S10.1.2. Varieties of Second in Sabre

Fencing guards and parries in the classical period (1880-1939) were more numerous and varied in interpretation on the theme than in modern fencing.  Nowhere was this truer than the variety of guards employed in Sabre, the cut and thrust weapon.   Because the purpose of a guard is to provide a starting point for both offensive and defensive action, guards are paired with parries which operationalize the guard to block an attack into the line which the guard theoretically closes.

One of the guards universally described in period texts is Second, protecting the outside line flank (the portion of the target under the fencer’s arm on the right side for the right handed fencer and on the left side for the left handed fencer) and the underside of the arm.  These are low line targets as they are exposed below the guard of the Sabre.

The selection of Second guards in contemporary texts falls into three categories:

1.  Guards with the arm only partly extended at waist level and the blade parallel to the ground.

2.  Guards with the arm extended in the high line and the blade slanting downward.

3.  Guards with the arm extended only partly and the blade vertical.

We can describe these based on blade angle from the horizontal, the blade orientation relative to covering the target, the hand position, and the arm extension.  These descriptions are from the text and illustrations in a sample of fencing manuals by noted Fencing Masters available in English.

Among the guards and parries with the blade parallel to the ground and the arm only partly extended at waist level are the following:

… Parry of Flank (Louis Rondelle 1892) - the hand and elbow are at belt level with the hand a little to the outside of the target, the hand in pronation, the blade cutting edge to the outside inclined downward and inward toward the opponent's knee.

… Horizontal Second (Antonio Domingos Pinto Martins 1895) - the weapon forearm is level parallel to the ground at the fencer's waist, the hand in pronation, the point several inches below the level of the guard with the blade turned front edge to the outside.

… Second (Julio Martinez Castello) - the weapon forearm is partly extended forward parallel to the ground at lower chest level, the hand in pronation slightly to the outside of the target, the blade turned front edge to the outside and parallel to the fencing line, the point several inches below the level of the guard.

… Second (Clovis Deladrier in 1948) - the weapon arm is level parallel to the ground at the fencer's waist, the hand in pronation, the point several inches below the level of the guard with the blade turned front edge to the outside, and the arm is at the outside limit of the target.

The following guards are taken with the arm extended in high line and the blade slanting downward:

… Second Engagement and Second Parry (L. J. M. P. Van Humbeek 1895) - the arm extended slightly to the outside with the hand at shoulder height, the pronated hand and guard oriented 45 degrees above the horizontal to the outside, the blade slanted downward toward the opponent's thigh, and the cutting edge diagonally upward to the outside. 

… Second (Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina 1912) - the weapon arm is fully extended, hand at shoulder height, the pronated hand and guard oriented 45 degrees above the horizontal to the outside, the blade slanted downward toward the opponent's flank, and the cutting edge diagonally upward to the outside. 

… Second (Leon Bertrand 1927) - the weapon arm is fully extended, hand at shoulder height, the pronated hand and guard oriented 45 degrees above the horizontal to the outside, the blade slanted downward toward the opponent's hip, and the cutting edge diagonally upward to the outside. 

… Second (Luigi Barbasetti 1935) - the weapon arm is fully extended, hand at shoulder height, the pronated hand and guard oriented 45 degrees above the horizontal to the outside, the blade slanted downward toward the opponent's hip, and the cutting edge diagonally upward to the outside.

… Second (Joseph Vince 1938) - the weapon arm is fully extended, with the hand in pronation slightly to the outside of the outside shoulder at chest height, the cutting edge to the outside, and the point of the blade directed toward the opponent forward knee.

… Right Flank (Clovis Deladrier in 1948) - the weapon arm is three quarters extended and at the outside limit of the target, the hand is at the level of the outside shoulder, the hand in pronation with the wrist bent down so as to direct the point to the lowest part of the opponent's groin, the cutting edge to the outside.

Only one source describes a guard with the arm extended only partly and the blade vertical:

… Vertical Seconde (Antonio Domingos Pinto Martins 1895) - the arm is in the high line, bent, the hand is in front of the outside shoulder, the blade is held vertically with the cutting edge to the outside.  

With the exception of Maestro Pinto Martins's Vertical Second, all the guards described are either a flat blade with a partial extension at the waist level or a downward slanted blade with a full extension of the arm at shoulder level.

When we consider the schools in which these Fencing Masters taught, the arm extended in the high line is clearly Italian in application.  Pecoraro, Pessina, Barbasetti are Italian trained and Bertrand held the Diploma of the Accademia Nazionale di Scherma of Naples; Van Humbeek's association with the Italian School is not mentioned in his text and the source of his training is uncertain.  

R. A. Lidstone describes the waist level guard as a Short Second Guard and attributes it to the Italian school, and Castello identified his sabre methods as Italian in origin.  However, Rondelle and Deladrier were Maitres d'Armes trained in the French school.  The source of the waist level guard thus requires more research.  

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III


Varieties of Second in Sabre by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

E21.3.a. The Flying Guard

A quick search of Morton's A-Z of Fencing and Evangelista's The Encyclopedia of the Sword reveals that the word "flying" has been used to describe a variety of blade and footwork actions over the last 200 years, ranging from parries to fleches.  Maitre d'Armes Claude La Marche (1898, translation by House), one of the founders of the epee as a fencing discipline, adds to the list the "flying guard."  In doing so, he harks back to a technique taught by Laboessiere fils and recommends it for the epee fencer of the 1880s and 1890s. This is one of two approaches to the Flying Guard that can be found in La Marche's work - the simpler version is in post E.21.3 La Marche's Flying Guard (December 2019) and represents the version taught in drills.

The Flying Guard is intended to achieve three tactical goals:

1.  To close the distance with an opponent who believes himself or herself to be at a distance that makes an attack unlikely,

2.  To disguise the effort to close the distance, and

3.  To allow a fast attack once a suitable distance is reached.

The Flying Guard is executed by:

1.  Coming on guard, ready for offense or defense.

2.  Taking several very small steps, each ending with an appel.  These appels are taken to ensure that the fencer maintains balance and that the legs are ready to act.  At the same time the weapon is held in a relaxed manner to ensure a fast reaction if needed. 

3.  Then make a loud appel combined with a shout to distract the opponent, as you …

4.  Bring the rear foot forward, keeping the leg well bent to avoid any body movement that would disclose the change in foot position, to close up to the front foot (gaining approximately 7 inches of distance), and

5.  Execute the attack with a lunge.

The final combination of advance, distance steal, and lunge has characteristics in common with the patinando.   The distinctive characteristic is the series of approach steps as part of an integrated, forward moving attack.

It is an uncommon thing to think of a guard as being "flying," especially when compared to other uses of the term in fencing.  In this case, the series of step-appel-step-appel-step-appel seems to be slower rather than faster.  Flying in this context appears to be used to connote the constant forward movement of the guard.

The flying guard must be viewed in the context of epee at the time (La Marche cautions that half lunges would usually suffice to carry the attack forward) and of the broader practice of classical footwork.  We know from accounts of professional bouts that the appel and shout combination was used in the 1870s and 1880s.  In this case we see an interesting combination of two of the uses of the appel, as a balance check and as a distractor.  Combined with the distance steal of bringing the rear foot forward, this makes the flying guard an interesting action worth practicing for the required coordination and as a surprise action that might be useful once in a classical bout. 

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

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

T.2. Two Lines

There are lines and then there are lines.  We tend to think of lines as high and low, inside or outside.  These lines define guard positions and parries and are commonly referred to by the number of the guard position that closes them.  However, there is a more fundamental set of two lines which define the essential geometry of the encounter, the line of direction or directing line and the line of attack or offence.

The concept of a line as a geometrical relationship between the two fencers appears in Paolo Bertilli’s Treatise of Fencing (1800, translated by Swanger).  Bertilli discusses a line in terms of the straight line that connects two fencers, without defining how that connection is made.  The advance may be made in line (on the straight line) or offline on one side or the other to gain a tactical advantage.

Fernando Masiello (Wright’s 1889 translation of an earlier text) defines the directing line as a straight line that connects the heels of one fencer with those of the other.  He emphasizes that this line must be adhered to at all times.

Friedrich Schneider (1887, translated by Steflik) uses different terminology and offers a new theoretical construct of interest.  His terminology for the directing line was the engagement line; there was a minor variation in the technical description of the line as a straight line passing along the insides of the front feet and the heels of the back feet.  This is a position slightly toward the outside when contrasted with the later heel-heel-toe alignment. 

Schneider introduces the concept of the engagement plane, a perpendicular plane directly above the line of the engagement plane.  He emphasized that foot movement should not move from the engagement line, and the movement of the weapon hand should not move from the engagement plane. 

Luigi Barbasetti (1932) describes the line of direction in a way consistent with Masiello, Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina (1912), and Masaniello Parise (1884) – In 1936, this was restated as a straight line joining the points of contact of both fencer’s heels.  Thus fencer on the left’s heel of the rear foot and heel of the front foot connected in a straight line with fencer on the right’s heel of the front foot and finally heel of the rear foot.

The line of attack differs from the line of direction in that it is blade oriented rather than footwork oriented.  Masiello defines the line of offence is the line of the arm and the weapon that would touch the breast or flank of the opponent.  Maintenance of this line prevents a successful attack unless the opponent executes a movement to disturb it.

Barbasetti (1932) defines the line of attack as existing when the fencer’s point is directed at the opponent in a way that prevents an attack until the opponent has acted to remove the threat.  This is essentially the same as Masiello’s definition of the line of offence.

Julio Martinez Castello in his The theory and Practice of Fencing (1933) defined the line of attack in a different way.  Castello defined the lines of attack as regions of the target that are attacked based on the position of the guard.  This appears to be a marriage of the Italian approach to line of offence and the French concept of four lines defined by the guard position.  This may result from Castello’s use of French technique for foil and Italian technique for sabre in his text.

Thus, we have three key concepts which appear to originate in the Italian School about the lines joining the two fencers:

• The Directing Line (later termed the fencing line – see Vass 1965) – a straight line, joining the rear heel and front heel of one fencer with the front heel and rear heel of the other (with the front toes on that line), along which the feet should move.

• The Engagement Plane – a perpendicular plane directly above the directing from which the weapon hand should not depart.

• The Line of Attack – the line established by the fencer’s arm and weapon that presents a threat to the opponent’s chest or flank and that prevents an attack unless it is removed. 

Regardless of the school of origin these are useful concepts for teaching and for understanding footwork and bladework, as well as defining the spatial relationship between the fencers.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

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

10.10. Is Distance a Parry?

The parry by distance is executed by a retreat timed to cause the opponent's attack to fall short, ending the attack.  The parry is followed immediately by a riposte.  However, some reject the status of the parry by distance as a parry and deny that the following riposte is truly a riposte.  Although the default in studying classical fencing is always to be consistent with the school and Master studied, the Classical Academy of Arms believes the parry by distance and riposte is a valid theoretical construct that should be understood.

Luigi Barbasetti (1932) stated "any movement that renders an opponent's attack harmless is a parry."  Included in this is the step back.  Barbasetti's characterization was consistent with Masaniello Parise’s earlier description (1884, Holzman’s translation): “from whatever fencing action, it is possible to defend oneself with the parry by distance which is performed by retreating one step.”

• Defensive actions are typically described as either avoidances or blade parries.
• The offensive action after a parry is commonly called a riposte, however it is delivered.
• The flow of combat in the classical period is opponent's offense, defender's defense against the offense, defender's immediate offense after the defense.  This construction of the fencing phrase is a near universal constant in the period, and is a tactically coherent model, expressed as attack, parry-riposte.

The contrary view is neither the parry nor the riposte in the parry by distance are what they say they are.  Rather, in this modern view the fencer "pulls distance" (takes a short retreat step) and then "takes over the attack."

• The argument is that a parry results only when there is blade contact, whether by tac-au-tac (the beat parry), blade opposition, or the flying parry.  This is certainly the dominant view of what a parry was; the majority of classical period texts readily available in English do not address the idea of retreating and then attacking; one parried in place and riposted.  Deladrier (1948) went so far as to say that a beginner who learns to retreat in front of an attack will lose confidence in his parries.
• Because there is no parry, the action after the fencer retreats cannot be a riposte.  It must be a new attack.

Although it is tempting to think of this as an argument over word choice, that misses the point.  Many sources based on the French school generally ignore the retreat as defense against the attack.  This may have been a cultural value, reflected in the term Ninth Parry or Coward’s Parry (an English language term of uncertain age), that appeared as a consensus that a retreat step was a dishonorable way to avoid an attack. 

A convenience sample suggests sources that do discuss the parry by distance are Italian or Italian school based.  This terminology reflected the concept that a parry defeats the attack and links the riposte to the parry by distance.  This is different from the idea that the defender is now starting a separate attack.  The link is important because it considers the relationship between the retreat, the opponent’s actions, and the riposte to hit against a recovery as a unified flow conducted with same tactical considerations as a blade-based parry and riposte.  Understanding this construct provides a valuable perspective for your fencing.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

Is Distance a Parry? by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

18.1. The Appel

The Appel (also known in English as the Call) is one of the misunderstood actions of classical fencing.  An instructional tool to ensure proper balance in the guard position, it has also been claimed as being able to scare opponents and increase the effectiveness of attacks, even in modern fencing.  So we have to ask how was the Appel described during the classical period?

1877 – the French Ministry of War (Fencing Manual) - two light strikes by the forward foot on the ground.  The body remained immobile. The Appel was used as part of coming on guard.

1884 – Parise (Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre, Holzman’s translation) – a tap of the front foot can be used to draw attention to a feint, and also can be used in the renewal of the attack to give greater force to the second attack.

1887 – Schneider (Manual for the Instruction in Sabre Fencing, Steflik’s translation) – the appel is only used when coming on guard or the recovery from the lunge to assure the fencer that he has taken the correct position.  Schneider does remark that constantly making appels while fencing is of little value and is in poor taste.

1890 – Heintz (Theory of Fencing With the Foil) - the Double Appel with the front foot somewhat elevated to tap the ground in the same place twice to test the equilibrium of the fencer.

1890 – Pollock, Grove, and Prevost (Fencing, Boxing, and Wrestling) - a slap of the sole of the forward foot.  They remark that it had been abandoned by elite fencers and commented (page 42):

“In the days when idiocy played so large a part in fencing, it was thought that the Appel frightened the adversary.  Of course it never frightened anyone over five, and served no purpose but to put the antagonist on his guard and to retard the attack of the booby who made it.”

The authors describe Fencing Masters in exhibitions starting from guard with an Appel and a shout of “Voila Monsieur,” presumably for dramatic effect.  The suspicion that this was stage craft is reinforced by their note that the Appel was a favorite of audiences.

1892 – Rondelle (Foil and Sabre) - the Call as striking the floor sharply once or twice with the forward foot without changing the body position to test the fencer’s equilibrium.

1898 – La Marche (L’Epee, House’s translation) - use of the Appel in the flying guard, short advances with Appels, and finally with a forward gain and shout, to alarm the opponent.

1908 – French Ministry of War (Fencing, translation for the Amateur Fencers League of America) - action of striking the ground with the forward foot to: (1) disconcert the opponent, (2)  reinforce the effect of a false attack, and (3) ensure students’ bodies were properly balanced.

1920 – Manrique (Fencing Foil Class Work Illustrated) - the call as one or two stamps of the forward foot, with the body remaining immobile, to check the fencer’s balance or to signal an opponent to halt the bout.

1930 – Cass (The Book of Fencing) – the Call performed after the guard is assumed with two stamps of the forward foot as a test of balance.

These sources agree; the Appel is a footwork movement that makes a distinctive sound by a slap of the front foot on the piste from the guard position.  In making the Appel the fencer does not move the torso.  This can only be done by raising the toes of the front foot and executing the slap from the knee.  To avoid added impact to the knee do not do this as a stamp.

There is wide variance in descriptions of how the technique should be employed:

• All agree the Appel is done to check the fencer’s balance on guard.  Trying to execute the Appel with the weight forward provides instant feedback that your weight is not evenly distributed.   The Appel is consistent with the formal process of coming on guard taught in the classical period.
• The Appel to emphasize a feint or false attack draws attention to the action.  However, to be effective, enough actual attacks would have to be conducted with Appels to prevent opponents immediately recognizing an Appel as a false action.
• Appels to alarm, disconcert, or frighten the opponent, may work against unduly nervous or inexperienced opponents.  However, Pollock, Grove, and Prevost were correct in their assessment that it alerted opponents to the intent to attack.  The extra tempo in the attack for the foot slap would add time for opponent reaction.   
• If done as an accelerant to break inertia at the start of a lunge, the Appel may actually increase speed.  However, descriptions of use in the classical period do not generally  include speed as an objective, although in one case it is described as being used to give energy to a renewal of the attack.
• There are better ways to signal an opponent to halt than by Appel; it is an ambiguous signal.  As late as the 1960s a sequence of Appel, back foot stamp, and Appel was taught to signal the referee to call a halt. 
• However, if you do exhibitions of classical fencing, a loud Appel and shout of “Voila Monsieur” was a crowd pleaser then and would add definite color to such events today.

Use the Appel in the role for which it was designed, as a training tool.  As for its employment in the bout, perhaps the most telling thing about the Appel is its absence from a wide variety of well respected fencing texts of the classical period.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III


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

D.1. Thinking About Distance

Distance, also termed measure, plays a critical role in fencing.  Defined as the physical distance between two fencers or the distance that one fencer’s blade must travel to hit the other fencer, how it is measured provides a window into the tactical and technical doctrine of the various schools of fencing.  As expected in the period before development of the modern international style, there are multiple approaches, including the following German, Italian, and French examples.

Roux (1849, Treichel’s translation) in his manual of Kreusslerian Thrust Fencing (a style persisting in Germany into the classical period) describes distance in terms of the sword.  The sword blade was divided into four parts from the guard forward to the point:  (1) complete strength, (2) half strength, (3) half weak, (4) total weak.  The relative position of the sword established three distances, recognized by the fencer based on pressure on the opponent’s blade:

• Wide Distance – the fencer’s total weak can reach the opponent’s half weak.  This position is for defense or for reconnaissance.
• Middle Distance, also known as Normal or Proper Measure – the fencer’s total weak can reach the opponent’s half strength.
• Close Distance – the fencer’s half weak is on the opponent’s complete strength.  This is a dangerous position because he opponent’s attacks will penetrate through a parry by the fencer.

Although there are differences in exactly how these distances are described, this German approach to the use of the blade to measure distance remains largely consistent into the early years of the classical period (see Steflik’s translations of Eiselen 1818, Seidler 1843, and Schneider 1887).

In contrast, the Italian approach to distance is based on the footwork required for delivery of the attack.   Parise (1884, Holzman’s translation) defines three measures:

• Advancing Distance – an advance is used with the lunge to hit the opponent.
• Lunge distance – the opponent can be hit with a lunge.
• Narrow distance – the opponent can be hit without the use of footwork.

Van Humbeek (1905, Van Noort’s translation), an Italian trained Belgian Fencing Master, divides distance into:

• Long Distance – the fencers are further apart than in correct distance.
• Correct Distance –the fencer must use an advance to reach the distance at which the opponent can be hit with a lunge.
• Normal Distance – the fencer can hit the opponent with a lunge.
• Short Distance – footwork is not required to hit the opponent.

Barbasetti (1932) uses different terminology, but with the same basic intent:

• Close or Closed Distance – when the opponent is touched by a simple extension.
• Right Distance – when the opponent can be hit by a lunge.
• Normal Distance – called normal because it is taken when taking the guard position to defeat a sudden attack, it requires an advance and lunge to hit.
• Position Outside of Distance – when the distance is greater than Normal Distance.

French description of distance is different.  Mentions of distance in earlier texts are generally minimal or absent.  The 1877 Ministry of War Fencing Manual (Slee translation) does not discuss distance.  The English language translation of the 1908 Ministry of War manual describes the fencer is either being in the measure or outside of it, with the term measure being defined as the greatest distance at which a fencer can hit an opponent with a lunge.   This definition is echoed as late as 1967 by Crosnier.  Deladrier (1948) specifies that the proper distance to be maintained at all times is the distance at which the opponent can be hit by a lunge.  Castello differentiates between in distance, the distance at which the opponent can hit with a lunge, and out of distance, the distance at which the opponent must use an advance lunge.  Neither Rondelle (1892), Senac (1904) Manrique(1920), nor Grave (1934) discuss distance in any detail.. 

At the end of the period we find other detailed considerations of distance, based on the reach needed for the attack.  At this point it is difficult to attribute these categories to a specific school, and they may represent the evolving international style.  Vince (1937) identifies three distances:

• Short Distance – the opponent is hit by an arm extension.
• Middle Distance – a lunge is required to hit.
• Long Distance – an advance and lunge is required to hit.

Lidstone (1951) describes four distances:

• Out of distance – distance at which the opponent cannot be hit by a lunge.
• In distance – the distance at which the opponent can be hit by a lunge.
• Half-Distance – the distance at which a half-lunge can hit.
• Short Distance – distance at which the hit can be made without lunging.

In summary, we see distance described in two significant ways, in terms of the position of the blades and by the footwork required to execute the attack at a distance that will result in a touch.  In the classical period Italian theory provides the most developed approach to distance by footwork, and appears to form the basis for the developing international style of fencing at the end of the period. 

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

Thinking About Distance by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.