Friday, December 31, 2021

W.3. Balance Point of the Blade

A properly balanced weapon offers significant advantages to the fencer who uses it.  Blade movement is faster and more responsive to the hand, with improved control and accuracy.  The place on the blade at which the weight of the inner, middle, and outer sections of the blade will equal the weight of the pommel, tang, grip, and guard is determined by the simple test of balancing the blade on a fulcrum, typically the index finger.  This is the balance point or the center of gravity.  The blade becomes more and more point heavy as the balance point moves toward the tip.  A similar but opposite weight shift occurs as the balance point moves toward the guard.  In the first case more work is required to move the blade and to control its trajectory.  In the second case, as weight moves to the guard, the lighter blade may become very difficult to control.

One might expect that balance would be considered a critical issue for the fencer.  It is relatively easy to alter the balance of the blade by changing the pommel and/or the grip.  However, less than half the fencing manuals sampled for this post addressed the balance point on the blade for foil and sabre.  Only the Italian sources for the spada provide a center of gravity that applies to the epee.  The following are the sources that addressed the balance point:    

1884:  Maestro Masaniello Parise specifies that the balance point of the spada should be 4 fingers from the guard in his treatise that became the standard for the Military Fencing Masters School at Rome.  The same center of gravity applies to the sabre.

1885: Giordano Rossi, a practitioner of the Radaellian School, specifies that the spada should balance in the double strong of the blade, approximately 4 fingers from the guard.  Similarly, he advocates that the sabre blade should balance at the same point, in the double strong 4 fingers from the guard.

1886:  Maestro Adelardo Sanz specifies that the balance point in sabre should be approximately 3 fingers from the guard.

1891:  Alfred Hutton, a prolific advocate for military training with the sword, describes the ideal balance point of the foil as being on the blade just above the guard.

1892:  Maitre Louis Rondelle suggests that a foil is correctly balance when the balance point is approximately 1 inch from the guard.

1904: Maestro Generoso Pavese, a graduate of the Military Fencing Masters School of Rome, places the foil balance point at 2.5 inches (4 fingers) from the guard.  The same measurement is used for sabre.

1905:  Professor Leopold Van Humbeek, a Belgian trained fencing master, taught an Italian based style of sabre fencing in the Netherlands.  He specified that the balance point on the blade should be a few centimeters from the guard.

1912:  Maestro Salvatore Pecoraro and Maestro Carlo Pessina suggest that two factors are key in the balance of the sabre: maximum ability to manage the blade which is achieved by the center of gravity being closest to the hand, and power in the blow which is achieved by the center of gravity being as far away from the hand as possible.  As a result they cite the range of balance points in various texts as being from four fingers from the guard to right against the guard.   They suggest 2 fingers from the guard as a reasonable compromise. 

1920: Maitre Ricardo Manrique, trained in the French School in Cuba, describes the foil balance point as approximately 1 inch from the guard.

1934: Maitre Felix Grave, a Master of the Academy of Arms and the Academy of the Epee of Paris, specifies that the balance point of the foil should be 15 millimeters from the guard. 

1936:  Maestro Luigi Barbasetti sets the balance point for the sabre as 5 centimeters (approximately 2 inches) from the guard.

1941:  The Breckenridges, father and son French School students of Maitre Francois Darrieulat, define the foil balance point as immediately in front of the guard so that with a #5 blade the weapon is slightly point heavy.

1948: Maitre d'Armes Clovis Deladrier, a Belgian trained master, uses different criteria for the balance of the foil.  In a normal guard position, the foil is properly balanced if the tip of the foil slowly lowers when all of the fingers except the index finger (which serves as a pivot point) are detached from the grip.  For epee, his primary focus about balance is on the impact of the off-center bell mounting on stability, not the relationship of the blade to balance.  For sabre, the test is similar to that of foil - when the last three fingers are released the tip will drop slowly.

As Maestri Pecoraro and Pessina remarked in 1912, the range of balance points runs from a maximum of 4 fingers to immediately in front of the guard.  Allowing for the fact that a "finger" is a measurement that will vary with the anatomy of the fencer, we are using Pavese's equivalent of 2.5 inches for 4 fingers, we can develop the data below.  We do not know whether the finger measurement is with or without a glove, but we assume it is without.  Note that it is important to use the inch or centimeter equivalents as increases in hand size over the years could push the balance point out into the point heavy range.

Range:  approximately 2.5 inches, approximately 6.35 centimeters - 4 fingers (Pavese's inch equivalent) to immediately close to the guard (we use a 0 centimeter value for this). 

Distribution (including both foil and sabre as the two are routinely describe as identical in the sample sources):

  • 4 fingers (approximately 2.5 inches, approximately 6.35 centimeters) - 6
  • 3 fingers (approximately 2 inches, approximately 5 centimeters) - 2
  • 2 fingers (approximately 1.25 inches, approximately 3.2 centimeters) - 1
  • 1 inch (approximately 2.5 centimeters) - 2
  • a few centimeters from the guard (an imprecise measurement, our assumption is that this is less than 1 inch or less than 2.5 centimeters - for calculations we assume that value as being 2 centimeters) - 1
  • 15 milimeters (1.5 centimeters) - 1
  • on the blade just above the guard (0 centimeters) - 2

Mean (average): approximately 3.99 centimeters or 1.57 inches or 2.5 fingers.

Mode (most frequently occurring value): 4 fingers from the guard (approximately 2.5 inches, approximately 6.35 centimeters).  This value may be skewed by the size and distribution of the sample in terms of French or Italian sources.

Sources:

Barbasetti, Luigi; The Art of the Sabre and the Epee; [fencing manual]; E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Breckenridge, Scott D. and Breckenridge, Scott D., Jr.; Sword Play: Based on the French School of the Foil; [fencing manual]; A. S. Barnes and Company, New York, New York, United States of America; 1941.

Deladrier, Clovis; Modern Fencing; [fencing manual]; United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, United States of America; 1948.

Grave, Felix; Fencing Comprehensive; [fencing manual]; Hutchinson and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1934.

Hutton, Alfred; The Swordsman: A Manual of Fence for the Foil, Sabre, and Bayonet; [fencing manual]; H. Grevel & Company, London, United Kingdom; reprint by The Naval and Military Press, Uckfield, East Sussex, United Kingdom; 1891, reprint no date.

Manrique, Ricardo Enrique; Fencing Foil Class Work Illustrated; [fencing manual]; American Sports Publishing Company, New York, New York, United States of America, 1920.

Parise, Masaniello; Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre; in The Roman-Neapolitan School of Fencing: The Collected Works of Masaniello Parise, Maestro di Scherma; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [collected works]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1884 reprinted as a collected work 2015.

Pavese, Generoso; Foil and Sabre Fencing (Scherma di Spada e Sciabola); [fencing manual]; Press of King Brothers, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; 1905.

Pecoraro, Salvatore and Carlo Pessina; Sabre Fencing: A Theoretical-Practical Treatise; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [fencing manual]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1912 reprinted 2016.

Rondelle, Louis; Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing in Detailed Lessons for Professor and Pupil; [fencing manual]; Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; 1892.

Rossi, Giordano; Theoretical-Practical Manual for Sword and Sabre Fencing; translation by Sebastian Seager; [fencing manual];  Milan, Italy, translated edition by the Melbourne Fencing Society, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia; 1885, translation 2021. 


Sanz, Adelardo [translation by John Jakelsky]; Saber Fencing and Considerations About the Duel; [fencing manual]; first published in Spanish by Imprenta de Fortanet, Madrid, Spain; 1886; translated edition published by John Jakelsky, Xativa, Valencia, Spain; 2020.

van Humbeek, Leopold J. M. P.; Manual for Fencing with the Sabre; translation by Reinier van Nort; [fencing manual]; Amsterdam, Netherlands; translated and reprinted by Reinier van Noort, Hagan, Norway; 1905 reprinted 2017.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Creative Commons License

Balance Point of the Blade by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Saturday, December 04, 2021

W.2. Additions to the Number of Sections of the Blade

In post W.1. (June 2019) we discussed how the blade was subdivided in classical fencing into sections that had significance for the fencer's technique in both offense and defense.  As is common in research, further work on this topic and access to new sources has increased what we know, and therefore this serves as an addition to the previous work.

Our previous examination of divisions included 2 equal divisions, 2 unequal divisions, and 3 divisions.   This post addresses 4 or more divisions although we will note one variant to the 3 division approach.

  • Luigi Barbasetti (1932) divides the blade into three sections: the Point, foible, and forte.  Few of the texts consulted specifically mentioned the point as a distinct part of the blade, and Barbasetti does not indicate the length of the point, which would seem to be just the very outer portion of the blade, the nail head and the immediate supporting blade.

The German school of thrust fencing describes the blade as having 4 sections:

  • Johann Wilhelm Roux (1808) identifies the four equal sections as (from the guard toward he point) as Full Strong, Half Strong, Half Weak, and Full Weak.
  • Friedrich Augustus Wilhelm Ludwig Roux (1849) makes a minor change in the names of the sections (although this may be simply a difference between two translations) to Total Strong, Half Strength, Half Weak, and Total Weak.
These two sources fall before the classical period but their content was applied well into the classical period.

We have encountered one description of a division of the blade into 5 sections:
  • Giordano Rossi, in his 1885 update to Radaellian School, divides the blade into 5 equal  sections (from the guard to the point) as Double Strong, Strong, Middle, Weak, and Double Weak. 

Finally, we have 8 sections: 

  • Giuseppe Rosaroll Scorza and Pietro Grissetti's 1803 volume, a very well-regarded text which informed classical period fencing in Italy, includes an 8 section division of the blade.  This starts with an initial division of the blade into two halves, separated at the center.  From the guard the progression is defined by degree points at Double Strong (1), Strong (2), Less Strong (3), Center (4), Less Weak (5), Weak (6), Double Weak (7), and Point (8).  The difference between the degree points of the fencer and the opponent predicts the relative strength of each blade, although stopping to do the calculation in a bout might not be the best use of your time. 

Sources:

Barbasetti, Luigi; The Art of the Foil; [fencing manual]; E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America; 1932.


Roux, Johann Wilhelm; Manual for the Art of Fencing According to Mathematical and Physical Principles; translation by Tobias Zimmerman; [fencing manual]; Academic Bookstore’s Publishing, Jena, Gotha, Germany; 1808.

Roux, Friedrich August Wilhelm Ludwig; Die Kreussler'sche Stossfechtschule for Use by Academies and Military Schools Based on a Mathematical Basis; translation by Christopher Treichel; [fencing manual]; Druck and Verlag von Friedrich Mauke, Jena, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Germany; 1849; reprinted by Christopher Treichel; 2016.

Rossi, Giordano; Theoretical-Practical Manual for Sword and Sabre Fencing; translation by Sebastian Seager; [fencing manual];  Milan, Italy, translated edition by the Melbourne Fencing Society, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia; 1885, translation 2021. 

Scorza, Giuseppe Rosaroll, and Pietro Grisetti; The Science of Fencing; translation by Christopher Holzman; [fencing manual]; Milano, Italy; 1803; reprinted by Christopher Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 2018.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Creative Commons License

Additions to the Number of Sections of the Blade by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Thursday, December 02, 2021

C.7. Stonehenge and Wood's Foil Curriculum

In 1863 "Stonehenge" (a pseudonym) and the Reverend J. G. Wood published a short introductory manual that included fencing, the broadsword, and archery, one of a series of such books found in the late 1800s and early 1900s that addressed a number of sports or pastimes.  The curriculum they describe is for the foil and is a simple one at approximately the intermediate level.  We include this in our technical blog because this book is not a specialist text, but rather is the sort of general interest text that could survive and inform amateur trainers well into the classical period.

In 1884 a short introductory manual that included chapters on "How to Fence," "Broadsword Exercise," "Archery," "Hurdle Racing," "Vaulting with the Pole, or Pole-Leaping," "Throwing the Hammer," and "Putting the Shot" was published.  This volume is attributed to Aaron A. Warford, the author of a number of how-to books.  Warford's fencing chapter is identical in text and illustrations to Stonehenge and Wood's.  

In other words, Warford appears to have plagiarized Stonehenge and Wood's work.   This was not uncommon at that time - modern concepts of intellectuial property were not well developed.  At this point we cannot be sure that Stonehenge and Wood had not lifted some of their text from another, earlier source.  Lawson suggests that at least the broadsword material was not original.  The unintended consequence was that this curriculum certainly survived into the classical period.

The Stonehenge and Wood curriculum consists of the following elements:

(1)  The Guard

  • (1a)  First Position
  • (1b)  Second Position

(2)  Footwork

  • (2a)  Advance
  • (2b)  Retreat
  • (2c)  Lunge
  • (2d) Recover

(3)  Engagement

  • (3a)  Inside Engagement
  • (3b)  Outside Engagement

(4)  The Parades (Parries)

  • (4a)  Simple Parries

  1. (4a1)  Prime
  2. (4a2)  Quarte
  3. (4a3)  Tierce
  4. (4a4)  Quarte over the Arm
  5. (4a5)  Seconde
  6. (4a6)  Demi-Circle

  • (4b)  Contre-Parades

  1. (4b1)  Contre de Quarte
  2. (4b2)  Contre de Tierce
  3. (4b3)  Contre de Seconde
  4. (4b4)  Contre de Cercle

(5)  Attacks

  • (5a)  Simple Attacks (all can be parried by one or more simple parries)

  1. (5a1)  Straight Thrust
  2. (5a2)  Disengagement
  3. (5a3)  One-Two
  4. (5a4)  Beat and Thrust
  5. (5a5)  Beat and Disengagement
  6. (5a6)  Cut Over the Point
  7. (5a7)  Cut Over and Disengagement

  • (5b)  Double

(6)  Feints

(7)  The Assault

Sources:

"Stonehenge" and Wood, J. G.; Archery, Fencing, and Broadsword; [multiple sports manual]; Routledge, Warne, and Routledge, London, United Kingdom, reprint by Kirk Lawson, unknown place; 1863, reprint unknown date.

Warford, Aaron A.; How To Fence; [multiple sports manual]; Frank Tousey, Publisher, New York, New York, United States of America; 1884.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III.

Creative Commons License

Stonehenge and Wood's Foil Curriculum by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Saturday, October 16, 2021

E10.2.1.5. de Vauresmont's Epee Parry of Quinte

P. Garcet de Vauresmont authored a short fencing manual covering technique and other matters for foil, epee, and sabre, published in Paris in 1912.  In that manual the standard parries for epee are discussed, and in two cases, sixte (sixth) and quinte (fifth), illustrated.  And there lies a point of interest.  De Vauresmont is not a widely cited name in period fencing manuals, but his manual contained a foreword by Professor Ruze, then Vice-President of the Academie d'Epee.  That is one of two reasons that the illustration of an epee parry in quinte is interesting.

The first reason is that de Vauresmont illustrates only two of the six parries that he mentions.  Of these, quinte, is problematic.  De Vauresmont himself states that quinte is of no use in almost any fencing situation. Claude La Marche is more detailed in his critique, pointing out that quinte is a dangerous and bad parry because once committed to it, a follow-up parry to defeat a compound attack is difficult to execute.  The 1908 French Ministry of War regulations describe quinte as not recommended, because it took the blade into the low line, but did not remove it from the line of the body.  So why did de Vauresmont select this picture for inclusion, especially in light of the endorsement of his work by an officer of the Academie d'Epee of Paris?  Or is this one more case of a publisher inserting a picture that the author did not intend?

The second reason the illustration is interesting is that it allows reconstruction of how a quinte parry was executed from the straight arm.   De Vauresmont pictures the epee guard as essentially a straight arm guard.  When we come to the parry of quinte, the picture can best be described as grainy, the blade position is difficult to determine, but it is clear that is executed from the straight arm.  He describes the hand position of fifth as with the nails underneath, in other words, in the hand in pronation.   This is consistent with La Marche's critique of the power delivered by the parry.  

The 1877 French Ministry of War manual indicates that the action in foil is performed against an attack into the inside line by (1) turning the hand with the nails up, (2) crossing above the opponent's blade, and (3) beating the blade down into the low line.  The blade, wrist, and forearm end up horizontal to the ground and perpendicular to the fencer's body.  The riposte (4) is direct to the high line.  This appears to be consistent with de Vauresmont's picture if the technique was executed from a straight arm guard.  

Sometimes the small and not well-known text provides insights into technique that answer questions - sometimes they suggest more questions.  But a thicker book, and a well-known reputation, does not mean that other texts are not worth reading.  So try de Vauresment's parry quinte.  Is it more powerful with the rotation into pronation or with a rotation into supination?  Does it leave you vulnerable or does the strength of the action leave you vulnerable?  Should it be part of your straight arm epee technique? 

Sources:   

de Vauresmont, P. Garcet; L’Escrime: Fleuret, Epee, et Sabre; [fencing manual]; Editions Nilsson, Paris; 1912.  Reprinted by Hachette Livre {BnF; no place; no date; under the misspelled author’s name of P. Garcet de Vauremont. 

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing Manual; translation by Chris Slee; [fencing manual]; reprint by Long Edge Press, no place; 1877 reprinted 2017.

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing: Foil, Epee, Sabre, Theory, Method, Regulations; translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America; [fencing manual]; Alex Taylor and Company, New York, New York, reprinted by Rose City Books, Portland Oregon, United States of America; 1908 reprinted 1908, Rose City Book reprint no date.

La Marche, Claude; The Dueling Sword; translation by Brian House; [fencing manual]; Ernest Flammarion, Paris, France; 1898; translated and reprinted by Paladin Press, Boulder, Colorado, United States of America; 2009.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Creative Commons License

de Vauresmont's Epee Parry of Quinte by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Sunday, October 10, 2021

C.6. Siebenhaar's Sabre Curriculum

Sergeant Fencing Master Christian Siebenhaar was the founder of the relatively short-lived Dutch Method, a distinctly nationalistic school of fencing that was restricted to the Netherlands in the period approximately 1858 to approximately 1888.  Siebenhaar's Manual for the Instruction in the Art of Fencing (the 1861 edition) included the Sword (which in the illustrations appears to be a foil), Sabre, Long Stick, and the Rifle (the bayonet).

The Dutch Method was distinguished by two elements.  The first was a vocabulary all in Dutch, so that Dutch fencers would not have to use French terms.  The second was a rather unusual method of fencing in which the fencers took turns, mobility was largely restricted to the lunge, and there was a somewhat odd target (a potato or apple fixed to the uniform).

The sabre curriculum included the following techniques (note that the descriptions assume a right handed fencer).  The introduction of each technique depended on its placement in a series of 3 sections, each composed of 8 lessons, and although plates illustrate key elements of the techniques, there is only limited discussion of how the techniques were executed.  

(1)  The Fighting Position

(2)  Hand Positions (all techniques can be executed with the hand in any of the three positions)

  • (2a)  With the hand in supination
  • (2b)  With the hand in pronation
  • (2c)  With the hand inverted thumb down

(3)  Footwork

  • (3a)  Lunge
  • (3b)  Double pass forward (this is the complete modern pass ending in a normal guard position)
  • (3c)  Double pass backwards (this is the complete modern pass ending in a normal guard position)
  • (3d)  Withdrawal of the right foot

(4)  The Cuts

  • (4a)  To the head with lunge
  • (4b)  To the left cheek without lunge
  • (4c)  To the right cheek
  • (4d)  To the belly with lunge
  • (4e)  To the right thigh with lunge
  • (4f)  To the foot with lunge

(5)  Point Thrust

(6)  The Parries

  • (6a)  Against the cut to the head 
  • (6b)  Against the left cheek cut
  • (6c)  Against the right cheek cut
  • (6d)  High left against the thrust

(7)  Compound Attacks

  • (7a)  Feint cut to the head, cut to the head with lunge
  • (7b)  Feint cut to the head, cut to the right thigh
  • (7c)  Feint cut to the head, feint cut to the right side, cut to the belly with lunge
  • (7d)  Feint cut to the right cheek, cut to the belly with lunge
  • (7e)  Feint cut to the right cheek, feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the side with lunge
  • (7f)  (Double pass forward) Feint cut to the right cheek, feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the arm with lunge
  • (7g)  Feint cut to the right cheek, feint cut to the left cheek, feint cut to the side, cut to the head with lunge
  • (7h)  Feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the right cheek 
  • (7i)  Feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the right cheek without lunge
  • (7j)  Feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the right side with lunge
  • (7k)  Feint cut to the left cheek, cut to the right side without lunge
  • (7l)  Feint cut to the left cheek, feint cut to the right cheek, cut to the belly with lunge
  • (7m)  Feint cut to the left cheek, feint cut to the side, cut to the head with lunge
  • (7n)  Feint cut under the arm, cut to the head with lunge
  • (7o)  Feint cut under the arm, feint cut to the head, cut to the belly with lunge
  • (7p)  Feint cut to the belly, cut to the right side with lunge
  • (7q)  Feint cut to the belly, feint cut to the right side, cut to the head with lunge
  • (7r)  Feint cut to the belly, feint cut to the right side, feint cut to the head, cut to the right thigh with lunge
  • (7s)  Feint cut to the left thigh, cut to the right thigh with lunge
  • (7t)  Feint cut to the right thigh, cut to the head with lunge
  • (7u)  Feint thrust to the belly, cut to the head with lunge
  • (7v)  Feint thrust to the belly, feint cut to the head, thrust to the belly with lunge
  • (7w)  Feint thrust left, feint thrust right, and thrust left with lunge

(8)  Compound Parries

  • (8a)  Against the feint cut to the left cheek, and then cut to the right cheek
  • (8b)  Against the feint cut to the left cheek, and then cut to the right thigh
  • (8c)  Against the feint cut to the left cheek, and then cut to the right side
  • (8d)  (Double pass backward) against the feint cut to the left cheek, and then cut to the right thigh
  • (8e)  Against the feint cut to the head, and then cut to the right thigh

(9)  Attack-Parry Sequence

  • (9a)  Cut to the right foot with lunge, parry the cut to the head (done with a withdrawal of the forward foot)

Source:

Siebenhaar, Christiaan; Manual for the Instruction in the Art of Fencing; Third Improved Printing; translation by Reinier van Nort; [fencing manual]; The Heirs Doorman, The Hague, Netherlands; translated and reprinted by Reiner van Nort, Hagan, Norway; 1861 reprinted 2017.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Creative Commons License

Siebenhaar's Sabre Curriculum by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Wednesday, August 18, 2021

21.1.3.a. Pinto Martin's Lunge

Mestre d'armas Antonio Domingos Pinto Martins served as Fencing Master to the King of Portugal and to the schools of the Navy and Army.  The Manual de Esgrima was written as an effort to translate the manuals of the French Army, but to also provide a more detailed description of technique and applicable exercises to compensate for the limited training opportunities for military fencing instructors.  His manual was approved in 1893 by a committee of officers appointed by the Minister of War as being superior to  other Portugese and foreign fencing manuals presented for their examination, and was ordered for general distribution and adoption.  

Occasionally, in reading a previously unread fencing manual, one encounters a gem, an unusual approach to a technique or tactic, that has not been encountered before.  Pinto Martins does not disappoint in this.  There, starting at Figure 13, is a different way to execute the lunge in the following four steps:

Prolog - Pinto Martins starts with the fencer in either Firm Position (the equivalent of first Position) or in Guard Position.  The descriptions of these positions are common ones, except that the line drawings accompanying the text shows what appears to be a slight backwards lean to the torso when on guard that may well indicate an uneven distribution of weight to the rear leg.  The line drawings are of good quality, plentiful, and correspond to the descriptions in the text.

First tempo (yes, tempo ... it appears that in this case tempo is used as a guide to sequencing the movements, not in relation to fencing time) - extend the weapon arm, with the hand slightly above shoulder height, the hand in supination.  This blade position is not an absolute rule - it may vary with the type of attack being delivered.

Second tempo - simultaneously lean the torso forward and to the outside line.  This is a deliberate shift to meet two objectives:

  • Penetration - the forward lean increases the distance the attack penetrates into the opponent's defense.
  • Loading for movement - Pinto Martins suggests that this position on completion of the lunge "powerfully aids the return to guard, because as soon as the right foot hits the ground, the torso attempts to return to its vertical position due to the reaction of the extensor muscles of the right leg and thigh whilst the ones of the lower back react to the sudden movement and, as a result, transmit the motion to the whole body; matching the retreat of the torso with the pressure exerted by the foot to return to the guard, the right side of the body is relieved by this impulse ..." (p. 17).  
Third tempo - extend the non-weapon leg driving off the forward portion of the sole of the rear shoe.  This appears to be a small, partial roll of the back foot and is depicted in other illustrations in the book.  The forward foot remains in place.  Pinto Martins suggests that the penetration of the lunge would be reduced without the leg extension and that the rear foot would be dragged forward by the weight of the torso, rendering the recovery to guard more difficult.

Fourth tempo - the weapon foot moves forward close to the surface, but without contact, to approximately twice the width of the feet in the guard position.  It lands on the toes and ball of the foot, and finally on the heel. Simultaneously the rear arm is lowered with the palm of the open hand facing to the inside and maintaining approximately 15 centimeters (6 inches) of separation from the leg. 

The way the foot lands has two objectives.  
  • Movement control - it prevents the foot sliding forward which would make recovery more difficult. 
  • Safety - Pinto Martins suggests that landing on the heel often causes concussions on the brain and may cause "synovial spills on the right knee" (p. 20).  This is very curious.  Although today we recognize the potential for micro-concussions, they have not been linked to the fencing lunge that lands on the heel of the forward foot, and reported or observed concussion events in modern national and international fencing appear to result from collisions in corps-a-corps or direct blows to the mask with the guard.  This may be linked to an older practice of the front foot actually stamping the ground to make the landing of the lunge resound on the floor.  Prevost notes that by 1889 this practice had been abandoned in all good clubs in France and was considered vulgar.

It is important to note that this execution of the lunge is does not appear to be a common contemporary French technique.  The French Ministry of War regulations of 1877 (Slee translation) and 1908 (including the Amateur Fencers League of America translation), Prevost, and Rondelle all stress the essentially simultaneous action of the front and rear legs.  With the exception of Prevost the front foot lands flat; he specifies that it must land on the heel. 

Sources:

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing Manual; translation by Chris Slee; [fencing manual]; reprint by Long Edge Press, no place; 1877 reprinted 2017.

France.  Ministere de la Guerre; Reglement d’Escrime (Fleuret – Epee – Sabre); Librairie Militaire Berger-Levrault & Co., Paris, France; 1909.

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing: Foil, Epee, Sabre, Theory, Method, Regulations; translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America; [fencing manual]; Alex Taylor and Company, New York, New York, reprinted by Rose City Books, Portland Oregon, United States of America; 1908, reprinted 1908, Rose City Book reprint no date.

Pinto Martins, Antonio Domingos;  Manual de Esgrima para Uso do Exercitio; translation by Rui Carlos Pinto Ferreira; [fencing manual]; Livraria de Antonio Maria Pereira, Lisbon, Portugal 1895; translation and reprint by Espada Negra HEMA Study Group, 2017.  Note that the Portugese to English translation contains a number of terms that appear to be literal translation of the Portugese and not a translation to the equivalent, common usage, fencing terms.

Pollock, Walter H., F. C. Grove, and Camille Prevost; Fencing; 2nd edition; in the Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes; [fencing manual]; Longman’s, Green, and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1890.

Rondelle, Louis; Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing in Detailed Lessons for Professor and Pupil; [fencing manual]; Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; 1892.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Creative Commons License

Pinto Martin's Lunge by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Wednesday, June 16, 2021

B.4. Assaults, Loose Play, Free Play, and Bouts

Note:  This post specifically addresses English language fencing terminology.   

What happens when two fencers decide to fence?  What do we call the ensuing combat?  

One answer can be found in Book 1 - The Technical Rules of the IWAS Wheelchair Fencing Rules for Fencing.  The International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports federation defines two forms of combat by paired individuals:

(1)  "A friendly combat between two fencers is called an assault."

(2)  "When the score of such an assault is kept to determine a result, it is called a bout."

This is a modern definition of assaults and bouts that has been in use for an extended period of time in the official international and United States rules for the sport.  However, it is worth asking the question: where did this interpretation of the terminology come from?

As an aside it is worth noting that the index of both the USA Fencing Rules of Fencing and the index of the Federation Internationale d'Escrime's Technical Rules list rule t.2 - in the USA Fencing rulebook the listing includes "Assaults and Bouts" but there is no actual text for rule t.2.  The Federation Internationale d'Escrime index lists t.2 with no indication of its intended topic.  That is why we are using the wheelchair rules as the basis for this discussion.  Apparently bouts and assaults are no longer to be distinguished or defined in the rules.

But have the Assault and the Bout always been defined the way noted above?  The answer is no.  When we look at the published sources, we see:

  • Prevost's 1890 Fencing - refers to both the "assault" and "free play" as training activities.
  • Colmore-Dunn's 1891 Dunn's Fencing Instructor - identifies two uses of the term "Assault," the first when spectators are present (page 87), and the second as "loose play" in the fencing club (page 91).
  • Hutton's 1891 The Swordsman - includes rules for the "Assault" in which a jury assesses touches and fencers may be handicapped in the modern sense of being given a certain number of touches to make the contest more even (pages 123-124).  He also uses the term for "loose play" in the club (page 61).
  • Rondelle's 1892 Foil and Sabre - includes a set of rules for amateur competition that mention the term "bout" (page 176) but refers to the role of the jury in conducting the "assault" (page 177).  An extensive discussion of assaults (pages 169-175) leaves one with the clear impression that touches count.
  • Pavese's 1905 Foil and Sabre Fencing - in the "assault" there should always be a referee who, among other duties records the score in points (page 88). 
  • The French Ministry of War 1908 Fencing (translation distributed by the Amateur Fencer's League of America) - both "bout" and "assault" are used, but in the context that the assault is a complete fencing process of which the bout is part (pages 30-32).
  • Castello's 1933 The Theory and Practice of Fencing - does not refer to assaults, and uses the term "bout" widely in the work.
  • Maitre Felix Grave's 1934 Fencing Comprehensive - the combats in a pool are referred to as "fights" (page 90-95) and the President of the Jury is directed to "direct the assaults and announce the result of each fight ..." (page 95).
  • The Amateur Fencing Association's 1937 Rules for Competitions - "bouts" are not specifically mentioned; the term "assault" is used for the number of combats in a pool in a competition and in terms of the responsibility of the President to manage the combat (pages 12 and 30-37).
  • Hett's 1939 Fencing - discusses practice "assaults" to develop specific defensive skills (page 89) and "loose play" for general training (pages 96-99). 
  • Vince's 1940 Fencing - "assaults" are not mentioned; combat between two individuals is a "bout."
  • The Amateur Fencers League of America 1940 Fencing Rules - "A bout is a contest between two individuals, and may or may not be part of a match." (page 28).
  • Deladrier's 1948 Modern Fencing - "assaults" are not mentioned; combat between two individuals is a "bout."
  • Lidstone's 1952 Fencing - a discussion of "loose play" clearly indicates that it is a form of training in which the manner of making the hit is the important factor (pages 160-162 and 168).  The terms "assault," "bout," and "competition" are used interchangeably depending on context.
  • The Amateur Fencers League of America 1957 Fencing Rules and Manual - "Friendly combat between two fencers is called 'loose play.'  When a score is kept of such combat to determine a result, the contest is called a 'bout'." (page 2)
  • The Amateur Fencers League of America 1965 Fencing Rules and Manual - "Friendly combat between two fencers is called an 'assault.'  When the score of such an assault is kept to determine a result it is called a 'bout'." (page 14)
  • The Amateur Fencers League of America 1968 Fencing Rules - "Friendly combat between two fencers is called an 'assault.'  When the score of such an assault is kept to determine a result it is called a 'bout'." (page 14)
  • The Amateur Fencers League of America 1974 Fencing Rules for Competitions - "Friendly competition between fencers is called 'free play' ['assault']; when the score is kept in a competition, it is called a 'bout' ['match']." (page 13)

What can we determine from these sources?  It should be noted that this is not an exhaustive coverage of all possible English language sources and that a more comprehensive study may be needed to more accurately identify the dates of transitions between terms.

(1)  Up to the general cessation of fencing for World War II "assault" clearly has the meaning of a bout between two fencers, without a differentiation as to whether touches were counted, points were award for style, or a winner announced.

(2)  "Loose play" appears early in the classical period, disappears from the record in the late 1950s and the middle of the 1960s.  "Free play," as an equivalent of "loose play," appears briefly in the 1970s.

(3)  The "assault" as purely a friendly form of combat and the "bout" as the assault with a score kept emerges well after the end of the classical period. 

Why do we have such variation?  One factor is that until recently the formal rules for fencing were written in French by the Federation Internationale d'Escrime and then translated into English by the Amateur Fencing Association of the United Kingdom.  Then these rules were adopted (or not adopted) by the Amateur Fencers League of America.  In the process there have been, at times, changes in the meaning of the text.

Romantic views of classical fencing have also influenced how the terms are used in modern classical fencing.  The ideal of an assault at arms in which touches are not counted, graceful precise fencing is rewarded by the applause of the spectators, and everyone adjourns at appropriate times for champagne and strawberries is a modern ideal that was honored primarily by its absence from period events.  Accounts of Senac's and Monstery's individual matches and accounts and videos of exhibition matches after World War I show that the participants, newspaper fencing correspondents, the president and jury, and those who bet on the outcomes were fully aware of the number of touches scored by each participant. 

Sources:

Amateur Fencers League of America; Fencing Rules; editor Miguel A. de Capriles; [rules book]; Amateur Fencers League of America, New York, New York, United States of America; 1940.

Amateur Fencers League of America; Fencing Rules and Manual; editor Miguel A. de Capriles; [rules book]; Amateur Fencers League of America, New York, New York, United States of America; 1957.

Amateur Fencers League of America; Fencing Rules and Manual; editor Jose R. de Capriles; [rules book]; Amateur Fencers League of America, West New York, New Jersey, United States of America; 1965.

Amateur Fencers League of America; Fencing Rules; [rules book]; Amateur Fencers League of America, West New York, New Jersey, United States of America; 1968.

Amateur Fencers League of America; Fencing Rules; translation by Joseph Byrnes; [rules book]; Amateur Fencers League of America, Westfield, New Jersey; 1974.

Castello, Julio Martinez; The Theory and Practice of Fencing; [fencing manual]; Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Colmore Dunn, H. A.; Dunn's Fencing Instructor; [fencing manual]; Street and Smith Publishers, New York, New York, United States of America; 1891.

Deladrier, Clovis; Modern Fencing; [fencing manual]; United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, United States of America; 1948

Federation Internationale d'Escrime; Technical Rules; [Internet page] at https://static.fie.org/uploads/25/127073-technical%20rules%20ang.pdf ; January 2021.

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing: Foil, Epee, Sabre, Theory, Method, Regulations; translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America; [fencing manual]; Alex Taylor and Company, New York, New York, reprinted by Rose City Books, Portland Oregon, United States of America; 1908, reprinted 1908, Rose City Book reprint no date. 

Grave, Felix; Fencing Comprehensive; [fencing manual]; Hutchinson and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1934.

Hett, Geoffrey V.; Fencing; [fencing manual]; Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., London, United Kingdom; 1939.

Hutton, Alfred; The Swordsman; [fencing manual]; H. Grevel and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1891.

International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation; IWAS Wheelchair Fencing: Rules for Competition; [Internet page] at https://wheelchairfencing.iwasf.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/1-IWF-Technical-Rules-Jan-2020.pdf; January 2020.

Lidstone, R. A.; Fencing; [fencing manual]; H., F. & G. Witherby, London, United Kingdom; 1952.

Monstery, Thomas Hoyer; Self-Defense for Gentlemen and Ladies; edited by Ben Miller; [combatives manual]; Blue Snake Books, Berkeley, California, United States of America; 2015.

Pavese, Generoso; Foil and Sabre Fencing; [fencing manual]; Press of King Brothers, Baltimore, Maryland; 1905. 

Pollock, Walter, H., F. C. Grove, and Camille Prevost; Fencing; 2nd edition; in the Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes; [fencing manual]; Longman’s, Green, and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1890.

Rondelle, Louis; Foil and Sabre; [fencing manual]; Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massachusetts, 1892.

The Amateur Fencing Association; Rules for Competition; translation by C. L. de Beaumont; [rules book]; The Amateur Fencing Association, London, United Kingdom; 1937.

USA Fencing, Fencing Rules; [Internet page] at https://cdn2.sportngin.com/attachments/document/f840-2248253/2020-08_USA_Fencing_Rules.pdf#_ga=2.77349973.1986710130.1623850594-1576243361.1610675389; accessed 15 June 2021.

Vince, Joseph; Fencing; [fencing manual]; A. S. Barnes and Company, New York, New York, United States of America; 1940.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Creative Commons License

Assaults, Loose Play, Free Play, and Bouts by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Tuesday, May 04, 2021

15.1.1.2. The Fianconata

During the classical period, fencers employed a variety of actions on the blade characterized by varying degrees and subtlety of lateral pressure to open the closed line during the attack.  Generally these are classified as glides, often called a variety of other names, as actions which maintain contact with the opponent's blade from the beginning of the attack to its termination, hopefully, in a touch.  In classification systems these are sometimes classified as attacks on the blade and in other cases as taking of the blade.

Two Italian manuals in the early classical time period available in English address the glide:  Masaniello Parise's 1884 Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre (Holzman's translation) and Generoso Pavese's 1905 Foil and Sabre Fencing (published in English specifically to bring Parise's teachings to an American audience).

Parise defines the glide as an action maintaining contact with the opponent's blade from the start of the action to its finish.  He identifies six glides:

  • Fianconata in Quarta
  • Glide in Terza
  • Glide in Seconda
  • Glide in Mezzocerchio 
  • Fianconata in Seconda
  • External Fianconata (Glide of False Quarta)

In general these are executed with the lunge, advancing, feint, and double feint.  

Pavese terms the glide as "the slide," also emphasizes maintaining contact throughout the action, and lists four glides, the action of the blade in which is the same:

  • Fianconata of Quarta
  • Glide (Filo) of Tierce
  • Glide (Filo) of Seconda
  • Fianconata of Seconda

We now have three glide-like actions that are identified as fianconatas.  So what makes these different from the regular glide?  If we combine the descriptions in Parise and Pavese, we can identify the following techniques (note that the numbering of elements in the techniques does not indicate tempos and is intended only to indicate the flow of the action):

Fianconata in Quarta (Fourth) - (1) engage the opponent's blade in high inside line with the fencer's hand in position 3rd in 4th, (2) maintaining contact, pivot the point over the opponent's blade and lower the point under the opponent's blade, turning the hand into position 4th, (3) lunge, simultaneously straightening the wrist to deflect the opponent's blade clear of the line and from the fencer's target, (4) ending as an attack to the opponent's flank.  

Fianconata in Seconda (Second).  In understanding this technique, it is important to remember that both Parise and Pavese describe the arm and blade in the guard position as extended, essentially at shoulder height, threatening any opponent.  Because of distance, both Parise and Pavese indicate that this technique should only be performed with the advance-lunge.  The flow - (1) with the opponent's blade on the inside line, engage with the middle of the blade with the hand in 3rd in 4th position (Parise, 2nd Pavese) against the opponents weak,  (2) the fencer lowers his blade and, passing under the blade. transports the opponent's blade from inside line to the outside line using a turn of the weapon hand to move to 4th position, (3) maintaining contact, lunge with a glide of second to hit the opponent's flank while deflecting the opponent's blade to the outside.

External Fianconata - (1) the fencer places the medium of the blade on the weak of the opponent's blade with his hand in 2nd in 3rd position, (2) transport the opponent's blade from the outside to the inside in a semi-circular movement as the hand is turned into 4th position, (3) as the half-circle is complete the fencer thrusts, hand in 4th position.

The obvious difference between the fianconatas and the glides lies in the glides essentially remaining in the same line from start to finish.  In contrast, the fianconata starts with an essentially partial circle transport of the blade.  That transport is to the low line with the intended target being the opponent's flank (on a right handed opponent).  

This is not the only time we will encounter the fianconata.  Barbasetti discuses the flanconade (fianconata in Italian) in his English language fencing manual of 1932, and a future Technical Blog post will compare his interpretation with that of Parise and Pavese.

Sources:

Barbasetti, Luigi; The Art of the Foil; [fencing manual]; E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America; 1932.

Parise, Masaniello; Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre; in The Roman-Neapolitan School of Fencing: The Collected Works of Masaniello Parise, Maestro di Scherma; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [collected works]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1884 reprinted as a collected work 2015.

Pavese, Generoso; Foil and Sabre Fencing (Scherma di Spada e Sciabola); [fencing manual]; Press of King Brothers, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America; 1905.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Creative Commons License

The Fianconata by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Sunday, April 11, 2021

10.3.1. Ceding Parries by Withdrawing and Raising or Lowering the Arm

Occasionally, we are confronted with a description in a text that is difficult to understand based on what we know to be true.  For example, we know that ceding parries work by using the opponents pressure on the blade to yield to that pressure and thereby move to a new parrying position that defeats the attack.  The extensive references to that form of ceding parry will be addressed in a future post in this blog.  So what are we to make of the following passage translated from Mangiarotti and Cerchiari's La Vera Scherma (1966, p. 256):

"Ceding Parry

It is performed at near distance measure and on the four lines by transferring the blade from the guard line and yielding the fist so that the iron is located on a diagonal plane with a high tip to parry the attacks directed at the high line targets or fist and tip diametrically opposite (tip down) to parry the low line targets.  There are four ceding parries with the point weapons: 

(1) the ceded fourth answering the glide to the inner chest; 

(2) the third ceding responding to an angulated glide to the back; 

(3) the eighth ceding responding to the angulated glide to the abdomen; and

(4) the half-circle ceding responding to reverse coupe (the coupe executed around the tip of the blade in low line) to the high outside target."

None of these look anything like the standard ceding parries that pivot around the blade to form the new parry.  For that matter, why are we even interested in this - Mangiarotti and Cerchiari's book is well outside the classical period?

There is a reason.  Edoardo Mangiarotti was the son of Maestro di Scherma Giuseppi Mangiarotti - by 1935 his technique was well formed, leading to selection of the Italian Team for the 1936 Olympics and Gold Medals at that Olympics and at successive world events in 1937 and 1938.  His competitive record until his retirement from competition in 1960 make him the dominant male fencer of the modern Olympic era.  Thus the ceding parry in La Vera Scherma may be something perfected in the 1950s, but equally, if not more, likely a technique reflective of his earlier training.  That merited a further search to determine if other sources describe a similar technique closer to the classical period.

A fairly thorough search of the English language sources revealed a number of descriptions of the ceding parry using the opponent's blade to move the defender's blade into a new parrying position.  But, finally on pages 108 and 109 of R. A. Lidstone's Fencing (1952), there is a description of a series of parries which may be used to defeat the graze, croise, and bind.  Lidstone's book is reflective of technique prior to the Second World War and the slow reemergence of fencing after the war; it is thus a useful marker of technique at the end of the classical period.    

The basic technique is similar to that described by Mangiarotti, but Lidstone gives a clearer description.  The fundamental action transfers domination and control of the blade from the attacker to the defender by bending, and even withdrawing the arm and raising In the high line) or lowering (in the low line) the point of the weapon.  Done quickly and decisively, it shifts the relationship from control of the defender's foible by the attacker's forte to control of the attacker's foible by the defender's forte as the defender's blade slides back along the blade and up (down in the low line) and the arm raises (lowers in the low line) and withdraws.    Lidstone's description varies from Mangiarotti's in that Lidstone does not incline the blade away from the guard line.  

To summarize Lidstone's applications to defend against the:

(1)  Graze - in high line withdraw the hand quickly and be ready to raise it higher than normal.  Against the graze in low line the hand may have to be lowered more than normal or withdrawn further.

(2)  Croise -  the parry in octave or seconde is executed with the hand significantly withdrawn (preferable) or the hand lowered.

(3)  Bind - the bind must be stopped before the opponent starts to move the blade across the body and before the blade starts to lower or raise, depending on whether from high to low line or low to high line.

(3a)  Bind In Octave - the hand is withdrawn and lowered when the opponent's point has started to descend below the defender's hand level, but before any crosswise movement.  Riposte underneath with an upward hand movement or by half-disengage.

(3b)  Bind in Sixte from Septime - parry as the opponent's blade starts to raise above the defender's hand, but before the blade starts to progress inward.  The hand should be raised backward, upward, and outward into a high sixte to maintain domination.  Direct riposte.

(3c)  Bind in Septime from Sixte - parry by drawing the hand backward into septime with the point lower than the regular septime position.  Riposte high line, covered. 

Although both Mangiarotti and Lidstone describe these ceding parries in the context of strong opposition, it seems likely that they may have value against the weaker glide, and even as a parry against a fast, deep, detached attack.  In any case, it seems reasonable to add the parry with a blade withdrawal and a change in blade attitude to our understanding of the ceding or yielding parry in  the later years of the classical period.

But the story is not yet over.  Maestro di Scherma Masaniello Parise in his 1884 Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre (Holzman translation) establishes that the ceding parry is in use in the Italian School in the 1880s.  

There are two ceding parries, of fourth and of third.  The performance of the technique is described as simple.  The blade maintains contact with the the gliding action of the opponent's blade without attempting to resist the opposition.  The fencer lowers his or her hand, the wrist is relaxed, and the point of the blade raised simultaneously.  This frees the blade by opposing the opponent's action with the forte.  The immediate riposte is by glide or straight thrust.

Parise proposes the ceding parry against the fianconata in fourth or in second or the glide in second with the hand into the fourth position.  Against a false glide in fourth, the ceding parry of third is executed with the hand in the second position.  Now we know that the ceding parry with a raise of the point of the blade, a yielding foible to forte transition, and a lowered hand can be found, especially in Italian fencing, throughout the classical period.

Sources:

Lidstone, R. A.; Fencing: A Practical Treatise on Foil, Epee, Sabre; [fencing manual]; H. F. & G. Witherby, Ltd, London, United Kingdom; 1952.

Mangiarotti, Edoardo and Aldo Cerchiari; La Vera Scherma; [fencing manual]; Longanesi & C,  Milano, Italy; 1966.

Parise, Masaniello; Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre; in The Roman-Neapolitan School of Fencing: The Collected Works of Masaniello Parise, Maestro di Scherma; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [collected works]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1884 reprinted as a collected work 2015.

copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Creative Commons License

Ceding Parries by Withdrawing and Raising or Lowering the Arm by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Saturday, April 03, 2021

S21.3.2. Slips of the Leg

Today we understand the target at sabre as stopping at a line drawn across the points of the hips.  However, this has not always been the case.  Early in the classical period, the forward leg was considered by a substantial part of the fencing community to be part of the sabre target, with some debate as to whether parries or evasions should be used to protect it.  There are three solutions that appear to be in play during the period:

(1)  Evasion only:  The French Ministry of War's 1877 Fencing Manual directs that cuts to the leg or thigh should not be parried, but rather evaded by a slip (or voiding action).  This same evasion appears in Rondelle (1892).

(2)  Evasion combined with a parry:  Vendrell y Eduart (1879) suggests that the low line leg parries of 3rd (outside low line) and 4th (inside low line) must be performed with evasion by a leg slip.  

(3)  Parry only:  Merelo y Casedemunt (1862) describes the low line parries that defend the forward leg as 5th (outside low line) and 6th (inside low line).  In 1889 Hutton specifies Low Prime or Septime to defend the low inside and Seconde or Octave to protect the low outside.  By 1891 he had simplified the choices to Septime and Seconde. 

The evasion of choice was the slip, a voiding of the leg and thigh by withdrawing the front foot and leg to the rear past the rear leg.  The final position depicted by the 1877 French manual and by Vendrell y Eduart in 1879 was with the feet approximately the same distance apart as they would have been in a normal guard.  As a result the torso was rotated to a position at right angles to the line of direction in order to preserve some reach with the weapon arm.

Sometime during the 1890s it appears that the slip started to be deleted from the lexicon of classical fencing movements.  It is worth asking why?  We have not located an authoritative statement, but by 1889 rules included in Hutton's Cold Steel limit the target to above the waist.  If the rules commonly used eventually eliminated the forward leg as a target, there would have been no requirement to defend it.

Note that Hutton in both Cold Steel (1889) and The Swordsman (1891) still uses the term "Slipping," to decsribe two actions: (1) the withdrawal of the arm to evade an attack and (2) what is termed in later years of the classical period as a reassemblement.

However, it may be just as likely that the slip limited the ability to riposte and exposed additional target.   A step back with the rear foot meant that the foot had to regain its original position before the riposte could reach full extension.  As a result more movement was necessary to execute the riposte and thus that the arrival on the opponent's target was slower.  A second consideration may have been that the rotation of the torso required during the slip to keep the blade as far forward as possible exposed the entire torso as easily reached target for point thrusts or banderole and girdle (abdominal or belly) cuts.  

Sources:

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing Manual; translation by Chris Slee; [fencing manual]; reprint by Long Edge Press, no place; 1877 reprinted 2017.

Hutton, Alfred; Cold Steel: The Art of Fencing with the Sabre; reprinted edition with added introduction; [fencing manual]; William Clowes & Sons, Limited, London; reprint by Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, New York, United States of America;   1889 reprint no date.

Hutton, Alfred; The Swordsman: A Manual of Fence for the Foil, Sabre, and Bayonet; [fencing manual]; H. Grevel & Company, London, United Kingdom; reprint by The Naval and Military Press, Uckfield, East Sussex, United Kingdom; 1891, reprint no date.

Merelo y Casedemunt, Jose; Manual of Fencing: Compilation of the Most Principal Techniques that Constitute the True Fencing of the Spanish Saber and of the Foil; translation by John Jakelsky; [fencing manual]; Typography Establishment of R. Labajos, Madrid, Spain; translated and reprinted by John Jakelsky, Xativa, Valencia, Spain; 1878, reprinted 2019.

Rondelle, Louis; Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing in Detailed Lessons for Professor and Pupil; [fencing manual]; Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; 1892. 

Vendrell y Eduart, Liborio; Art of Fencing with the Saber in Accordance with the Advancements of the Modern School; translation by John Jakelsky; [fencing manual]; Imprenta y Libreria de Elias  Sarasqueta, Vitoria, Spain; translated and reprinted by John Jakelsky, Xativa, Valencia, Spain; 1879 reprinted 2019.

Copyright 2021 by Walter G. Green III

Creative Commons License

Slips of the Leg by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.