that salt has lasted through the ages!

@@tryingtotryistrying hush, and away with thine exotic spices!

I thought everyone liked pasta...

@@alessandroguarrera2203 only since its become commonplace and seen as a renamed British staple rather than foreign. Ie see what we've done to 'spag bol'

​@@Rynewulf They have that here, in Australia, too. See "chicken parmie."

That's not what he actually claimed in his advantages of weapons, however. He technically gave the long rapier the odds over any single-handed sword with a blade under 37-40 inches, which is the majority of single-handed swords that have ever existed: "And if two shall fight with staves or swords, or what weapons soever, the one of them having his weapon longer than the perfect length, and the other shorter than the perfect length, he that has the longer has the vantage, because the shorter can make no true cross in true time."

Puns are a foil to me.

That was a particularly cutting jest 👏

He is poking fun at the rapier.

That was a perfect modern rendition XD

“Try 1v1 on the battlefield scrub lmao”

He's literally doing the .22 meme but for swords 😂

@@pembertr0n😭

It seemed to me that his gripe was that he sees the two as being one in the same. He disapproves of the duels foremost, but also disapproves of the rapier itself because he considers it inadequate for anything but duelling.

Essentially that it's a weapon that *exists* only for reckless young men to kill each other with over trivial squabbles. It's not a weapon of war or serious self defense, but of senseless and wasteful violence.

He also says that the rapier itself is bad because of the overemphasis on thrusts and the inability to make a “true cross,” i.e. a good bind with an opponent’s blade, because it’s too long and balanced wrong for what he thought the perfect sword should be for a person of a given size. He was very much a man who touted that there was exactly one correct way to fight in any given situation, and that any deviation from that ideal was stupid or clumsy, but I haven’t seen a lot of people that ever take a page from his book in actual sparring, likely because “be perfect” is not really as instructional or achievable for the average person as he makes it out to be.

To quote my master who taught me to respect every weapon. Silver was likely wounded by a rapier at some point, pay him no mind.

Verdadera Destreza is the OPPOSITE of reckless.

Seconded.

I'm unsure. this long format content almost lost me but fortunately i was able to rally halfway through (took an intermission, had to stretch my legs) and finish it. glad I did, but oof yeah at over twice the length of his normal content it was an adjustment to be sure. 😁

@@tryingtotryistrying do you need subway surfers at the bottom?

He commented, on a 2 minute long video. 😂people really just hate the marketing huh

That's really interesting. "True Dexterity" (literal translation, hope I'm not missing anything) was used by noblemen not to hurt eachother, but "Vulgar Dexterity" was used in "real fights"... Excuse me while I go make fun of the Spaniards!

@@Double0Anims the Vulgar Destreza was disregarded by nobility as a form of “art”, lower, not dignified, as it relied on dirty tricks like pulling down the opponent’s hat to blind him, or pulling his beard up instead! Also, it was taught by scoundrels in backstreets and alleys, many times tricking youngsters and naive alike asking for way too much money. The Verdadera Destreza, however, was developed as a science, taking in account angles, directions, circumferences, strong and weak points of the blades… therefore, up to the standards of the most exquisite of the upper classes. Due to its complexity, and the change of dynasty and the culture the new royal bloodline carried, it was later displaced by french style fencing, more adapted to a more refined, less prone to duel outbursts (smaller sword, more comfortable to carry and less strength demanding); but while it was popular, a spanish fencer of the Verdadera Destreza was almost unmatched by any other european style, as the ropera sword was longer, heavier and harder to push aside by smaller french swords, and the defensive mindset was less vulnerable to italian feints that intended to lure the enemy to attack and open a window for a counterattack. The sword was held with the arm straight to the enemy, at maximum distance, while keeping an also straight posture, as to keep the legs further from the enemy. The idea was for the spanish fencer to either maintain the defense (french swordsmen would try to push aside the spanish sword like it was another small french sword and attack on the same step, only for the spanish sword to remain in position and the french stabbing himself), find and open side to attack the enemy or bind the enemy’s weak part of his blade with their own’s strong side. It was not an art depending on fleeting whims of inspiration, but a mathematical science by which one could ensure victory backed up on numbers and calculations.

@@ricardodemarco3486 someone's a fanboy. It sounds like you're repeating the justifications that Verdada Destreza practitioners gave for why one must learn their styles but not critically examining the actual language and listed reasons. It's very easy to say you don't need tricks to fight when you're a rich man who can pay for private lessons and bodyguards. Honour is often simply a class identifier, not actually morally superior, as honour can compel a duel or cruel action as much as it can prevent one. There is something to learn from all styles. And just because Destreza practitioners said they were the objective best doesn't make it so. That being said it still very much interests me and I practice it myself.

​@@Primalintent Everyone said that Spaniards were the best swordsmen at the time, french, inglish, italian, german the turks knew damn well the letality of verdadera destreza. They were feared and for good reason, and their word is worth more than yours, you who did not see it and live in that time and just disregard the history and say wathever.

R1 R1 R1 R1 R1

Can’t forget Bloodhound/Quickstep

Sounds like someone has a SKILL ISSUE

Or Chivalry

@@dylanehooverlibrarian7026 Lmao, good one, but I have people actually say that. Unironically saying that is the equivalent of killing someone in COD with martyrdom and then shouting “NOOB!”

*Koncerz users has entered the chat*

@@cesare_1302 exactly. Them, the rapier users, and cavalry that used the estoc would disagree with Silver.

You stab a man ONCE and he makes it his whole personality these days

Saviolo, was an ex soldier who fought all over Europe. So sort of knew what worked. He was also used a sword of similar length to Silver. I think Silver was just advertising how his style was better than those Italians in the only way available to him at the time. No youtube back then.

@@FriedEdd been a while since i read him but saviolo was seen as eccentric compared to the rest of italian rapier fencing. Important is also what context the manual was made for. Some authors cleary differentiate between the salle and self defense or battle saying that the fencing in the salle will get you killed in street. Military authors do favour swords like silvers or what sometimes is called german military rapier. Best example would be giganti first treatise is salle fencing "the noble manner" the second one is quite different. Depends a lot on the intention of the manual. Fabris reasons in a similar manner regarding some techniques and weapons. Maybe he mixed up saviolo with the rest of the system or saviolo mostly just showed what people wanted him to show(typical italian fencing).

Likewise, it has been a while since I read some of the treatise. Saviolo taught a lot of the Italian 16th century cut and thrust style of fencing. Which the end of the 1500s probably was seen as eccentric, because longer rapiers and thrust centric fencing styles had appeared (these were what Silver hated and railed against) But as far as I am aware, (and I am just a practitioner and not historian so I will bow down to someone better read than I). His self defense dualling advice was a simple stance of coda long stretta with stoccatta strikes, using circular offensive and defensive movement. Not linear attacks or evasion. I don't know if I read it in Silver or if I was told it, but I think Silver called Saviolo to dual but he never accepted. Which if they had rival schools in the same city at the same time, I believe it was just damn marketing by him to write how terrible these Italian fencing styles were. Both probably used swords of similar length, but with a difference in swept hilt style if the Mary Rose sword was typical of the English style at the time.

That meant to say damn good marketing by Silver, not just damn!

His Paradoxes of Defense in a nutshell

"George Silver, after getting perfected by nothing but pokes in neutral" lol

To be precise, it is one sword-wielding *man* vs ten rapier-wielding *Italians*.

His criticisms sounds like all the HEMA people when they shit on olympic fencing. "it's not practical." "It's too far removed from the purpose of swordsmanship." "It's an elaborate game of tag and doesn't take into account the second hit" "It's been turned into a sport."

"Working on the streets" was literally the whole point of this weapon lmao

His vitriol makes it easy to dismiss what he says, but I think he does raise some valid concerns.

"To know the perfect length of your sword, you shall stand with your sword and dagger drawn, as you see this picture, keeping out straight your dagger arm, drawing back your sword as far as conveniently you can, not opening the elbow joint of your sword arm, and look what you can draw within your dagger, that is the just length of your sword, to be made according to your own stature." I'm 5'9" (which is towards the high end of average for an adult male of European Decent), and that means my sword would be around 36-37" total length (which means around a 32" blade, while on the long-end of early medieval arming swords, is actually fairly typical of late medieval arming swords) ... I'm not sure why people keep saying he wanted super long swords. The whole "not opening the elbow joint" and "conveniently" are the important parts of his instruction. He was even good enough to include a sketch of what your posture should look like when you measure the "perfect" sword. Beyond that, he is more concerned with a sword being too long, than too short (the issue with too short of a sword is that you have to be in measure longer against a "perfect" (as long it can be and is still practical) one-handed sword). This is because: "If the sword is longer, you can hardly uncross [remove from the bind] without going back with your feet [retreating steps]. If shorter, then you can hardly make a true cross without putting in of your feet, the which times are too long to answer the time of the hand." It ends up looking like the top left image on Folio 17R of I.33 (albeit with a more upright posture and the point slightly more withdrawn so as to get it behind your buckler/dagger) (1300's) or Plate 18 in the Munich version of P.H. Mair's section on "rappir" (from around 50 years prior to Silver writing). Wrist of your sword arm should not be way behind your body (the "conveniently" part, as you need to be able to move in and out of that position quickly, with ease), should be level with the bottom of your ribcage (the "not opening the elbow joint" part), sword angling up towards your off-hand, and the point should be around the web of your dagger/buckler hand. The guys who say Silver was calling for a 40 plus inch sword for the average man (5'7"-5'10") are pretty clearly not following his instructions (and usually are often trying to dismiss his objections to the common form that the Western European "Rapier" fencing took in his day).

That’s great but he flat out says “The blade to be a yard and an inch for men of mean stature, and for men of tall statures, a yard and three or four inches, and no more”.

Designs by Kate. They do renaissance faire garb.

It's been covered a lot and pretty thoroughly by other channels, so I haven't taken a stab at it myself.

probably something like a arming sword blade in a cup-hilt rapier handle

Personally I think it’s pretty hard to beat a hanger or Langes messer if I had to pick for a more contemporary self defense situation.

@@mythguard6865 Contemporary, I'd say walking stick club for legal reasons. Plus, if you can win without killing, you have an easier time with authorities... Without that, I'd say something like a Wakizashi, but with a D ring handguard, so basically a hanger.

Scottish baskethilt or similar (schiavona). Quick to draw, extremely protective, strong in the bind, vicious cutters that can still deliver the point, comfortable to carry, have specific features there explicitly to counter thrust orientated swords. There's a reason that they were in use for so long, and why Scottish mercenaries were so feared for their charge. Only downside is it takes a while and a lot of practice to get good at it. Whereas rapier is very quick and easy to pick up (but not master).

@@pluemas Schiavona or something like a three bar saber are great weapons, but they're bulky to carry and the hilt can get entangled or keep banging against you when you ride.

@@pluemas BTW: I handled a basket hilted sword, an original in the armoury of Graz. I bet it was three pounds! (1500g, or as much some longswords!) The blade was a bit on the slender side, but quite long for an arming sword and yet quite sturdy. The complex hilt was also a bit beefy and clearly meant to take hits from twohanders, spears, and muskets. It will definitely hit and parry with authority, but it will be a bit sluggish and exhausting to use and that despite it being well balanced.

Swords and swordplay adapted to technology changes, armour changes and culture changes. In the hands of a master any weapon can quickly be used and adapted. Martial Arts practitioners are quite prone to believe that the one they do is superior, they chose it after all. With the benefit of age, experience and variety one learns that it is skill that is superior and not any particular magical technique. The practical understanding of angles, distance and timing and the reflexes to react to those changes is the superiority. Any given weapon will have some tricks, but they are just tricks and not the one true superior technique.

And in fact- maybe there's a valid point here. Rapiers were pretty much marketed to the upper class- easy to carry, great for stabbing peasants and ruffians and showing them what for, you could easily spend as much money as you wanted on intricate hilts and what have you, making them a great status symbol, and of course the marketing that a rapier is much more refined and skill based than all other "crude" weapons. Meaning you would also be wealthy enough to have attended a school for fencing. Probably. But it seems like, for as much as killing power isn't really needed in the self-defence blossfechten of late medieval streets, maybe that's not a great thing. Lotta people being excessively violent, knowing that most people also carry rapiers and thus were less likely to kill you, just give you a real bad day. You have to imagine of all the bullies with rapiers there were, Caravaggio among them, maybe the more arrogant ones would die out if it really were just a little more lethal

Alright details! Caravaggio really is uh, wild. Killed someone and fled, painted a bunch, is described as "after a fortnight's work he will swagger about for a month or two with a sword at his side and a servant following him, from one ball-court to the next, ever ready to engage in a fight or an argument, so that it is most awkward to get along with him." Clubbed a noble over the head and was sued, severely injured another- the pimp! Its said that they got into a duel over a tennis-like game, or maybe gambling, or maybe because carravagio kept using one of the guys prostitutes as a model. He was sued for not paying rent then went and threw rocks at his landlady's Window, wild stuff. As for the pump duel, he was then sentenced to murder, and warrants put out for his beheading! He fled Rome, and when he was finally pardoned for being a rich Italian painter dude, he came back, got sick on the boat and died as soon as he got ashore. Wild!

This is exactly what Joseph Swetnam, who ridiculed George Silver, thought.

The "mostly for duels" mindset kind of goes for most swords, frankly.

They were used by cavalry in warfare and found sufficient. Imagine riding up to someone and stabbing them in the face with a good rapier (104cm blade). They would be dead or screaming.

I don't know if this is true, but I would imagine they're good for travelers. The weapon is small, so carrying it around would be easier in theory.

​@@BimpytheWimpyShrimpy [laughs in Roman legion]

​@@spookzer16 the rapier is actually very long and awkward to draw and carry. It's the reason why the small sword became popular instead, as it was less cumbersome.

Not so secret. He challenged some of the big name rapier masters at the time with a variety of weapons, rapier included. They didn't take him up on the offer. That indicates something considering he was a gentleman and duelling culture was so big to the italians.

Bro is an Elden Ring PvPer!

Dude literally wrote a reddit rant and I love it

I dare say it’s because the rapier is originally Spanish (not Italian, common misconception). Became soon popular in the whole of Europe but the “espada ropera” is originally Spanish

Because rapier was the new shiny thing the kids played with and he was old fashioned.

Rapier is originally a Spanish weapon, but the reason could also be the fact, that he regarded the weapon as weak, due to the width of the blade and its reliance on thrusts rather than cuts, which the sword that he uses was more focused on. Just a thought that I had.

Nationalistic pride aside, he has a few mechanical issues with it / the common approaches to it. He thinks they're too long and inadequate in the cut. He spends a fair bit of ink bemoaning too much length in a weapon in general as he finds them too tangly - difficult to disengage with. The popular form at the time was insufficiently protective in the hilt by his reasoning - which means that you cannot take the guards that he prefers safely. He argued for the equal value of the thrust and cut and turns his nose up at eschewing the cut for the thrust. He generally thinks the methodology to using rapiers to be the peddlings of quacks.

​@@robinswordsThank you for the clarification!