[Renegade Conquistador]

Chris,

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi RC

1. Welcome to the discussion and thank you for the very interesting points you make.

Thank you.

2. RE FMA: Whilst I do not wish to bite into this one, as such discussions rightly belong to MA forums and here we are collectors. But I agree that there are no surviving traditions of old Spanish fencing, save with the later small sword/epee, which in any event were adaptations of the French school, with Hispanic touches added.

According to maestro William Gaugler, modern-day Neapolitan fencers maintain that there is a Spanish element to their fencing, though they don't know what the element actually is. Aside from that (which obviously isn't much, given the sheer lack of details), there is no surviving Spanish swordplay of any kind.

2. Re Double Time & G.Silver:

Several issues here:

a) The notion of what we mean by double time (DT) has to be defined. In modern fencing it is generally understood as being able to parry with the sword's blade in all four lines, something only possible with the light weight smallsword and its descendants.

Broadswords and backswords are actually well-balanced and responsive. Double-time actions (parry-ripostes) are quite feasible with them. As a collector yourself, I would have thought that you would agree on this.

b) If you read my post again, you'll see that I did say that some DT moves are possible with a heavy sword. But only some - Do read that article by Stephan Hand as to why (link given in an earlier thread). The old fencing treatises dealt with fencing in DT with a heavy sword and were unanimous in condemning the practice. A heavy sword just cannot be moved with sufficient speed to intercept all incoming attacks and to successfully riposte.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the German longsword school. I'm talking about Anglo-Scottish broadsword/backsword, as well as later military sabers and cutlasses.

c) Re George Silver: After having been dismissed by generations of fencers as a reactionary who obstinately refused to see reason and preached mostly fallacies, Silver has found new favour with English speaking historical fencers and has gained quite a following. A lot of his writings, as all historical treatises, have to be interpreted with considerable caution and in the light of expertise. To be sure, he made many valid observations worthy of our consideration, but he cannot be uncritically accepted, otherwise totally unwarranted conclusions may be drawn.

What about later manuals of broadsword and saber, then? The parry-riposte is a standard method.

Silver used a sword and buckler, or dagger, or cloak for parrying, as did everybody else in his day when fencing with either broadsword or rapier. Despite Capo Ferro, upholding that the rapier alone was sufficient for defense, the practice of using an auxiliary parrying implement persisted right into the nineteenth century, at least for brawls - Obviously, it was more reliable than relying on the blade alone.

Swords were used alone as well. Basket-hilts are especially suited to this.

All the fencing treatises of the Renaissance era allowed for the possibility that one may have to fight with sword alone and a good deal of their advice, including Silvers', has to be understood in that kind of scenario. Using the sword to parry with had some merit in such a situation, as was parrying with the left hand, but these methods were far from being the preferred option.

Nobody is discounting counteroffensive actions, body voids, "slipping", etc., but the parry-riposte was a greater part of the arsenal of these weapons than you are leading people to believe.

3. Re Leading With The Knife Side:

a) This topic can be debated endlessly and I have my opinions on the matter, which I have already given and my reasons. With that said, we have to distinguish whether we are talking about dueling or general combat situations - My remarks were in the context of knife dueling.

Indeed--a knife vs knife scenario.

b) One can use whatever stance one wishes, but the Spaniards of old led with the left side because they dueled with parrying capes. To do otherwise would mean largely negating the benefit of the cape and eliminating the possibility of advancing with a "pass".

That's fine, but what about fighting with a knife without the use of a secondary?

c) As for the military, generally they are not into knife dueling, neither are they particularly consistent in what they advocate nor are they to be considered as the final arbiters on knife usage - The knife, as the pistol, ranks very low in their priorities, even with special forces. As I am led to believe, the US army currently advocates leading with the left arm and leg, but the Argentinian army prefers a hybrid stance in which the left arm and right leg lead. What is significant in both of these systems is that the free arm is there to parry with.

That said, I take your point about Biddle, though it is held that Applegate did not think much of him and he (Applegate) advocated leading with the left arm and leg.

Why should we favor Applegate over Biddle? Applegate designed a nice knife after the War, but I don't see what makes him "more of an authority" on the subject of knife combat than Biddle.

Applegate was a student of Fairbairn, and you should consider that Fairbairn's curriculum has met its share of mixed reviews (see Robert W. Smith's critique in Martial Musings).

So, to infer that leading with the weak side is better simply because Applegate said so, doesn't mean all that much me.

I read Biddle and he gave me the impression that he had no hands on experience other than in fencing and this was reinforced by his recommending the very questionable Passata Sotto.

I'm not a fan of passata soto for knife fighting either, thought it's at least more feasible with a 16-inch '03 bayonet than a smaller fighting knife.

He gave precious little in terms of technique, except to emphasize that the "scientific" knife fighter attacks the knife hand of his opponent and that there were many advantages to be obtained from using fencing moves - He used the bayonet in the manner of a dueling sabre, which it is not, though even he had the good sense of advancing the unarmed arm so as to be ready to parry.

You said yourself that much of the material on knife combat doesn't amount to a great deal, in terms of technique--Biddle was hardly unique in that department. Look at Applegate's Combat Use of the Double-Edged Fighting Knife and you'll see what I mean.

We have to remember that Biddle was a wealthy socialite schooled in sport fencing who turned soldier; He was enthused, perhaps over enthused by all manner of close combat arts, and much of what he advocated did not reflect military realities or needs. Here is a link to a rather interesting article on him:

http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_Svinth_1201.htm

Military men are forever writing about this and that, with the aim of furthering their careers; Some of their material is sound and a lot not so sound. Also a lot of the stuff in army manuals was put there primarily to build confidence and raise morale, and must be read as such, rather than as definitive technical statements.

That should be considered with ALL "military men", then.

Including Applegate.

Back to the subject of the strong-side lead in a knife vs. knife situation, I would recommend what Cold Steel head honcho Lynn Thompson does--spar it out.

The results will speak for themselves.

Best,

R C