Of the false resolutions and vain opinions of Rapier men and of the danger of death thereby ensuing.
This is a significant debate, particularly within the realm of rapier combat: who holds the advantage, the one thrusting or the one warding?[1] Some adamantly contend that the advantage rests with the defender, while others assert with conviction that the thruster possesses the upper hand. In instances where two combatants mutually agree that the thruster holds the advantage, they earnestly vie to deliver the initial thrust. An illustration of this is evident in an altercation between two captains at Southhampton, occurring just as they were about to board a ship. In a state of intense dispute, they drew their rapiers and, driven by desperation, audacity, or what is termed resoluteness, lunged forcefully and with remarkable speed at each other, leading to both of their untimely deaths.[2]
Conversely, when two individuals of opposing beliefs cross paths and engage in combat, a more peaceful kind of conflict ensues. Such individuals genuinely believe that the one who initiates the thrust places themselves at great peril, prompting them to quickly adopt a defensive stance or the secure "Stocata" guard, regarded as the most dependable of all guards, as noted by Vincentio. Thus, they stand ready, exchanging challenges in a cordial yet fierce manner. One says to the other, "thrust if you dare," to which the other responds, "thrust if you dare," or perhaps "strike or thrust if you dare." This exchange continues until one finally declares, "strike or thrust if you dare, for your life."
These two skilled individuals, maintaining their poised stances for a considerable duration, eventually part ways amicably, adhering to the adage, "It is good sleeping in a whole skin." Conversely, when one of the participants believes that the defender holds the advantage, the outcome often follows a different course. In most cases, the bold thruster rapidly delivers a decisive thrust. Due to the swiftness of the motion and the limited timing of the hand, they frequently end up injuring or even killing one another with the points of their rapiers, daggers, or both. This results from their extended defensive measures being insufficient to effectively guard against thrusts in this style of combat, as the spaces they protect are too wide to shield adequately in due time. Furthermore, as the opponent gains the upper hand and the defender's eye is deceived by the rapid movements, they meet a grim fate.
Another misguided strategy they confidently adopt in their quest to eliminate their adversaries tragically backfires. This strategy involves boldly executing a thrust with a "Passata" when they observe their opponent's rapier point straying from the correct line. However, this approach often proves deadly. Their opponent, relying on a shorter interval for hand movement, spontaneously twists their wrist, aligning their rapier point to meet the oncoming attack in the face or body. This misguided decision has cost many lives.
______________________________
[1] It should also be noted again, since Silver has mentioned, that the Italians didn't emphasize defense as they considered a good offense as the best defense (Castle pp. 35-36).
[2] George Silver correctly points out the problem with not having a two-fold mind and negating defense in favor of a good offense. In contemporary HEMA the drive to always take the initiative and the lack of defensive fencing is the primary cause of double-hits and after blows. No doubt Silver would disapprove of the modern interpretation of the KDF fencers who always take the "vor."
Comments