George Silver's description of True and False times is perhaps the simplest and clearest description of the universal rules of timing in swordsmanship ever written. Unfortunately there is an interpretation of his times that has been popularised in a series of youtube videos that seeks to make his concepts of time and distance different to every other fencing writer who ever lived. This video shows how that interpretation not only doesn't match what Silver wrote about true and false times, but directly contradicts him.
Yep. The evidence certainly seems to support Stephen Hand's view there. 'Tho it might be worth adding that apparently old Silver *did* to a hefty degree contradict the other experts of the time and was thought to be a bit of a radical - The mainstream English view at that time was 'only cut never thrust'. The Continental view was 'thrust don't cut'. Silver's was akin to 'Why would anyone who doesn't routinely drool on their neck ruff want to limit their options? - If it works then do both. Cut, thrust and give 'em a boot in the cobblers for good measure if the opportunity presents'.
Genuinely *excellent* explanation of what Silver was trying to communicate. It makes it live and breathe AND it untangles - or at least suggests a different way of interpretting - what Silver meant. What am I rabbiting about 'untangling'? Well, I had the impression that when stating his True Times, Silver meant Hand, Hand & Body *together*, Hand, Body & Foot together, etc.. In other words, moving them all concurrently. This explanation offered in this video changes that.Steven(?) argues its more like a cascade - Hand leads body leads foot leads feet. First impression is that version seems to mesh better with the concept the true time is where the hand moves first .... Because: * That in turn looks like it will link up with the false time description of leading with your foot or feet. AND * As, just demo-ed, when the risk is that if you bog-up your timing you run out of options - you can't vary your attack to adapt to your opponent's response - having a cascade builds in a narrow but bigger margin of points where you can switch your attack. Can't resist adding: Its not surprising people find Silver's writing a bit heavy going to untangle. In fairness to the guy he was writing at the same time as Shakespear ............... And never mind the 'poetice beauty' or whatever of that bloke's writings, a lot of the time most people are thinking 'Eh WTF'? Silver's *crystal* clear by comparison. & 300 years on and all our sport science and ergonmic reasearch facilities later ..... How come we haven't picked up the baton from George Silver and run on further with it yet? That would be both the greatest tribute to Silver's genius as well as immunisation against the risk Dogma sets everything in stone and blocks development. We need to be scientific and work from: Silver says '____'. Let's test it and see where its valid, where it breakes down and how we can improve it.
Thanks for the praise. Cascade is a nice word. I might use that. On the subject of improving on what Silver and his contemporaries said, see my video "can we surpass the old masters". If we had real consequences for getting it wrong, as they did, then sure, we could improve on what they did. We don't, so we just risk moving away from the martial reality that they described. They "saw the elephant". We never will.
Its like silver forgot the arm has a seperate propulsion point. Being your shoulder. If you tied a gun to a bowling ball and threw the bowling ball, then shot the gun, the bullet wouldn be tied to the same speed as the bowling ball. Even if you had the bullet tied to the gun it would be at its own speed for a bit before being tied to the speed of the bowling ball. So by saying the speed of the hand only goes at the speed of the body is not fully correct perhaps. In the end imo what matters is being aware and making sure you have the faster tempo vs thier slower when needed.
Just watched, and I find yours interpretation very reasonable (but I'm complete noob in fencing - even if I'm interested in the matter from few years now, I've never had occasion to join any lessons/trainings). Still - I read Silver's Paradoxes and Comments now, and I wonder how to connect this wit concept of being in place and out of place for action. Because it seems to suggest, that one with need to make a step, to close the distance to succesfully finishe intended action, is actualy out of place, than slower. And this way he/she leaves time for "patient" to react. This is old english, however, and I'm not a native speaker, so maybe I don't understand this properly. But for me it feels as quite defensive system in with you try to provoke enemy, to perform actions out of place (by keeping distance). In this way he/she enters your place. At this moment (and you had "pleanty" of time for judgement) you can act whatever you like, being this attack into his/her attack (and you are propably quicker in this, because you don't have to - but you can - step in), parry&attack, or some evasive action (step back, sidestep etc.). I mean - when you combine "times" with concept of "place", it feel somewhat more like Oz's interpretation is not that wrong actualy. But as I said, maybe I still don't understand something.
+Jim Giant Well, there have already been several. My old student Paul Wagner (for many years now, my fellow instructor at Stoccata - but I taught him Silver years ago and he shares my views on it) took the Gloriana Cup, the backsword championship of the UK away from the Poms in 2013 and he successfully defended it last year, with my current students getting 2nd and 3rd. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Mr Austwick or any of his students have ever won the Cup.
Stephen Hand I agree with your interpretation too and think Silver makes it pretty clear. It's been been a long time since I heard Austwick's description of true/false times though so I'm not sure how accurately his position has been represented.
8:50 & 9:33 I think Martin's stance on this is best explained in his "Place and Distance" videos, which are essential to understanding his stance on Time. He claims Silver is saying, a true Time attack (as he interprets it) is only performed once you are "in true Place", aka you have to move to the opponent first whilst in a ward or lying to get in Place, and "then" do the strike in true Time (as Martin would describe true time). Martin claims, true Place is being able to hit someone without having to get any closer to them/having to move with your feet. Hence, why he inteprets the Time as he does, as it fits "wholistically" with the other "true fights" (as he understands them), and why he and others have a stance that Silver's system is unique, and is not just describing the standard universal fencing princibles. I think the way you are performing it, is that you are beginning a strike from false Place (at least according to Martin's interpretation from what I've seen), and then you miss as you step in on the attack due to the speed of your hand beating your foot (as you demonstrated there at 8:50 ), as opposed to just being in Place and then striking with (Martin's)Time of the hand. So it's not working for you in Martin's fashion, as you are not standing in true Place (again, according to Martin's interpretation). So your intepretation of times of "hand, body and foot" 17:17 & 17:42 to gain distance to strike, he claims is wrong and is a false fight as it condtradicts Silver's "Place", that all strikes must have reach without having to move in on the attack. Martin's view on Silver I'd say is like a boxer's mentalilty (interesting as he also does boxing), or a knife fighting system, move in, only begin to hit when you know you'll get impact without having to step any further (as that would be bad boxing/knife fighting), fly out/circle about (that being his use of hand, body, foot mechanics; a true Time strike followed by a supplementary movement after or just upon expected impact which results in either chasing down a retreating opponent and cutting off any miraculous narrow escape they may try and attain, or escaping a countering one, aka the times of the body and feet are tools to further ensure you maintain your Place and Distance after/during your attacks & defences). At least that's just my observation/intepretation of what's going on between your views, I could be wrong.
Is there a video to what martin says. To me it makes sense as gain a angle and advanatage out side of range. Approach once in range and under good cover. Get to that arm extension thrust range. Once here if the enemy does nothing attack with your advantage and time of the habd. If he steps to escape hit him in tempo with time of the hand. If he disengages hit him wjtg arm extension thrust and time of the hand. If you fence with full cover your can also use your feet and body for a strong weapon gain and then save your tempo of the hand for the fastest strike. Ive thouggt about this my self so im curious to his interpretation.
@@novacombatarts Yes he has a few videos. I've concluded though that the Stoccata group have the more accurate and practical interpretation of Silver's system, based upon demonstration and explanation (their breakdown against that one group they addressed really sealed this for me, as they were using Martin's interpretations). But if you want to see Martin's work, it's at his channel playlist: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aXHokwB5aMM.html
