George Silver - English backsword part 2 - Fencing theory
- HEMA 101 admin
- 2 hours ago
- 8 min read
This is an interpretation of George Silver's “Brief instructions” work, incorporating aspects of his “paradoxes” work.
Silver’s fencing theory
The fight is to be conducted according to the 4 governors and the 4 grounds.
The four grounds are: Through judgment you keep your distance. Through distance you take your time. Through time you win the place.
The four governors are judgement, measure, and the twofold mind - to go forwards always with a mind to go backwards. The governors and the grounds are related (with the first two being more or less identical).
Judgement
Judgement is about understanding what your opponent can do based upon the guard they are in and how far away they are. ‘Look to their grip’, i.e. look at their hand and at their guard position. Also understand which of the four actions they are in.
The four actions
Silver says that we can characterise a person's actions into four parts (he doesn't explain these so this is my interpretation):
Bent is presumably when someone is lying ready to attack, with arm bent or retracted, with potential energy to make an attack.
Spent is presumably when someone is making an attack (they are spending their energy).
Lying spent is presumably when the attack is finished but they have not begun to retract their arm.
Drawing back is presumably when they are bringing back their arm or preparing a new attack.
Silver doesn't say how we should use these actions, but we can surmise that this is a key to judgement, i.e. understanding what our opponent can do and how they can hurt us or otherwise. Clearly if our opponent is bent or spent this is dangerous, suggesting this is our time to defend, but if they are lying spent and drawing back, this is our time to attack.
Distance
Distance is about the measure of your opponent, i.e. how many steps they must take to reach you with their weapon.
Silver only names one or two distances:
first distance, and he says that this is where variable play (rapier play) is effective. He doesn't explain what first distance is, so I presume it is the first distance at which you can hurt your opponent by taking a step forwards with the attack.
The half sword is presumably also a distance, where the swords can cross at the middle, also called the close fight.
However, since the true times (see below) also give us distances, I don't think we gain much by defining distances with other names.
These videos by Chris Connor are quite interesting and expand upon the distances:
Time
Time is the length of action that needs to be undertaken to hit your opponent - or to be hit by them. This is related to measure (the distance to your opponent) but also space (the distance that your sword is to their sword, and the distance you must move your sword left, right, up or down in order to ward off their attack).
Silver breaks down time into 4 true times and 4 false times.
True times are whatsoever is done with the hand before the body, and false times are whatsoever is done with the body before the hand. 'Before' likely means 'ahead of' or 'in front of' rather than a strict ordering of action, but it could mean both.
The 4 true times are:
The time of the hand (quickest, shortest action)
The time of the hand and body
The time of the hand, body and foot
The time of the hand, body and feet (longest, slowest action)
The false times are:
The time of the foot.
The time of the foot and body.
The time of the foot, body, and hand.
The time of the feet, body, and hand.
Silver doesn't explain these times very well, so we are left to interpret his meaning. Much ado has been made of them in recent years, but to me the true times are clear: actions of the hand are fastest and actions of the foot/feet are slowest. True times always start with the hand moving first (i.e. a cut) and feet follow. A cut without a step is fast, but a cut with a step is slow because the hand has longer to travel. The cut is completed with the step and not before, otherwise it would fall short. This is all basic stuff.
False times, on the other hand, are basically when you step into danger without some sort of blade action. Stepping forwards without a cut is a false time, doing the same with a cut proceeding the body is a true time.
These are universal fencing principles, but there is some controversy over whether Silver himself considered an attack made with a step to be a true time or a false time. Some have argued that the true times are all performed in the time of the hand and that Silver never wants us to attack in anything other than time of the hand. Indeed, Silver does like time of the hand actions, but this doesn't mean that all true times are equally good and that all true times are good to use and in all circumstances. The beauty of the true times is that they give us a solid theory of fencing:
A time of the hand attack is as fast as a time of the hand parry, but because the first mover starts sooner, the first action will almost certainly finish before the opponent can fully react. This is why fighting in close distance is extremely dangerous.
A time of the hand, body and foot/feet action is slower than a time of the hand action. In other words, an attack made with a step can almost always be defended with a parry made with only a movement of the hand. We can make even more time for our parry by stepping backwards.
While a time of the hand, body and foot/feet action is not a reliable way to attack an opponent who is able to defend in the time of the hand (no one ever said all true times are equally good), regardless of how slow it is, a true time action will beat it's equivalent false time action (and perhaps all false time actions). If my opponent steps forwards towards me with the foot but no hand action, I can attack in time of the hand, body and foot, converging distance and landing a blow.
All of this is in line with Bolognese theories of tempo, and in particular Dal’agocchi’s five tempos (which I discuss below).
Silver’s true and false times are trying to solve the same problem: in fencing, in order to attack my opponent I must get close enough for my opponent to hit me. If I close distance first in an attempt to get an attack off first, the very the act of closing distance gives my opponent the time and opportunity to hit me first. If I attack with a step then my attack is slow and can always be defended against. Therefore, how do I safely and successfully attack? It's a paradox, and Silver is attempting to solve this paradox with his fencing approach.
So, to summarise 'time', based on our good judgement of what our opponent can do and how far he or she is from us, we have a sense of how much time is required for an attack and how much time is available for a counter/parry.
Stephen Hand has a very good series of videos on the true times. I'll put the first below and then link to the rest:
The place
With our knowledge of time, we seek to win 'the place'. The place is defined as where you can attack your opponent without requiring a step - either because one isn't required, but presumably also because a step has just been completed with the attack. The true place, then, is where you can safely attack your opponent without a step, but they cannot attack you. Winning the place gives you an opportunity to attack, whereas losing the place puts you in grave danger.
Time and place are to be governed by the ‘twofold mind’, that is, whenever you move in and/or attack, you must also seek to ‘fly out’. So, being in the place is temporary and you must retreat instantly. Keep both concepts in mind - come in, fly out.
Summary of the 4 grounds
To recap: through judgement (experience) you understand what your opponent can do or wants to do, so you keep yourself at the required distance to prevent that and to allow you to do what you want to do. Your distance determines what time you and your opponent can operate in, and through manipulation of this time (both true and false times) you get close enough to win the place, attack your opponent and instantly fly out. That is Silver’s fencing theory in a nutshell. It's quite neat.
The method
Silver primarily expects our opponent to win us the place, or in other words Silver expects our opponent to step into the distance at which we can hit them safely. He does not seem to explicitly advocate that we step into this distance ourselves, even with a true time attack made with a step, as the true time of the hand will beat this every time and we would essentially win the place for our opponent with our coming in - unless, of course, our opponent is operating in false times or is making a disadvantageous action. Exactly how Silver expects us to attack our opponent is quite a hotly debated topic in itself, but really it isn't all that different to Dal’agocchi's five tempos, which state that it is unsafe to attack your opponent unless:
You have just parried their attack (they are lying spent, you can attack in the time of the hand)
They have attacked and missed (they are lying spent, their arm is within your time of the hand)
They are drawing their hand back to prepare an attack (they are drawing back, you can attack in time of the hand and foot fairly safely, or they might be in the time of the hand distance)
They are changing guard (I'm not sure how Silver's theory would classify this)
They are stepping forwards (or have their foot raised, and so are in a false time if their sword is not preoccupying us)
These are all manipulations of time and distance, where you attack because your opponent has failed in their attack, or because they operated in a slower true time (e.g. they attack in time of hand and foot, you parry time of hand or you void in time of body or foot), or they are operating in false time - they step forwards and you attack with their coming in, either in time of the hand or hand and foot, etc. Or, they are making one of the four actions that gives you the time to act, e.g. they are lying spent (they've missed you) or are drawing back (they are preparing an attack). Dal’agocchi also gives a 6th time, which is when you have an advantageous crossing, and this aligns with what Silver suggests that you can also win the place under guard.
This gives a very cautious way of fencing where you need to be very cognisant of what your opponent can do to you if you make a hasty and ill-considered attack. You need to be a ‘patient agent’, meaning you are trying to wait for, or encourage, your opponent to make a mistake that gives you the place. This is basically Silver's answer to the paradox mentioned above - how do you get close enough to the opponent to safely hit them? Answer: let your opponent win the place for you and attack them as they do this.
The next post will look at how Silver expects us to put this theory into practice.
Comments