The Armour Archive

So, one man attacks another. The attacker makes his attack, and the other defends himself. Does the attacker have an inherent advantage over the defender? The defender is not outright surprised, and can follow up his defense with any action he likes.

I am interested in what people have to say.

(edit: let us say that they each have single handled swords proportional to them, and that they are within an inch of each other in height, length of arm and leg, for the sake of the conversation)

I would say that it all depends on the attackers first blow and if it really puts the defender on the defense, then he can follow up with consecutive blows throwing the defender off balance.

If it is a easily defendable shot then the defender has the inherent advantage because he will have a better chance at finding an opening and throwing his shot thus putting the attacker out of position and can counter the agrressor.

That is an opinion from someone who hasn't fought as much as he would like lately so take that with a grain of salt.

Yes, unless no.
...or maybe.

If the attack puts the defender on the defence then yes.
If the attack was set up to be an ambush by the defender then no.
If its neither, then we'll have to wait and see.

I am a novice, at best, in fighting within the SCA sports system. However, I have had many years experience in fighting in general, both competitively and in less friendly situations. I feel that the attacker has an advantage as long as he is attacking. Assuming that he knows how to properly throw his shots. I know people that have mastered the art of counter attacking, which is good, but understand that the best counter attacker must still react off the attacker. With all things being equal, same skill level, same speed, etc. the attacker will win if he keeps attacking, because he is not reacting… he is initiating.

Regards,

William

thanks to everyone so far! I like Kerrick's comments.

So unless one is a good counterpuncher, it's a disadvantage or at best a toss up?

Period defences are taught in a way that when one defends themself accuratley- they are almost always in a great counter attack position. You can also avoid their initial attack all together and do a quick attack before theirs lands. As with all swordsmanship questions it boils down to who is better. The German manuals generally taught a strong offensive mindset, whereas the Italians were more defence first minded. Nobody who studies both seriously would suggest that one is superior to the other. It's just what your preference is. I atlernate between both depending on my opponent, thier capabilities, and what weapons they are using.
Kerrick said that if an attacker keeps attacking he will win because the defender is reacting. I dont think I agree with this because every attack you launch is a reaction to your opponents, posture, guard, movement, ect. The very second you attack, all those things change. You move to a different position, your opponent moves, the footing changes, weapons move, ect. Thus the attacker, if he wishes to keep attacking must REACT to what his opponent did in order to make an effective attack.
We all know of a fighter who has about 2-3 moves in his bag. Most of the time as soon as he(she) takes up his guard, we know exactly what they are going to do. So we wait for him to start his predictable attack and quickly counter where he aint!
All these decisions and reactions happen in fractions of a second, but they do happen on both sides. One is simply not the instigator and one simply the reactor.
With single sword there is usually only one or two exchanges of the sword before there is an opportunity to grapple. So the attacker could "appear" to have an advantage. With a quick displacement, the defender could suddenly step in with an arm bind and very quickly turn the tables. Point being that "advantage" is sort of a fallacy as it can be taken away in just a fraction of a second. Watch rapier fighting. Try to determine, between two farily equal fencers, who has the advantage. There is some stepping, quick footwork, very little blade contact, and BAM its over. just a quick flip of the wrist and someones chest is intimate with his opponents tip.
That was alot longer than I anticipated, but bottom line. If you have two fairly equal fighters, they ought to know how to attack, defend and counter, so there really is no advantage wether you initiate, or chose to wait.

I've heard that I'm a pretty decent counter-puncher. Truth be told, I am not waiting for your shot to commence, I'm already keyed up, just waiting for the target zone to make itself apparent. So, in essence, I've already started my shot, I'm merely waiting for you to flip the switch.

I fight in the "vor".

The German style isn't big on taking the defensive.

Great question!

I think that being on offense is a bigger advantage in the real world than it is under most any sporting rules set. Largely for psychological reasons but also because of the real effects of real attacks, even when defended.

That said...

When I fight spear, I definitely find that it's much easier and safer to counter than to lead. This seems pretty much always true. When I fight a weak opponent, I tend to attack more just to give them a better chance.

When fighting most other SCA styles, offense is often an advantage when you start out "at the time of the hand" as most SCA fighters do. (close enough to hit each other without stepping or leaning)

When you start at longer range, the advantage tends more often to fall against the one who initiates the attack.

When you face belly to belly where your touching your opponent, the same is usually true. Not always. Especially if you are especially tricky.

So what can you learn from that? If you like counterpunching, try fighting at slightly outside your opponent's comfortable offensive range. If you are facing one, try walking calmy forward without initiating an attack so that when you do start the attack, it is at the worst range to defend against (time of the hand)

This is a good topic indeed! Thank you for bringing it up.

I have personally found that a varying approach works. But, if I am fighting someone I have no knowledge of, I am generally the first one to attack. My first attack is exploratory; when I agress at you for the first time, I am looking to see how you react. My counter to whatever defense you execute will be the real attack. So I guess you could say I'm a closet counterpuncher.

It also allows *me* to set the tone & pace of the fight. If I attack first, I get to dictate the fight (unless you're much more skilled than I) which already puts my opponent on a footing to lose. Some fighters try to utilize that to steal the pace & tone of the fight & surprise me, and when they're more skilled than I, it works. However, in theory at least the fight should be over before you steal it from me.

Otherwise, I only attack first if I am certain I can end the fight then & there. There are some opponents whom I am familiar with for whom I must play a waiting game. Defend until the opening comes up.

Fighting (regardless of discipline) is a lot about control, and to my mind if you seize control of the fight and maintain that control all the way through your honorable opponent has no chance for victory unless he is either very very lucky or much more skilled.

I believe that a good offense and a good defense are equally suited. Meaning if the fighters are equal in all things, then both defense and offense are equals as well.

This is where the transition game comes into play. I feel that counter-punch fighters play in transition. Meaning, when their opponent is moving from offense to defense(or vice versa), they act.

Just my thoughts.

Odo

I prefer to key my shots to available openings, much as Alcyoneus stated earlier. However if an opening doesn't occur with the alloted 2.4 seconds after initial engagement, I do have a tendency to create my own

I said I fought defensively, NOT patiently.

To attack while your opponent is in a guard and before he has created a tempo for you to attack in by moving his weapon or body can be suicidal if as you do so you come into distance.

You can illicit a tempo from the opponent if they do wish to provide one by moving their weapon, their foot, or both, by stepping obliquely along the edge of distance and attacking. This gives you the distance/time to follow up their reactive counter-measure with a further attack in the tempo provided by the movement.

Once you are ahead on tempo, then you can continue to attack, attempting to keep the opponent one tempo behind you. However, it is suicide to attack out of tempo and into distance because you have no defense in that tempo. Many of the standard Italian sword plays against such an attack end with a counter-attack in opposition and in the same time as the attack, which leaves no time available for the attacker to respond.

I believe that the German position has been over-stated by some, and that you begin the fight by either "striking when he strikes, thrusting when he thrusts" (which would be a proper attack in the opponent's provided tempo), or by striking a Zornhau while stepping obliquely, walking the circumference of distance so as not to put your body into distance and danger. If you are able to get ahead on time, then you continue to attack to maintain the "vor." This interpretation means that it is no different in concept from the Italian systems (i.e. Fiore).

So the short answer would be that if one attacks out of tempo (without a movement given by the opponent to create a moment to attack), then the defender has the advantage. If the attacker steps obliquely along the edge of distance while attacking, then there is no advantage, but the defender may provide the attacker a tempo (and an advantage) in which to attack safely by his initial reaction to the attack out of distance.

I would say that advantage normally goes to whoever has the better control of timing and distance.

This is especially true if we're talking about period rapier play. At that point, I see very little difference in attack and defense... it's all a matter of who has better control of those fight fundamentals... Ie, you're either driving the bus or your a passenger. Because the fight is normally over in one or two passes (at most) the margin for error is much smaller.

In armored combat, I would suggest that the true advantage goes to that person who is controlling the bout. If you're attacking but it's not truly putting your opponent on his heels, then you're not in control of the fight. With that in mind, if two oppoent's are equally matched in all other areas, then the one with the better defense should win. (becuase they have a better chance of withstanding any offensive action by thier opponent - which means they have a better chance of regaining control later in the bout)

Christian

Bob Charron wrote:To attack while your opponent is in a guard and before he has created a tempo for you to attack in by moving his weapon or body can be suicidal if as you do so you come into distance...

Heh. Leave it to the WMA guy to assume we are fighting at a "proper range" where foot movement is needed for an effective attack
If that is the case (so you're not in a typical SCA bout) then plunging headlong into an attack is, as Bob said, "suicide", or at the very least ill-advised.

haha good point! Most sca fighting ive seen consists of two opponents standing nose to nose, trying to give eachother one handed bear hugs.

I try to know exactly what my range is, and to be aware of my opponents. Footwork becomes very important when life or death is a matter of inches.

Bob: It's an interesting point. I thank you for making it. I brought it up at practice today, and now we're all just letting it percolate around our brains. You'll have to give it time though; we are fighters after all.

Noe,

Thanks for that. Yes, it will take time to wrap all of our brains around, but the Medieval and Renaissance masters were all consistent in putting it forward as the rule.

Gaston,

Well, you're right. I should know after 20 years in the SCA But I can't be pigeonholed cleanly into WMA (at least yet).

Gaston de Vieuxchamps wrote:

Bob Charron wrote:To attack while your opponent is in a guard and before he has created a tempo for you to attack in by moving his weapon or body can be suicidal if as you do so you come into distance...

Heh. Leave it to the WMA guy to assume we are fighting at a "proper range" where foot movement is needed for an effective attack
If that is the case (so you're not in a typical SCA bout) then plunging headlong into an attack is, as Bob said, "suicide", or at the very least ill-advised.

Good point, but my observation is that really good fighters do fight at proper range. Those are the ones that look like they are just standing there (a little shuffling around). They shift their weight from the front to the back, the tip of the attackers blade misses them by an inch or so and they casually flow into the void, following the attackers blade back and pang!

They are also the guys that seem to move from out of range to in your shorts without passing through the space between them. They are suddenly right beside you (not in front of you) and casually placing their sword against an exposed portion of your anatomy. They carry on conversations with folks on the sidelines while giving you instruction and evading your every attack.

In the SCA I think the smart attacker has the advantage. If he can force the defender into a responsive mode, and keep him there, then the odds favor him.

I had a longer post typed, but it accidently got erased. Silly buffer dump :p

my contribution;
Doebringer is the first master to write about Liechtenaeur's verse. He is also the only one to ever define Vor and Nach beyond their basic meanings "before" and "after" or "first" and "second." According to him, the one in the Vor controls the initiative, and the one in the Nach does not. One can control initiative by attacking constantly, but does not automatically gain the advantage. Most of the Italian set-plays are based on seizing the initiative in single time against an attacker, as Bob has mentioned. The five meisterhau of the German school are also demonstrated in the fechtbuchen as response actions to an attacker, rather than initial actions. Only the Zwerchau is shown as an initial attack. Additionally, Liechtenaeur says "Your war should not be in haste. Who tends to the war above, gets ashamed below."(pg 30 of Christian's book)

to contrast this, however, Ringeck says that "above all other things, you must understand the principles of Vor- 'before' and Nach- 'after' because the entire art of fencing is based upon it. Vor means pre-empting him with a blow or thrust against an opening before he can hit you, so he must defend or displace you. So, be flexible in your defense and aim your sword at one opening after the other so he cannot get through with his own techniques."(pg 16 ditto)

So you can control the initiative by attacking, or not attacking. You win it and hold it when you win it and hold it.
-Mag =)

I would say that for any given exchange, the defender has the advantage of better being able to survive ("Run away!!!"), but not necessarily to kill the attacker. Of course if he stays on the defensive against a determine attacker, he's doomed because something's bound to get through.

The comment about bear hugs reminds me: George Silver was of the opinion that being at very close range (i.e. both players can hit each other without moving their bodies), the first man to attack has the advantage. Reaction timing makes it difficult to correctly react to an attack at that range; hence fighting at that range was inherently (and in his opinion, unnecessarily) risky.

Christian1095 wrote:I would say that advantage normally goes to whoever has the better control of timing and distance.

This is especially true if we're talking about period rapier play. At that point, I see very little difference in attack and defense... it's all a matter of who has better control of those fight fundamentals... Ie, you're either driving the bus or your a passenger. Because the fight is normally over in one or two passes (at most) the margin for error is much smaller.

In armored combat, I would suggest that the true advantage goes to that person who is controlling the bout. If you're attacking but it's not truly putting your opponent on his heels, then you're not in control of the fight. With that in mind, if two oppoent's are equally matched in all other areas, then the one with the better defense should win. (becuase they have a better chance of withstanding any offensive action by thier opponent - which means they have a better chance of regaining control later in the bout)

Christian

Heh. That's my buddy Christian, always about the timing & distance. I will philosophically disagree with you my friend and say that he who attacks first seizes the timing & distance, eliciting the response. I.e., if you're a counterpuncher, then you have to wait for me to punch, now, don't you? And if I know you're a counterpuncher, then I'm waiting for that...

For instance, in SCA period rapier combat on YOU, Herr Christian, I intentionally throw disposable attacks because I am looking for you to fleche. My strategy for beating you consists of drawing the fleche and following you in behind it when you are least defensible (with lots of parrying thrown in there! Surviving the fleche is the tough part).

And in heavy SCA combat, I fight polearm and in my very limited experience I have learned to somewhat use my opponent's shield against him. Fighters here are taught to charge a polearmsman and I am waiting for that. I throw disposable attacks designed for you to charge me in response; when you do, I counterattack.

In both of the above cases, I have forced my opponent to give his response. In doing so, I have seized the timing & distance because I have a reasonable expectation of the response of my foeman. Thus I have control, because *I* control when *you* attack. If I am able to maintain that control all the way through, then I should win the fight.

Therefore I maintain that exploratory attacks, coupled with a stout defense and a blazing counterattack are my own keys to victory.

Of course, I've just told everyone here how to beat me. Not that's it's difficult to do....

I fight a very deffensive style.