter and attempts to provoke their opponents into opening themselves up. This is done through provocations, feints, and movement in and out of measure. A wise defensive fighter is one who understands the rules of engagement and tactically exploits his opponent's weaknesses. A defensive fighter is like a spider which builds a sophisticated web and waits to entrap its prey when he is at his weakest. This type of fighter relies heavily on tempo so that when his opponent is vulnerable to attack (during transitions, immediately after stepping, or after throwing a cut) he can quickly exploit the opportunity. The biggest weakness of a defensive fighter is the inability to defend quickly enough – for example, an aggressive fighter can quickly attack the low-line and subsequently initiate attacks to the high-line thereby disappointing the expectation of the defensive fighter. In fact, it is the expectation of the defensive fighter which is his greatest vulnerability, and a good fighter can exploit this in several ways. Likewise, a smart fencer will also provoke a defensive fighter to move within their expectation and subsequently beat their defense with an unexpected feint or thrust to a different target. Defensive fighters deliberately extend an opening as an invitation to attack but this same strategy can be used against them as well. If a defensive fighter exhibit trepidation, then attack with full vigor knowing that he will be timid in his defense. "Attack a timid fencer briskly; you will disconcert all his measures and put him in disorder" (Lonnergan).
[3] "Whosoever is mindful to exercise himself in this true and honorable Art or Science, it is requisite that he be imbued with deep judgement, a valiant heart and great activity, in which three qualities this exercise does as it were delight, live and flourish." George Silver writes that there are three virtues required for excellency in martial aptitude. Silver mentions the need for a noble heart (courage) and great activity (proficiency and not given to melancholy) as prerequisites for someone engaged in the Noble Science of Defense. He also mentions the necessity to have 'deep judgment' which he discusses at length throughout his treatises. As mentioned in my previous post: Principles of the English Fight, 'judgement' in a martial context simply means that we should make the best possible decision with the resources available to gain the optimum result. In the scenario of swordplay this means we should be able to discern the best application of the tactical principles within the context of the duel. When discerning the best application of tactical principles 'context' is the key to proper discernment and good judgment. The context of a duel varies widely with the propensities of the opponent and the environment of the engagement. Part of using good judgement is in knowing how to quickly discern the fighting style of your opponent. Knowing when he may react and how he may react is 'most' of the battle – we often refer to this as 'sizing-up' your opponent.
Comments