There are four special marks to know the Italian fight is imperfect, & that the Italian teachers and setters forth of books of defense, never had the perfection of the true fight.
I.
The initial mark is their infrequent engagement in unarmed combat within their homeland.[1] Typically, they adopt a defensive stance, wearing a pair of gauntlets on their hands and a sturdy mail shirt over their bodies.[2]
II.
The subsequent mark pertains to the fact that neither the Italians nor their most accomplished disciples engage in combat without experiencing considerable injury. More often than not, one or both participants end up severely wounded or fatally defeated.[3]
III.
The third mark pertains to their failure to instruct their students or include in their texts the precise length required for their weapons. This measure is essential, as without it, no individual can engage safely in combat, whether through natural inclination or learned technique.[4]
When the weapon is excessively short, the timing becomes elongated and the gaps in their defense widen. Conversely, if the weapon is overly long, they become susceptible to peril during any instance where a crossing maneuver occurs, be it executed intentionally or by chance. With a rapier of excessive length, the act of undoing a cross takes longer than the optimal timeframe, often necessitating backward movement with the feet, a period that consistently proves inadequate in matching the speed of the opponent's hand.
Consequently, each person should wield a weapon proportionate to their own stature. A taller individual requires a sword longer than that of someone of average height, to ensure a balanced defense. Similarly, an individual of average stature must wield a longer weapon compared to someone of shorter stature, to avoid an imbalance in defense. However, it is imperative that someone of lesser stature avoids the fallacy of attempting to equal the reach of a taller individual by opting for an unnecessarily lengthy weapon. Such a decision would lead to considerable disadvantage, both in executing a robust cross and in swiftly counteracting it. It also hampers their ability to maintain their point without crossing. When confronted with an opponent's cross, this choice would hinder their capacity to defend themselves, pose a threat to their adversary, or seize the opportunity to regain lost moments.
Furthermore, rapiers that exceed a suitable length corresponding to men's true dimensions invariably prove unwieldy and cumbersome. Such overly long or heavy rapiers fail to swiftly evade the deflections caused by the swift and agile short swords of perfect length. When executed adeptly by skilled practitioners across any of the four fundamental timings and in response to the four primary actions, these swift maneuvers pose a significant risk of strikes or thrusts targeting the hand, arm, head, or face.
In the process of uncrossing from an authentic crossing, there exists considerable vulnerability to receiving a blow to the head or a penetrating thrust aimed at the body or face. Engaging in that juncture and location, the individual initiating the uncrossing motion gains an advantage over the rapier wielder whose weapon, whether excessively long, too short, or overly heavy, hampers the response. The initiator benefits from the guidance of their principles and successfully evades, thus escaping unscathed.
IV.
The fourth mark lies in the inadequate design of the rapier crosses intended for the effective protection of their hands. These crosses fail to exhibit the perfection required to assume the proper stance of the guardant fight, which, without exception, constitutes the foundation of all effective combat techniques.[5]
___________________________________
[1] The first mark against the Italian instructors is that in their homeland they infrequently fought. This is in direct comparison to England where duels and fencing matches were both routine and common. George Silver's point herein is that the Italians lack sufficient combat experience to know what techniques and tactics prove effective in a real combat scenario. Without a trial by combat it is impossible to prove that one's conceptions of combat are correct. Silver seems to be indicating that the Italian style of fencing was more theoretical and artistic rather than practical. [2] Silver points out that in their homeland the Italians fence wore protective equipment which wasn't a common part of English fencing at the time. In England, fencers in prize fights did not wear protective gear and therefore understood and respected the concept of effective tactics and the avoidance of being cut. Utilizing protective gear, the Italians negated the need for such conscientiousness and developed bad habits of tactics that routinely got them injured and killed, which is pointed out in the second "mark." [3] This second mark or indicator is related to the first in that Silver accuses the Italian fencers as having no real combat knowledge and substituting effective tactics with artistic reverie and unfounded intellectual puffery. The second indicator against the Italian masters is that neither them nor their students could engage in a real duel without dying from doubling with their opponent's. Doubling is a common modern problem in HEMA due to the same reasons herein described by George Silver. Like the Italian masters, modern HEMA fencers utilize protective gear which removes the fear of the opponent's blade and thereby the understanding of the consequences of a cut or thrust. Tournament matches are played for points rather than as a preservation of life. This leads to poor fencing wherein fencers utilize bad tactical concepts, such as attacking into an opponent's attack without concern for defense, this leads to consistent doubling in modern HEMA and is the same complaint that Silver had in his era. This is simply bad fencing – it was bad in Silver's era, and it is bad today. [4] Silver extensively addresses the issue of sword length, a matter that posed significant challenges during his time. In Silver's time the English seem to have had a practical consideration of how long an individual's sword should be. However, it appears that it was assumed by others that if a lengthy blade was advantageous, an even longer one would be superior. This perspective created such a predicament that Queen Elizabeth I eventually issued a decree, directing "selected grave citizens" to station themselves at city gates. Their task was to trim the extravagant ruffs and blunt the points of rapiers exceeding one yard in length and ruffs deeper than a yard in dimension. Silver highlights the importance of determining the ideal blade length, which enables the fighter to disengage their sword without requiring a step to uncross it. An excessively long blade becomes unwieldly, while a blade too short disrupts one's timing. [5] Earlier rapiers had little protection against blows as they were designed to be thrust oriented. Therefore, Silver held the view that rapier guards were inadequate in safeguarding the fighter's hand. Therefore, in Silver's Brief Instructions of my Paradoxes of Defense; Silver speaks of defeating his opponent with downright blows. A downright blow was a common defensive counter against an opponents cut or thrust but was especially advantageous against a rapier wielder that didn't have sufficient hand protection. Rapiers would later evolve to include more robust and intricate hand coverage which would then negate this complaint of George Silver. George Silver believed, like many of his English contemporaries and those Masters of Defense, that the guardant fight was the truest of them all. From both true and bastard guardant the whole body can easily be defended and with the closed basket hilt the hand is easily protected so long as it is turned to face an incoming blow. The rapier of Silver's reference didn't have tis protection and therefore couldn’t be used in the guardant fight.
コメント