E1.1/S1.3. Patton's Engagement

The standard model of engagement is based on establishing a position with blade contact to close a line.  However, this Is not the only approach.  Lieutenant George S. Patton, Jr., Master of the Sword at the United States Army Mounted Service School at Fort Riley, Kansas, offers a different approach in his 1915 work, Diary of the Instructor in Swordsmanship.  Patton learned to fence at the United States Military Academy, represented the United States in the 1912 Stockholm Olympics in Modern Pentathlon, placing fourth of 42 in the fencing event, and subsequently studied under Maire Clery at the French Army Cavalry School at Samur.  The basic school of his West Point training is unknown, but it is reasonably obvious that the training at Samur was French.

Patton developed a dismounted training program for the United States Army cavalry based on the principle of the attack to develop fencers oriented completely to offensive action, not just with the sword, but in the broader context of cavalry combat.  He called this program Point Fencing.  The use of the term “Point” aligns this with the French use of “Pointe” to identify fencing with the point weapons, the foil and the dueling sword.  And it is entirely consistent with the intended use of the Army Model 1913 Cavalry Sabre for thrusting combat, largely to the exclusion of cutting.

Point Fencing could be done with either the epee, using the standard grip, or with the fencing sabre, using a supinated grip with the guard turned to the inside.  The standard guard position pictured was an epee bent arm guard, with the arm partly extended and the blade horizontal.  In this guard, engagement was taken with:

• No crossing of the blades or use of sentiment de fer. 
• The blades horizontal, parallel, and close to each other.  Photographs suggest that the separation was one to two inches.
• The distance such that each point was within approximately one inch of the opponent’s guard.
• Each blade was to the right of the opponent’s blade (assuming both fencers were right handed) and threatening the inside edge of the opponent’s guard.

This is a very different engagement.  It abandons three basic purposes of the engagement common in the point weapons, the closing of a line, the facilitation of the parry, and the ability to sense the opponent’s actions.  However, it makes sense as training for cavalry.  In the violent clash of two bodies of cavalry on the charge, there was no time to engage or feel the opponent’s blade as a basis for your actions.  As for defense, Patton suggested that the proper defense was an opponent transfixed by your sword.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

Patton's Engagement by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

1. The French Engagement

Engagement is an important concept in classical fencing.  When fencing was conducted primarily at medium distance, engagement could be used as a safe and standard place from which to initiate actions. This initial engagement became a defining feature of foil and sabre, and a cultural value of the sport.  Its importance is reflected in De Bazancourt’s (1862, Clay’s 1900 translation) story of the fencer who would not engage at the start of fencing and the consternation that caused.     

In 1877 the French Fencing Ministry of War published its instruction manual Fencing Manual (Chris Slee’s translation).  This early source stated that engagement is taken to cover oneself by transferring the contact from the side of the blade on which contact was first made to the opposite side of the blade.  It is thus a lateral contact, followed by a disengage of the blade and laterally closing the line in the opposite line.  Rondelle (1892) repeated this same sequence, in modern terminology a lateral engagement followed by a change of engagement.  Senac (1904) also repeated the description.  This was the last description of this complicated procedure in readily available sources (although the last reprinting of Senac in 1924 repeats this).   

This was not the only approach to engagement.  Pollock, Grove, and Prevost (1890) described the engagement as contact of the blades done in any of the four lines, although they noted that French fencers rarely engaged in the low lines.  George Heintz (1890) also defined the engagement as the touching of the blades and notes that these may be taken in the inside and outside lines.

Colmore-Dunn (1891) provided what may be the most detailed discussion of the engagement.  Key points he made included:

When fencers came on guard, they should do so with the engagement.

• Choosing the engagement was based on (first) the engagement must cover the fencer adequately, (second) the position must not hinder execution of any other defensive action, and (third) the engagement must facilitate the delivery of attacks.
• The French School did not engage in the low lines because high line engagement protected more area, and because it was faster to move from high to low than from low to high lines.
• Tierce was eliminated for the engagement because pronation does not position the hand for as many subsequent actions as does supination.
• Sixte was eliminated because the forward shoulder and chest was exposed, requiring that the cover provided by the engagement be well executed.
• The primary engagement was in the high inside line (quarte).  Engagement in that line closed the line without the necessity to parry, and the natural slant of the body better protected the target area.  In addition the hand was stronger in quarte, and was positioned to make the highly regarded circular parry of quarte.
• After initial engagement, engagements were determined by the line of the opponent’s blade. 

The 1908 publication Fencing, a translation of the French Ministry of War 1908 manual issued by the Amateur Fencers League of America, described the engagement as both the act of joining the blades and the position of the blades being in contact.  The text noted that engagements may be taken in all of the standard guard positions.

Manrique (1920) introduced the idea that the engagement should be more than just contact.  He specified that the contact should carry the opponent’s point away from the fencer’s target.  This was a step toward the concept in some modern texts that engagement should dominate the contact. 

Castello (1933) depicted the engagement and described the action as a contact without pressure.  He noted that, although engagement can be taken in all lines, the most common engagements were in 2^nd, 4^th, 6^th, and 7^th. 

To summarize, if you are going to engage in the French School, the first model in the period 1870s to 1900 was blade contact followed by a disengage and lateral closing of a new line.  This was replaced starting at least by 1890 by a simple lateral contact with the blade.  By the 1920s at least one Master was thinking about engagement in the context not of contact with the blade, but with positive deviation of the blade from the target by opposition.  Theoretically, engagement was possible in all lines, the French School tended to engage in high line.  In the high line, engagement in quarte was preferable.   

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

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

E0.3 The Epee Straight Arm Guard

In classical epee there are four possible guards a fencer can adopt as the basis for attack and defense.  These include the straight arm or long guard, the medium or bent-arm guard, the short guard, and the same basic guard as prevalent in foil.  Of these, three (medium, short, and foil) survive in modern fencing.  This makes the straight arm guard a distinctly classical approach to the basic fighting position of the fencer who fences with a French grip.  It is described by Castello (1933), Grave (1934), Vince (1937), Lidstone (1952), and illustrations in Faire, Fildes, and Gray's history of The Epee Club (2000) show the guard in use as early as 1901, often with the hand positioned toward the pommel end of the grip.

The fencer assumes the straight arm guard from a normal position of guard with the legs and torso.  The weapon arm is extended fully, creating a straight line between the forward shoulder and the point of the weapon in the line of sixth.  The point continually threatens the opponent's nearest target area, conceptually the hand and forearm.  The muscles of the shoulder and arm should be relaxed to allow rapid, smooth movement of the blade.  In defense parries are executed either with the blade or the bell.

The straight arm guard offers significant advantages:

   • Like the point in line in foil or sabre, the straight arm guard presents an immediate threat to any forward movement by the opponent.

   • The forward position of the point reduces the distance to target, increasing the effective tactical speed of an attack or counterattack from the guard.

   • The forward position of the arm and bell makes it possible for relatively small blade and bell movements to cut off angles to the target and intercept attacking blades, increasing the protection it offers.

There are, however, disadvantages to the guard:

   • The fencer using the straight arm guard has to be accustomed to the guard in order to reliably relax the hand, arm, and shoulder - otherwise movement is slower and may be irregular.

   • The fully extended blade is vulnerable to attacks on the blade and takings of the blade.  The fencer has to maintain constant vigilance to be able to deceive such actions.

   • The fully extended arm is vulnerable to digs from below (attacks with angulation directed upwards), and any error in position exposes the hand as a target.

The straight arm guard is a thoroughly classical guard - we can document its use as early as 1901 and by the 1950s its was disappearing from fencing texts.  It adds to the epee fencer's tool kit the ability to change guards, complicating opponent's offensive challenges.  To a degree unmatched by the other guards, it offers a balanced capability for offense and defense, maintaining a forward threat and occupying a position that reduces opponents' access to the fencer's target.  Any classical epee fencer should know the tactics for its employment, and, for those schools which embraced the straight arm guard, be skilled in its application.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III.

The Epee Straight Arm Guard by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

0.5b. Grave and Coming On Guard

Rondelle, Senac, Grandiere, and others represent the standard French method of coming on guard in the late 1800s and early 1900s, as established in the 1877 Ministry of War Fencing Manual (translation by Chris Slee).  However, this approach does not remain unaltered throughout the classical period.  Maitre Felix Grave presents the trend toward simplification with a five count and a three count coming on guard in his 1934 text, Fencing Comprehensive.  Grave held the diploma of Maitre d’Armes from both the Academy of Arms of Paris and the Academy of the Epee, and maintained a Salle in London, starting in 1900.

Grave’s manual offers three versions of the coming on guard sequence.  The first is the standard 1877 Ministry of War model described in the article in this series on coming on guard with the French Foil.  The second is a five movement sequence:

(1)  The fencer stands in First Position (which Grave terms the Prepare Position), standing upright with the leading foot on the directing line, rear foot at 90 degrees off the line to the inside, the legs together, and the weapon slanted down and forward.

(2)  Raise the weapon arm with the foil in line with the arm so that the hand is at eye level in supination, the point toward the opponent.

(3)  Bend both arms.  The weapon arm is bent in front of the chest with the pommel of the weapon level with the waist line, the hand slightly to the outside, and the point level with the chin or eyes.  Although Grave indicates the pommel is at waist level, photographs place the pommel higher than the waist when in the on guard position with the forearm and blade in a straight line.  The rear arm is described as rounded – the accompanying photograph shows the upper arm extended horizontally to the rear, the forearm at approximately a 45 degree upward angle, and the hand relaxed, palm and nails forward.

(4)  Bend both legs, keeping the feet together, so that the torso lowers toward the sitting position.

(5)  Carry the weapon foot forward approximately 15 inches, keeping the heels on the line, the rear foot at right angles to the inside, and the weight evenly distributed between the legs.  Note the change in how weight is distributed from slightly to the rear in the 1890s to even in 1934.

This is substantially the same process of coming on guard described in the 1908 French Ministry of War manual distributed in English under the title Fencing.

Grave’s second method of coming on guard is done in three movements:

(1) The fencer raises the weapon arm directly as described above, standing upright with the legs together, without necessarily formally assuming the First Position.

(2) The arms bend with the weapon arm and rear arm moving into the positions described above.

(3) The fencer steps directly into the last position of the guard with the weapon foot stepping forward as described above.

Grave represents the trend toward modernization of the step-by-step formality of the late 1800s.  By the end of the classical period, Deladrier (1948) only describes a three step process similar to Grave’s three motions, and Lidstone (1952) says that all of the motions of coming to guard should be performed simultaneously from First Position.   Grave provides the mid points of five and three movements that transition from the most formal classical to the least formal modern ways of assuming the guard. 

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III    

Grave and Coming On Guard by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

0.5a Coming On Guard with the French Foil

Fencing Masters in the classical period commonly included a specific method of coming on guard in their fencing manuals. Today these seem strange to a modern fencer, but at the time the element of ceremony they represented was an accepted part of the sport. Maitre d’Armes Louis Rondelle’s 1892 text, Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing, provides a detailed seven step process for coming on guard. Rondelle’s description is essentially the same as Regis and Louis Senac’s 1904 description of coming on guard in The Art of Fencing, and the similar description in Maurice Grandiere’s 1906 volume How To Fence. Evidence suggests that this is a standard method of coming on guard in the French School in the period 1877-1908, based on the 1877 French Ministry of War Fencing Manual (Slee’s translation).

(1) From the position of attention (the common First Position with the feet at a 90 degree angle to each other on the directing line, the legs straight, the torso upright, and the weapon arm inclined downward to the front), the arm, with foil in line with the arm, is raised so that the hand is level with the fencer’s eye, the point in line and extended toward the opponent. 

(2) The weapon arm is lowered with the foil in a straight line until the point of the foil is approximately 4 inches from the surface of the piste. 

(3) The foil is swung down and around, the point to the inside, ending with the blade parallel to the surface of the piste across the thighs. The weapon hand reverses so that the fingernails are toward the body and downward. Simultaneously, the fingers on the non-weapon hand are placed along the blade, palm up, and the nails in contact with the guard. 

(4) The foil, with both hands in the same relative position as in step 3, is raised vertically close along the body with the blade horizontal until the arms are completely extended above the head. 

(5) Simultaneously both arms bend. The non-weapon hand releases the blade and the arm lowers to the bent arm position, upper-arm horizontal, the forearm vertical, and the hand forward and relaxed with fingers forward. The weapon hand moves downward in line with the opponent to chest height with the thumb upward. The arm is bent with the elbow approximately 8 inches from the chest. The blade of the foil is in line with the forearm and the point of the foil is in line with the opponent’s eye. 

(6) With the feet in contact and at right angles, bend the knees so that the body sinks maintaining an even balance. 

(7) Shift the body weight to the rear leg, and move the front foot forward in a direct line from the rear heel toward the opponent to land at an appropriate distance from the rear foot. The forward knee should be directly above the instep of the forward foot, and the body weight should be slightly shifted toward the rear leg. 

In 1908 the manual Fencing issued by the Amateur Fencers League of America as a translation of the French Ministry of War manual of the same year, establishes a simpler sequence. It is, however, reasonable to assume that the older seven step sequence remained in use for some considerable period of time afterwards. 

More than ceremony was involved in this series of steps. The guard position is the basic physical position of the fencer’s body from which footwork and both offensive and defensive bladework flows. A balanced guard position was critical then, and remains critical now, to efficient movement on the piste. How one comes on guard contributes to achieving that balanced position, and this method results in a technically correct position. However, that is not the only advantage. The process of coming on guard serves as a tool to focus the fencer on the bout, and a technically correct execution may serve notice to the opponent that the fencer is a skilled opponent. 

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III.

 
Coming On Guard with the French Foil by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

T.1. The Four Lines

Throughout the classical period and into modern times, fencing masters have divided the foil target into four specific areas.  These are commonly termed lines, and sometimes lines of attack, lines of defense (Rondelle 1892), or lines of parry (Cass 1930).  The result is a division of the target into high and low, outside and inside lines, creating four quadrants.  How you understand these quadrants depends on how they are described and illustrated.

The illustrations are key to how many fencers, even today, think about the target.  They have appeared in multiple texts, and fall into two categories:

Illustrations that show the lines as subdivisions on the chest of the fencing jacket.
• Illustrations that show the lines with the fencer holding a weapon.

The difference is significant.  The illustrations based on as subdivision of the chest, such as Colomore Dunn’s (1891), show the target divided laterally and vertically into four similar areas.  The vertical division is down the centerline of the chest and abdomen; the horizontal division splits the target into two essentially equal parts.  The weapon arm is not depicted, providing no reference to how the quadrants align with the weapon.  The impression is that these are fixed segments based on the shape and size of the fencer’s body.

In contrast, the illustrations (for example, Pinto Martins 1895 and Cass 1930) that include the weapon arm, show the quadrants in relation to the weapon.  This is important, because a hit to the upper forward quadrant of the chest could be a hit in either of the two high line quadrants, depending on the location of the arm.  

The quadrants themselves are described in the same way by most sources based on the French school.  There are four lines:

• High line – everything above a horizontal line drawn through the guard or the fencer’s hand.
• Low Line - everything below a horizontal line drawn through the guard or the fencer’s hand.
• Inside Line – everything from a vertical line through the guard toward the fencer’s chest and abdomen (to the fencer’s left if right-handed, or to the right if left-handed).
• Outside Line - everything from a vertical line through the guard toward the fencer’s flank and back (to the fencer’s right if right-handed, or to the left if left-handed). 

The combination of the lines results in the four quadrants:

• High Inside – also termed Fourth.
• Low Inside – also termed Seventh.  Rondelle terms this Low Fourth.
• Low Outside – also termed Second or Eighth.  Rondelle terms this Low Sixth.
• High Outside – also termed Third or Sixth.

Note that in each case the point from which the line is defined is variously the guard, the hand, or the grip of the weapon, effectively the same place (Heintz 1890, Rondelle 1892, Manrique 1920).  Because the guard moves, the lines themselves move upward and downward, inward or outward, with the result that the quadrants increase in size and shape, sometimes offering an extensive target area, sometimes a very small one.

Because both attack and defense are described throughout fencing in terms of the lines, understanding the terms is important.  Because the way an attack or defense is described is in the context of the lines, applying the technique tactically requires an understanding of not only the location, but also the mobility, of the lines.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III.  

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

0.5.c. Drawing The Sword

In previous articles in this series I have described First Position, the basic body position from which flows the salute and the coming on guard in classical fencing.  So far, I have identified three variants, the most common, with the blade held to the front, one appropriate for sabre with the broadsword or sabre resting on the forward shoulder, and an Italian variant with the blade held on the inside with the point to the rear.   Now it is time to consider the First Position in which the blade is not held in the weapon, but rather with the unarmed hand.

In 1883 George H. Benedict (Manual of Boxing, Club Swinging and Manly Sports) describes a First Position as part of a sequence leading to a simulated draw of the foil transitioning into a salute:

(1)  The weapon arm foot is pointed forward toward the opponent with the rear foot pointed at 90 degrees to the inside and drawn up close so that the heel touches the forward foot.

(2)  The legs are straight and the torso upright, the hips drawn slightly back and turned to the inside at approximately a 45 degree angle.

(3)  The head is erect and facing the opponent.

(4)  The arms hang loosely by the sides, with the non-dominant hand holding foil loosely by the rear hip.

(5)  To draw the sword, the fencer bends the forward arm at the elbow, carrying the hand in supination across the body to grasp the grip of the foil thumb down. 

(6)  Both hands are separated as they are raised above the head, ending with the non-weapon hand holding the button of the foil.  This drawing of the weapon then transitions into the salute. 

Regis and Louis Senac’s The Art of Fencing (first published in 1904 and reprinted as late as 1926) pictures a similar sequence for drawing the foil:

(1)  The body is held as described by Benedict, with the exception that the foil is held in the non-dominant hand at the top of the hip with the arm bent and the elbow to the rear at waist level.

(2)  The fencer extends the weapon arm upward at approximately a 45 degree angle, palm open, thumb upward.  This is described as a salute.

(3)  The weapon arm is brought back to grasp the grip of the weapon, elbow to the outside, and forearm across the body at waist level.

(4)  The arm is then extended drawing the blade out of the imaginary scabbard and swinging forward into a full extension of the arm and blade, again at a 45 degree upward angle directly to the front.  This becomes the start of the transition into the guard.

It is important to note that, like the multiple steps of coming on guard practiced in a number of variations in the classical period, drawing the foil from an imaginary scabbard in and of itself performs no technically useful fencing function.   However, it should not be dismissed out of hand.  It forms part of a ceremony of polite recognition that the opponent is worthy and honors fencing as an activity, something that was valued in the classical period.  That is not all; a smartly executed sequence conveys to the opponent that you are skilled opponent in a subtle bit of psychological warfare.  Finally, the ritual serves a valuable purpose in helping to focus and center the fencer on the imminent task of fighting the bout.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III.

Drawing the Sword by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

0.1.b. First Position - Two Alternatives

In a previous article I described the most common version of First Position, the traditional position a fencer assumes on the piste before saluting and coming to guard at the start of an assault or a bout, or before engaging in the either the military or civilian grand salute.  In this upright position, the sword is held in front of the fencer with the point toward the ground.  There are three variations of this position that, although less frequent, deserve recording: a sabre variant by J. M. Waite (1880), a variation in how the weapon is held found in Italian fencing as described in Holzman’s translations of Pariese (1884) and Pecoraro and Pessina (1912), and variations based on a simulated drawing of the sword that I will describe in a future article.

To assume the Preliminary Position before coming on Guard as described by Waite:

(1)  The weapon arm foot is placed on the directing line (the line joining you and your opponent) pointing at your opponent in the middle of the piste.

(2)  The heel of the rear foot touches the heel of the front foot with the foot oriented 90 degrees to inside from the directing line.

(3)  The legs are straight, the torso upright and balanced, turned at an angle of approximately 45 degrees to the inside across the hips.

(4)  The head is upright, facing the opponent directly.

(5)  The hand of the non-weapon arm is closed and placed on the rear hip, with the elbow back so that it is not visible from the front. 

(6)  The weapon is held in the weapon hand with the grip relaxed, the back edge of the sword resting in the hollow of the forward shoulder, the sword arm elbow touching the forward hip, the forearm parallel to the ground, and the guard in the direct line in front of the hip.

The First Position used in some Italian Texts, as described by Pariese, and Pecoraro and Pessina, is described:

(1)  The weapon arm foot is placed on the directing line (the line joining you and your opponent) pointing at your opponent in the middle of the piste.

(2)  The heel of the rear foot touches the heel of the front foot with the foot oriented 90 degrees to inside from the directing line.

(3)  The legs are straight, the torso upright and balanced, turned parallel to the directing line, the shoulders level.

(4)  The head is upright, facing the opponent directly.

(5)  The hand of the non-weapon arm is placed on the flank, in the fork between the thumb and the index finger, and the elbow bent. 

(6)  The weapon is held in the weapon hand to the fencer’s inside line, with the blade held diagonally with the point toward the rear as though in a scabbard, the point behind the rear foot just above the ground.

These variants differ in how the sword and the rear arm are held, and are generally similar in other respects to the more widely described version of First Position.  Their function is consistent also, serving as the basis for the fencer assuming the guard position.  As always, you should adopt the First Position described by the Fencing Master whose text you study.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

First Position - Two Alternatives by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

0.1.a. First Position

First Position is the traditional position a fencer assumes on the piste before saluting and coming to guard at the start of an assault or a bout, or before engaging in the either the military or civilian grand salute.  In the context of classical fencing, this is a formal position from which the following positions flow.  What this position looks like, and how you assume it, is defined in the same way in virtually every fencing manual of the classical period (see, as a start, the French Ministry of War manuals of 1877 and 1908, Rondelle in 1892, to Barbasetti in 1932, Vince in 1937, and Deladrier in 1948).  There are variations in the naming of the action, for example “Initial Position” or “Position Preparatory to Coming On Guard,” but the description of the position is the same.  Given this level of agreement, First Position is a core footwork position of classical fencing.

To assume First Position on the piste: 

(1)  The weapon arm foot is placed on the directing line (the line joining you and your opponent) pointing at your opponent in the middle of the piste.

(2)  The heel of the rear foot touches the heel of the front foot with the foot oriented 90 degrees to inside from the directing line.

(3)  The legs are straight, the torso upright and balanced, turned at an angle of approximately 45 degrees to the inside across the hip.

(4)  The head is upright, facing the opponent directly.

(5)  The non-weapon arm hangs naturally along the rear leg with the hand open.

(6)  The weapon is held in the weapon hand in the characteristic grip, typically in a thumb-up (middle) position or in supination in both foil and epee, and in     pronation with the guard turned to the outside in sabre.

(7)  The weapon and the weapon arm form a straight line directly forward along  the directing line toward the opponent, slanted downward such that the point of the weapon is approximately 4 to 6 inches from the surface of the piste.

For a very simple position involving little movement and no bladework, there is a substantial number of fairly precise parts to First Position. Although the fencer should be relaxed in the position, assuming it with attention to detail conveys a level of skill and of precision to the jury and the opponent and sets the stage for a smart salute and a smooth transition to the guard position.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III.

First Position by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

H.1. The Classical Period

The Classical Academy of Arms defines the classical period of fencing in terms of three major factors: (1) how the sword is used, (2) the social context of the sword in sport, and (3) the signature weapons of the period. The Academy believes that, when these factors are applied, the result is a coherent approach to the use of the sword, with a standard set of weapons, in a definable social context.

The sword has been used in at least 5 different ways: as a military weapon, as a weapon for civilian personal defense, in judicial trials by combat, as a method of settling affairs of honor, and for sport.

The sword enters the period following the American Civil War (1861-65) and the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) much diminished as a battlefield weapon. These wars demonstrated that rapid-fire firearms, the development of early machine guns, and longer ranged breech loading artillery had made the premier battlefield use of the sword, the massed cavalry charge, extraordinarily costly. In spite of various attempts to restore the sword to its traditional stature, and its continued inclusion in military training, by the early 1900s it was an anachronism.

The sword for daily personal defense had already disappeared from use with the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Men about town no longer carried a sword as a fashion accessory.

The last recorded attempt to use the sword in judicial trial by combat occurred in England in 1818. The result was a speedy, and somewhat embarrassed, legislative revocation of the trial by combat in 1819.

The settling of affairs of honor by the sword had suffered a downturn with the development of dueling pistols in the 1700s. However, in the years after the Franco-Prussian War, the use of swords in duels became a nationalistic cause, and by the 1880s this resurgence fueled a rebirth of interest in dueling with the dueling sword and the sabre. Subsequently the carnage of World War I generally satiated the bloodlust of society, and by World War II the duel was an infrequent event.

That leaves the use of the sword for sport. The Victorian sports revival included fencing, leading to the organization of competitions, the development of governing organizations, the establishment of common rules, and the inclusion of fencing in the first Olympic games, all in the period 1880-1910. Civilian sport and dueling technique clearly diverged from the military use of the sword. Fencing was a sport of the white social elite, with women’s roles narrowly proscribed, and firmly amateur in character.

During the period from the 1880s through to the early 1950s, three weapons evolved into their modern form (foil, epee, and sabre), and two were eventually discarded (the bayonet and singlestick).

Thus, during the period from approximately 1880 to World War II the combination of several trends clearly defines a period of change and rebirth in fencing. The period saw the end of the military use of the sword for anything but ceremonial purpose and the slow demise of dueling, leaving the sword only as a weapon for sport. At the same time fencing texts evolved to focus on the civilian and then the sporting use of fencing weapons. The birth of organized sports in general in the Victorian sports revival included fencing, making its practice more international in scope. And as fencing moved into international competition, rising nationalism in Europe adopted fencing as an element of national power.

This period clearly ends with World War II. Not only does international fencing stop during the period 1939-1945, but after the war fencing undergoes significant changes. The introduction of electric scoring to foil and eventually sabre complete the transition in scoring and technique started with electric epee in the 1930s. The adoption of fencing, and all international sports, as an element of a wider national security strategy by the Soviet block led to revolutionary changes. The use of the sports factory model and the quest for medals as a measure of international prestige fundamentally reshaped how fencing was funded and managed at the national level. The development of sports science led to significant changes in the development of athletes. Social changes cleared the way for women to participate fully at all levels in the sport, changed the character of the athletes from members of the rich elite to a much wider population including all races, and led to the eventual abandonment of the amateur ideal.

Based on these changes on how the sword was used, the context of fencing as a sport, and the signature weapons in use, the Academy believes that a reasonable definition of the classical period is a transitional period during the years between approximately 1880 and the onset of World War II in 1939. 

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III.


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