Silver's 2-handed sword: length, technique

[Justin White-Lowther]

In the Brief Instructions (Ch. 10), Silver states:

"These weapons are to be used in the fight as the short staff, if both play upon double & single hand, at the 2 hand sword, the long sword has the advantage if the weight thereof is not too heavy for his strength that has it, but if both play only upon double hand, then his blade which is convenient length agreeing with his stature that has it, which is according with the length of the measure of his single sword blade, has the advantage of the sword that is too long for the stature of the contrary party, because he that can cross & uncross, strike & thrust, close & grip in shorter time than the other can."

With respect to the staff fight, he says that it's best to "play both double and single handed." Given that, the above paragraph seems to indicate that the longer sword has the advantage, weight permitting, when properly employed. In that case, why would its perfect length, as described in the original Paradoxes, be equal to that of the single handed sword, rather than tending towards the perfect length of the polearms, insofar as blade weight would allow?

Any insight into this would be much appreciated!

[Taylor Ellis]

Given that, the above paragraph seems to indicate that the longer sword has the advantage, weight permitting, when properly employed.

I'm certainly no expert, but I'm guessing the two handed sword's advantage lies in it's extended handle and cruciform hilt, neither of which his short sword had. So, perhaps the variety of techniques available (windings etc) and the "style" of the fight makes for an advantage?

I'm not too sure, but hopefully Steve, Mark or Andrew or someone could help you out here?

[Stephen Hand]

Originally posted by Justin White-Lowther
Given that, the above paragraph seems to indicate that the longer sword has the advantage

But the paragraph you quoted clearly states that the shorter sword has the advantage. The statement "if both play upon double & single hand, at the 2 hand sword, the long sword has the advantage" means that the longsword (the Elizabethans used this term to mean both a long single handed sword and a a hand and a half sword) has the advantage over the longer two handed sword. Further down he says that the sword of perfect lenth has an advantage over a sword greater than the perfect length (for that person - see Paradox 19).

It's all about being able to uncross within distance.

Gotta go to training.

Bye
steve

[Matt Easton]

Yes.... The problem for me in understanding this is that it sounds like Silver's short sword has quite a long blade, or his long sword has quite a short blade. What length of blade for a man of around 6 foot tall do you think he is suggesting Steve?

I've handled a very nice civil war period (1640's) mortuary sword with a blade of about 37 inches. I didn't feel that long because of the degree of distal taper. Certainly 37 inches is a nice length (speaking personally) for a long sword.

But then... People with longer swords and two handers can be really difficult to fight. They may be slower to uncross, but the distance compensates.

And how do Silver's comments about uncrossing relate to rebatting/beating/deflecting/counter-cutting? In these the blade uncrosses often simply from the force of the action itself.

Dazed and confused,

Matt

[Justin White-Lowther]

Originally posted by Stephen Hand


But the paragraph you quoted clearly states that the shorter sword has the advantage. The statement "if both play upon double & single hand, at the 2 hand sword, the long sword has the advantage" means that the longsword (the Elizabethans used this term to mean both a long single handed sword and a a hand and a half sword) has the advantage over the longer two handed sword.

I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation of that statement. To me, this passage seems to say that both fighters are using "the 2 hand sword", and that the longer of these has the advantage, provided its wielder employs both double and single handed techniques.

The title of the section is "Of the two hand sword fight against the like weapon". In the context, it seems to me that "long sword" means "longer sword". Otherwise, why add the comment, "if the weight thereof is not too heavy for his strength that has it"? The implication is that the "long sword" risks being more heavy and unwieldy relative to the opponent's sword -- which is two-handed -- but otherwise has the advantage.

Further down he says that the sword of perfect lenth has an advantage over a sword greater than the perfect length (for that person - see Paradox 19).

Yes, but he qualifies that: "if both play only upon double hand." The description of the staff fight implies that this is an inferior method.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this section, considering that the whole thing consists of one paragraph, but I don't understand why the perfect length for a weapon to be used like the staff should be so short in comparison.

[Matt Easton]

I can hear the hooves of Paul Wagner's horse in the distance.... a cloud of dust... I am sure he's on his way - Paul's well into English two-handed sword.

[Matt Easton]

Originally posted by Justin White-Lowther
but I don't understand why the perfect length for a weapon to be used like the staff should be so short in comparison.

Neither do I really - but I have heard the explanation that it is because the weight of a sword is greater for its length... and Silver says something about lengths and weights and their relation.
It's all far too complicated for me - the bigger the better I say!

[Paul Wagner]

..gallop...gallop...gallop, whoa there, Silver!

oka, where to start?

"Yes.... The problem for me in understanding this is that it sounds like Silver's short sword has quite a long blade"

Yes, it does, and his ideal two-handed sword is supposed to have a blade of the same length. As Steve pointed out, the sword must be short enough to uncross within distance and hit the other chap - a sword or rapier of above Perfect Length can't do that. In Silver's system, then idea is to close in and "choke up" any attack with a "true cross", then uncross and hit the other chap before he can escape. That's why he says that the sword of perfect lenth has an advantage over a sword greater than the perfect length (for that person - see Paradox 19).

This means that;

"if both play upon double & single hand, at the 2 hand sword, the long sword has the advantage"

...has a couple of interpretations. The first is what Steve said - that a "long sword" is a hand-and-a-half longsword, as opposed to a bigger two-handed sword.

While I'm sure that Silver's use of the term "long sword" did mean a hand-and-a-half (eg "You may also use this fyght, against the longe sword, or longe rapior, syngle & dubble" (Cap.4 Pt.16) - the "dubble" meaning both hands), I actually prefer the other interpretation which is, as pointed out, that the sword of perfect lenth has an advantage over a sword greater than the perfect length *for that person*. In other words, a tall chap can have a longer sowrd of perfect length, and thus get an advantage. It's significant in single-sword, more significant in two-handed sword, but is very obvious in the staff fight, where the height difference between two combatants is magnified considerably in the lenghts of their staffs.

Which brings us to:

"I don't understand why the perfect length for a weapon to be used like the staff should be so short in comparison"

The simple answer is because a staff is a "double weapon" ie it has two offensive ends - tip and butt. English staffs were held with one hand roughly in the middle, one hand down towards the butt, giving a long bit for fighting at long distances, and a short bit for close in. If the enemy gets past the long bit, you've always got the butt end to defend yourself with. You can also slip your hands around to adjust the lengths.

"And how do Silver's comments about uncrossing relate to rebatting/ beating/ deflecting/ counter-cutting? In these the blade uncrosses often simply from the force of the action itself."

Silver doesn't really distinguish between a hard "stop"-type parry, a beat, or a deflection. As you point out, in some of those cases the "uncrossing is quicker and more immediate than in others. More importantly is to be in the right "place" in order to uncross, so ideally your opponent can't hit you but you can hit him.

If you close distance and "choke up" the blow at it's source, whether with a hard stop, a beat, a deflection, or whatever, you should be in a position to uncross and hit the other chap with the "time of the hand" (which is quick), before he can "fly out" with the "time of the foot" (which is slow). But you have to do this in the right "place" so the other chap can't do the same to you.

Paul

[Justin White-Lowther]

Originally posted by Paul Wagner
..gallop...gallop...gallop, whoa there, Silver!

Ouch. Anyway, thanks very much for the input, though I'm still unconvinced about certain points.

While I'm sure that Silver's use of the term "long sword" did mean a hand-and-a-half (eg "You may also use this fyght, against the longe sword, or longe rapior, syngle & dubble" (Cap.4 Pt.16) - the "dubble" meaning both hands), I actually prefer the other interpretation which is, as pointed out, that the sword of perfect lenth has an advantage over a sword greater than the perfect length *for that person*. In other words, a tall chap can have a longer sowrd of perfect length, and thus get an advantage.

The "long sword" in this particular passage can't be a hand-and-a-half, even though it may be elsewhere, since Silver's worried about it being heavy compared to the 2-hander it's matched against. As far as the advantage of height -- hmm, I hadn't thought of that possibility, and it does make the section consistent with the prescribed weapon lengths. However, the section then seems to contradict itself instead.

There's a contrast established between two types of fighting: "double and single hand", and "only upon double hand". In the former, "the long sword has the advantage if the weight thereof is not too heavy for his strength that has it." It's interesting that Silver would refer to excessive weight, specifically, as the problem; usually he mentions excessive length. Regardless, he then follows this clause with the contrast: "but if both play only upon double hand, then his blade which is of convenient length. . . has the advantage of the sword that is too long for the stature of the contrary party." The implication is that this is a different state of affairs from the first case, which in turn would imply that the blade of "convenient length" does not have the advantage in the first case.

The structure of this passage is even more obnoxious than is usual for Silver, unfortunately.

Which brings us to:

"I don't understand why the perfect length for a weapon to be used like the staff should be so short in comparison"

The simple answer is because a staff is a "double weapon" ie it has two offensive ends - tip and butt. English staffs were held with one hand roughly in the middle, one hand down towards the butt, giving a long bit for fighting at long distances, and a short bit for close in. If the enemy gets past the long bit, you've always got the butt end to defend yourself with. You can also slip your hands around to adjust the lengths.

That's a reasonable response, and to a large extent, I agree. Strikes using the guard and pommel are still possible with the sword, though, and something like a zweihander has a respectable range of locations to grasp, even without placing a hand beyond the secondary guard.

[Matt Easton]

I can't get my head round something:

Why is a longer blade slower to uncross?

If Silver moves 'inside' an attack, to choke it up, crossing blades, then the uncross time will be exactly the same for the longer and shorter blades.
The only difference is distance - It could even be argued that the longer blade would hit first because less distance must be covered and the tip moves at a greater velocity.
This supports my limited experiences of fighting people with longer swords - they can hit you much quicker than you can hit them (uncrossing from a cover or rebatter). The only exception comes when the weapon becomes so long that it is unwieldy, and this is not a flaw in the weapon, but in the strength of the person.

Hmm... I'm genuinely confused!

And I thought Silver's short staffe section mentioned 'setting aside', with great force?... This sounds like a rebatter to me.

Help! I'm drowning.... glug...

[Gregory Mele]

Originally posted by Matt Easton
I can't get my head round something:

Why is a longer blade slower to uncross?

If Silver moves 'inside' an attack, to choke it up, crossing blades, then the uncross time will be exactly the same for the longer and shorter blades.
The only difference is distance - It could even be argued that the longer blade would hit first because less distance must be covered and the tip moves at a greater velocity.
This supports my limited experiences of fighting people with longer swords - they can hit you much quicker than you can hit them (uncrossing from a cover or rebatter). The only exception comes when the weapon becomes so long that it is unwieldy, and this is not a flaw in the weapon, but in the strength of the person.

Hmm... I'm genuinely confused!

Matt,

It's slowe to uncross, the same reason a rapier would be, if you cut with it. The length of the weapon is gets in its own way.

Think of it this way. Say we have both s truck with a good "downright blow" (squalembratto/fendente), so our swords are crossed. If our swords are crossed because I've stepped *in* to make a ward. A few things could happen. I can "uncross" by simply cutting roverso, insdie your guard, across the face or arms. If my blade is too long, by stepping in, I can't really make this cut well, unless I make another step off-line first. That puts me into a false time, and well, you know what George thinks of that.

Another option is much like one of the Ringeck longsword plays. We're crossed, and you try to press through my sword. I "uncross," by going weak, and cut around to the otherside. Again, if my weapon is too long, I can't clear *yours.*

These are just two examples that come readily to mind. But basically, it seems to me that SIlver is looking to fight inside the man's guard, once he's crossed, by immediately countering with a cut. Too long a weapon, and you can't do that.

Of course, a 37" blade, married to a two-handed grip, equals a good 46" sword, a pretty common longsword. A bit short, perhaps, but fairly common.

I hope that helped.

Greg

[Paul Wagner]

>>In the former, "the long sword has the advantage if the weight thereof is not too heavy for his strength that has it." It's interesting that Silver would refer to excessive weight, specifically, as the problem"

I think all that bit means is if your longsword is too heavy you can't fight effectively with it one-handed (making it a purely "two handed sword"), this limits your options. Particularly for counter-cuts and -thrusts on the backwards pass (of which there was a lot in the English style). Being able to switch to a single-handed grip can give sudden and significant advantage in reach, so if your weapon is not too heavy to do this, it is good. Thus, lengths being both Perfect, he with the lighter single- or dubble- grip sword hath the vantage over he with the heavier dubble-only grip sword.

>>>he then follows this clause with >>the contrast: "but if both play only upon double >>hand, then his blade which is of convenient >>length. . . has the advantage of the sword that is too long for the stature of the contrary party." The implication is that this is a different state of affairs from the first case, which in turn would imply that the blade of "convenient length" does not have the advantage in the first case.

I understand your arguement, and it's certainly logical, but I don't necessarily think it's right. I believe he's saying "a Perfect Length always has the advantage over longer-than-perfect or shorter-than-perfect length, if your "perfect length" is longer than your short opponent's you have an advantage, and a sword light enough to be used in one- or two- hands has advantage over one that's too heavy for single handed use - unless, of course, you don't use the single handed option, in which case the weight doesn't matter so much."

Paul

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Greg,

This may have just been something you typed as an example and may bear no resemblance to a real situation or technique. but I don't think Silver would recommend coming in to choke up the blow with a forehand ward (In this case a move akin to Zornhau I guess). I am thinking that if he was lying in an open ward which is the only ward from which a zornhau type defence is possible, he would traverse left and countercut at the arm from a position of safety.

To use the forehand ward, you would either need to slip the forward leg, move away from the incoming blow or hope like hell he doesn't undercut you and remove one of your legs. Remember that Silver doesn't use Ringeck style single time defences.

From my reading (and Steve, Paul and Pete's teaching) I am fairly sure that Silver doesn't make much use of the slip and he says that all your gatherings should be made to your opponent's right.

IMHO a far more likely situation that illustrates the uncross is if my opponent launches a downright blow and I am in Passata. I pass forward into a true guardant ward and make a true cross on his weapon. As soon as the cross is made I turn my arm over and clonk my opponent on the head. This is not a deflecting parry but a stop. Because this is a stop I can attempt to grapple an unwary opponent and make sure my counter will land.

just my .02 (I could well be wrong but I am fairly sure that point up parries against downright blows don't often occur in Silver's system as we know it.)
Stu.

[Charles Gallagher]

A better example perhaps?
The attack comes in from my right I pass in and left blocking it point down, now can I get my hand back far enough to bring my point on line if he is grappling me? If you have an overly long blade then the answer is no if it’s a short blade then yes easily.

Silver has a great deal of respect for grappling, yes he advises against it most of the time but if your opponent has a long blade then I think he would advise getting in close and personal into a position where your opponent cant uncross, where his blade will be fouled by your or his body, but I don’t remember reading him saying this so one of the others will have to advise what Silver actually says to do against long blades.

Charles

[Matt Easton]

Thanks Greg - I'll try and absorb that into my grey-matter.

[Justin White-Lowther]

Originally posted by Paul Wagner

I understand your arguement, and it's certainly logical, but I don't necessarily think it's right.

Likewise. Actually, though, I think your interpretation is "right" in that it makes good sense within the rest of Silver's system. My reading doesn't lead to any particular approach in itself -- it just leads to an inconsistency. If that inconsistency does in fact exist, it's something which any practical application needs to smooth over somehow.

On that note, I'd be very interested in hearing about any experiences anyone might have with matchups between zweihander-class swords and two-handers of Silver's perfect length....

[Justin White-Lowther]

Originally posted by Charles Gallagher

Silver has a great deal of respect for grappling, yes he advises against it most of the time but if your opponent has a long blade then I think he would advise getting in close and personal into a position where your opponent cant uncross, where his blade will be fouled by your or his body, but I don’t remember reading him saying this so one of the others will have to advise what Silver actually says to do against long blades.

Probably the most relevant sections would be Brief Instructions 6 and 8. Section 6 covers grips, and 6.7 says, "Remember that you never attempt the close nor grip but look to his slip, consider [2.8 and 4.26]", the latter of which says, "do you never attempt to close or come to grip at these weapons [single swords] unless it be upon the slow motion or disorder of your enemy". There's nothing in Section 8 (short sword and dagger vs. long sword/rapier and dagger) that would contradict this. In general, his view is that since closing for a grapple involves the time of the feet, "he that first ventures the close loses it". It's different from within the close fight, but if the close fight situation exists, it's probably because someone made a mistake.

His preferred method is to force the longer sword out of place -- which is easier than against the short sword, since the long sword can't make a "true cross in true time" -- cut at the nearest opening, and "fly back".

[Gregory Mele]

Originally posted by Stuart McDermid
Hi Greg,

This may have just been something you typed as an example and may bear no resemblance to a real situation or technique. but I don't think Silver would recommend coming in to choke up the blow with a forehand ward (In this case a move akin to Zornhau I guess). I am thinking that if he was lying in an open ward which is the only ward from which a zornhau type defence is possible, he would traverse left and countercut at the arm from a position of safety.

To use the forehand ward, you would either need to slip the forward leg, move away from the incoming blow or hope like hell he doesn't undercut you and remove one of your legs. Remember that Silver doesn't use Ringeck style single time defences.

Stu,

Point taken, and fair. I'm certainly not doing "English longsword," so Paul and Steve are clearly to be rusted over me. But, while I haven't worked with George much in a long time (until very recently - like Steve's last visit), I did log a lot of time with him, and his short little longsword and staff section was, for a time, the only detailed two-handed sword material I knew of. So here's a few rusty comments from dim corners of my mind

(I could well be wrong but I am fairly sure that point up parries against downright blows don't often occur in Silver's system as we know it.)

Of this I'm pretty sure you are! Again, looking at the staff material:

"7. If he lies upon the thrust then you lie with your space narrow lying up or down with your point in such sort as you may cross his staff, & thereby you shall be able to put or beat by his thrust before it is in full force, & then strike or thrust, ever remembering your governors."

and

"8. If your adversary strikes aloft at any side of your head or body, ward it with your point up & making your space so narrow that you may cross his staff before it comes in full force bearing or beating down his blow strongly...."

So if we are assuming that his longsword fight is largely the same as the staff fight, than certainly we have both point up and point down parries.

From my reading (and Steve, Paul and Pete's teaching) I am fairly sure that Silver doesn't make much use of the slip and he says that all your gatherings should be made to your opponent's right.

He might not make big use of them, but they are theres. From "Of the short staff fight, being of convenient length, against the like weapon. Cap. 11:"


"Against such a one give a slip in the sort, suddenly draw back the higher part of your body a little & your foremost foot withal, & slip in the point of your staff under his staff, & thrust single at him, & fly out with all, so shall you be sure to hit him & go out free."

Now, the two cuts coming together to create the crossed swords was just a way to create a reference point for Matt. Would it happen in a fight? Sure. Is it the best Silver solution? Not necessarily. Your suggested arm-cut is better. (Although, I need to add that this *is* a single-time defence, and is actually also a German solution - that is basically the Krumphau, or one application thereof!

IMHO a far more likely situation that illustrates the uncross is if my opponent launches a downright blow and I am in Passata. I pass forward into a true guardant ward and make a true cross on his weapon. As soon as the cross is made I turn my arm over and clonk my opponent on the head. This is not a deflecting parry but a stop. Because this is a stop I can attempt to grapple an unwary opponent and make sure my counter will land.

And you know what, I totally agree. In fact, i'm feeling rather stupid for not thinking to mention this!

Best,

Greg M.

[Paul Wagner]

Hi Greg,

"Of this I'm pretty sure you are! Again, looking at the staff material:

"7. If he lies upon the thrust then you lie with your space narrow lying up or down with your point in such sort as you may cross his staff, & thereby you shall be able to put or beat by his thrust before it is in full force, & then strike or thrust, everremembering your governors."

Ok, very slippery

The difference with staffs, of course, is that in the point-up ward ("Low Ward"), the butt end reaches pretty well to the ground anyway, so you can't fall under it. So point-up parries are perfectly safe. This is not so with long or short swords.

In fact, it was precisely this difficulty that initially led me to dismiss Silver's suggestion to "do longsword like staff" when I first read it - but then I looked a bit more carefully

Paul

[Gregory Mele]

Originally posted by Paul Wagner
Hi Greg,


Ok, very slippery

The difference with staffs, of course, is that in the point-up ward ("Low Ward"), the butt end reaches pretty well to the ground anyway, so you can't fall under it. So point-up parries are perfectly safe. This is not so with long or short swords.


Paul

Hiya,

But of course, those two feet of staff stick out behind your hand like a huge pommel. It's certainly no easier to move the staff across the body than it is a longsword.

Like I said, my SIlver is fuzzy, but for a long time (after '92) he and diGrassi were the only longsword material I had, so I have at least played through these.

There is no more common guard depcited in any longsword source, iconography etc, then some form of Open Ward, and some form of "Low Ward." Indeed, it's where everyone instinctually ends up when fighting unarmoured.

These instructions work fine with a longsword. It's more difficult to undercut with a two-handed weapon than a single, and in this position, you've pretty much shut off everything from the mid-thigh up. And, of course, play 7 specifically is used against the thrust. Play 8 is against the cut, but note the admonition to make your space "so narrow that you may cross his staff before it comes in full force bearing or beating down his blow strongly"

If you do this, the leg on the side he is cutting is refused, and he really can't undercut you. Your leg is protected in distance and time.

I'm not sure you're suggesting this, but I don't think we can say that Silver means "it's just like the short staff, but don't ward with the point up," when he doesn't say that. Does such a ward have weaknesses? Well yeah! But they all can be compromised.

Cheers,

Greg