12.3.1. The Stop Thrust in Foil

The stop thrust appears to be a simple action - you stick your arm out when the opponent attacks and hope for the best (he or she misses).  However, when we review the record of comments on the stop thrust, the situation becomes more complicated with a number of subtle variations, and some differences in what the action is called.

The French Ministry of War's 1877 manual (Slee's translation) describes the Stop Strike as an attack executed on a passing attack (the context suggests this is the advancing attack described by later sources) which uses multiple feints.  The thrust is executed on the opponent's advance.

Parise (1884, Holzman's translation) suggests the use of the Arrest at the moment an opponent initiates a feint or counterdisengage. His examples include the use of opposition to close the line of the thrust.  If the action is to be performed in tempo, the opponent must use an action with at least two motions.  It is possible, and artistic, to hit in the last feint if the opponent employs a double feint at lunge distance, but Parise recommends the use of inquartata or passata sotto to remove the body from the line and avoid the double hit.

Heintz (1890) describes the stop thrust as being executed against an opponent who is closing the distance with an advance or series of advances.  It should be done immediately at the moment the opponent lifts the front foot for the step.  It may also be employed on any body movement preparatory to an attack, including a backward shift of the body to gain power in the lunge or a gathering forward step of the rear foot.

Pollock, Grove, and Prevost (1890) define the stop thrust as a simple attack executed at the moment the opponent raises the front foot when attacking with an advance.  They believe the stop is an excellent answer to the attack with the advance or the opponent who rushes with a series of steps to collapse the distance, and suggest that a properly executed stop thrust is almost impossible to parry.

Rondelle (1892) states that the stop thrust is executed by simple extension or lunge to check the execution of the attack.  To this end it should be delivered on the start of the advance, the start of the attack from a standstill, or on all wide feints up to the last feint. 

Grandiere (1906) describes two counterattacks, both of which may be identified as stop actions:

• Stop Thrust (Coup d'Arret) - a quick feint (the author terms this a feint, but also describes it as arriving) executed against an unprotected part of the body prior to the completion of the attack when the opponent is advancing or lunging.  Grandiere makes it clear that frequent use of this tactic is considered an abuse in foil and is bad form.
• Counter Attack - an attack delivered on the opponent's attack with the objective of forcing the opponent to abandon the original attack and remain on the defensive.  Grandiere's examples include the use of the froissement and the bind against the attack.

The 1908 edition of the French Ministry of War's manual (Amateur Fencers League of America translation) describes three counter attacks, all of which meet the core requirements of a stop thrust:

• Coup de Temps - the stop thrust employed against a composed (compound) attack so that it gains one or more tempos.
• Coup d'Arret - the stop thrust executed on an opponent's advance, whether or not the opponent follows the advance with an attack.
• Tension - an apropos extension of the arm against a simple attack  with does not establish sufficient cover.  Note that this opportunistic action is condemned with some force by Rondelle as being essentially a panicked reaction by a poorly trained fencer, not an actual fencing action. 

Manrique (1920) characterizes the stop as a rapid attack executed on the opponents advance in an attack starting with an advance, especially one with a wide feint or feints.

Castello (1933) indicates that the stop thrust is done against the opponent who attacks with a bent arm or with the point out of line.  Opposition is used to prevent the opponent's action from landing at all.  Castello recommends the stop thrust be employed in two ways.  Against an attack to the high outside line, the stop thrust is directed to the low line, with the blade closing the low outside against any replacement or attempt to parry low outside.  If the attack is to the inside line, the stop thrust is made in the high line, again closing the line. 

Grave (1934) describes the application of the stop thrust as an attack delivered with or without a lunge on the opponent's attack made with several feints with a bent arm or the point out of line.

Vince (1937) complicates the discussion with a different description of counterattacks:

• Time Thrust - a counteraction which arrives appreciably ahead of the attack.  This appears to be equivalent of the 1908 stop thrust by Coup de Temps.
• Stop Thrust - an ideal counterattack which prevents the opponents attack from landing.  He offers two cases for this.  The first, by landing on the preparation, prevents the actual development of the attack. This is consistent with the earlier discussions of being executed when the front foot is lifted in the advance of an attack by advance lunge and is thus a stop thrust as understood by the other authors.  The second option requires that the stop closes the line and lands with opposition.  

Deladrier (1948) states that the stop thrust is a straight thrust which may be executed with or without a lunge against the opponent's attack to arrive before the attack lands.  The timing of execution should be when the opponent starts to raise the front foot for the advance, or at the very start of the attack if there is no advance.  Deladrier clearly states that the stop thrust is executed on the attack, not on preparation.  The stop thrust is used when the opponent: (1) makes several feints, (2) leaves his line open during the advance of an advancing attack, or (3) or abandons blade contact in the attack. The conditions for employment of the stop thrust may be created by retreating on the lunge to provoke the opponent to make a subsequent attack with an initial advance and then lunge.

When we examine these descriptions of the stop thrust there are a number of common characteristics which identify the classical stop hit:

1. The thrust itself is direct.  It may be delivered with or without a closing of the final line or opposition to the opponent's blade.
2. The stop thrust may be delivered with or without a lunge.
3. The thrust is executed on the start of the forward step of an advance lunge attack or on the start of the lunge if there is no advance.  The intent is to prevent the successful development of the attack.  
4. If the opponent's attack consists of multiple feints or is incorrectly executed with a bent arm, the stop is intended to either land with a tempo advantage (the completion of the thrust during a feint, prior to the start of the final tempo of the attack) or prior to the start of the attack (the bent arm or the blade out of line offering that opportunity with a competent President and Jury).
5. The action clearly requires keen observation to detect the start and timing of movement and the ability to translate observation into an immediate thrust.
6. The action also has a psychological component that demands the ability to recognize the moment for action in the general flow of the phrase. 

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

The Stop Thrust in Foil by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

12.3.2. Rondelle's Time Thrust

Counterattacks traditionally come in two varieties, one in which the fencer extends directly or indirectly to the target, relying on speed, distance, and timing to hit,  and one in which the fencer counters the attack with opposition and an extension in the final line.  Today counterattacking actions tend to be considered Stop Hits, Stop Cuts, or Stop Thrusts, with a descriptor attached, such as stop hit with opposition or intercepting stop hit (for example, see Handelman 2014).  However, in the classical period the action without and with opposition were considered distinct actions.  A separate post will consider the differences in more detail.

Maitre Louis Rondelle (1892) provides a detailed description of the execution of the one of these, the Time Thrust.  The time thrust is executed between the opponent's last feint and the final attack - it is thus intended as a counterattack against the compound attack (Rondelle uses older terminology, the composite attack, in place of compound attack).  The timing is important and is predicated on the completion of the step forward with the feint.  Effectively it gives the fencer a half-tempo advantage of the opponent as it lands while the opponent's blade is still in transit to the final line.

This requires either very good reconnaissance and an excellent understanding of the opponent's skill set and the tactical progression of the bout or the detection of a tell to identify when the feint is the last feint.  In a compound attack, the last feint is the one in a one two, the two in a one-two-three, the three in a one-two-three-four … the coupe in the tour d'epee.  In other words, given the complexity of classical period compound attacks, potentially dozens of different points in the progression of the incoming attack.  The Time Thrust is not an action for the feint of heart or those prone to indecision.  However, given a predicable opponent, it can be devastating.

    

Rondelle divides the time thrust into two categories based on the line into which the final attack is made.  Theoretically these categories could be extend to cover attacks into any of the four quadrants of the target, but his restrictions make sense when the geometry of the action is considered.

The Direct Time Thrust is a straight thrust that anticipates the final line of the attack and hits the opponent in that line, simultaneously closing it to his or her attack.  It deals with any compound attack in sixte against the high outside line.  It is executed with a lunge and the weapon hand closing the line.

The Time Thrust in Opposition deals with attacks in quarte into high inside.  As the opponent starts the final disengage, the fencer lowers the point and intercepts the opponent's blade when it is in low sixte, maintains contact with opposition in octave, and hits the opponent in the low line.

The assignment of the two different time thrusts to two specific lines makes considerable sense.  Attempting to close quarte with a direct time thrust requires considerable practice and some good luck - the final disengage into quarte is much easier to intercept and hit in octave.  Similarly, attempting to intercept a disengage into sixte with opposition in septime is a relatively large movement that would seem open to being deceived, but closing the line in the final sixte is a strong position.

Rondelle stresses that the fencer must follow the opponent's feints carefully to be able to judge which action will be the final.  Controlled execution of intentional parries against the feint encourages the opponent to make the final attack, which can then be defeated.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III
    

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

B.1. One to Best of Five Touches in Epee

Classical Epee started its existence as a sport in the aftermath of the revolution in preparing fencers for the duel in the late 1800s.  A gradual realization that foil did not address the actualities of combat in the duel led to calls, starting with de Bazancourt in 1862 (Clay's 1900 translation), for increased realism in fencing training.  In the late 1800s Maitres Jules Jacob, Claude La Marche (1898, House's translation), Ambroise Baudry, Anthime Spinnewyn, and others introduced training for the duel with the epee of the salle, a rebated version of the epee of the terrain.  Fencer's being fencers, the epee of the salle quickly became a weapon of competition, with epee clubs, such as the Societe d'Epee de Paris and The Epee Club of London, emerging to engage in epee training and competition (Fare, Fildes, and Gray's 1902 history The Epee Club - 100 Years provides an excellent chronicle of one such club and of the development of epee). 

Epee as a sport at the first retained the character of the duel, fenced outdoors on a gravel path, with various lengths of pistes up to 40+ meters, variable time periods, priority determined by who lands first, and for one hit simulating the duel to first blood. These five characteristics shape the tactics of the bout, providing the time and space to allow the fencer to look for the one best opportunity to attack and hit without sustaining a hit in the process.  

However, two of these also were characteristics that conspired to limit the appeal of epee of aficionados, a suboptimal characteristics for a sport where growth was desirable.  First, longer, or even no, time limits allowed long, boring bouts, a buzz kill for spectators.  Second, the one touch was generally acknowledged to allow a certain element of chance in the outcome.  As a result, if we concentrate only on the number of touches required for victory, we see three periods:

• First - late 1880s to approximately 1909 - epee fenced for one touch.
• Second - 1909 to approximately 1932 - epee fenced for the best of three touches. 
• Third - 1933 to the end of the classical period - epee fenced for the best of five touches.  

The introduction of electric scoring in 1932 significantly changed the tactical culture of the epee.  Rene Monal of France, a leading epeeist who specialized in the attack by fleche, was one of the first to understand that epee had changed from hitting without being touched in return to hitting more that 1/25th of a second ahead of one's opponent.  This inevitably led to fencers adopting tactics that would not have been adopted in the duel with the sharp epee of the terrain. 

Not everyone embraced these changes as progress.  Maitre Felix Grave (1934), a holder of the Diplomas as Maitre of both the Academie d'Armes of Paris and the Academie d'Epee of Paris, acknowledged that a fencer's opponent could win by scoring a lucky touch.  But then so could the fencer win against an opponent by a lucky touch.  In the long run, such touches should even out, and the better fencer will most probably win.  Grave believed that the one touch bout demanded the greatest alertness and subjected the fencer to the greatest stress throughout the bout.

The classical epee fencer can maintain reasonable fidelity to the period by fencing to one touch, best of three, or best of five.  However, the closest simulation to the conditions of the duel remains fencing for a single touch.  

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III.

One to Best of Five Touches in Epee by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

10.1.1.7.1.a./10.1.1.8.1. The Old French Parries of Seventh and Eighth

In the early years of the classical period the target at foil extended from the line of the hips to the line of the collar bone (Colmore Dunn 1891).  Various means were used to delineate the lower limit of the target, one, a fencer's belt (Louis Senac is pictured wearing such a belt in his 1904 text), dating back into the 1600s.  The eventual result was the waist length jacket that survived until the introduction of electric sabre.  Having the lower target limit at the waist explains the curious parries of Septime (Seventh) and Octave (Eighth) pictured in a variety of sources ranging from Clarke's The Boys Own Book (1829) through various texts by Benedict (1883), Colmore Dunn (1891), Rondelle (1892), and Grandiere (1906), and including the 1877 French Ministry of War Fencing Manual (Slee's translation). 

If you only have to protect against thrusts to the area below the high line guards (tierce and sixte to the outside, and quarte to the inside), the blade does not have to be able to interpose forte against thrusts to the cuissard (the lower triangle of the modern jacket below the waist).  It becomes possible to defend the low line without moving the arm from its upward orientation found in tierce sixte and quarte.  The parry becomes a combination of changing the angle of the hand at the wrist and semi-circular fingerplay.

This results in the parries depicted in the texts mentioned above.  Although there are minor variations in the illustrations and descriptions, the following is a general model:

… Septime (Seventh).  This parry is also known as Half-Circle, terminology that survives to this day in Italian fencing as mezzocerchio.   The arm is held in a similar position to the parry of fourth (arm bent at the elbow with the forearm raised).  The hand is inclined downward in supination with the blade and point directed toward the opponent's low line.

… Octave (Eighth).   The arm is held in a similar position to the parry of sixth (arm bent at the elbow with the forearm raised).  The hand is inclined downward with the blade and point directed toward the opponent's low line.  There is some variation in the description and pictures of the hand position, with pure supination, the fingers turned somewhat upward, or a pronation that appears to take the pommel outside the hand being mentioned.  However, none of the pictures are of sufficient quality or detail to have confidence in them as being determinative of the best technique.

By the 1908 edition of the French Ministry of War's fencing manual (translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America) the upwardly bent arm parries of Seventh and Eighth appear to have been discarded in favor of a much flatter blade position.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III
  

The Old French Parries of Seveneth and Eighth by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

0.2.2. Italian Hand Positions

The Italian School is distinguished by a wider selection of hand positions than found in French fencing.  The adoption of these positions precedes the classical period.  For example, Paolo Bertelli (1800, Swanger's translation) describes the principal positions of Prima through Quarta in the same terms as classical Period Fencing Masters, and reports that a fifth position, the opposite of Prima, was by that time thought to have little utility by contemporary Masters.

There are either six or seven hand positions for the sword in the Italian School of the classical period.  Four of these are Principal Positions, and either two or three Intermediate ones.  Masaniello Parise (1884, Holzman's translation) and Luigi Barbasetti (1932)  describe the Principal positions as:

• Prima (First) - hand held with the fingers turned to the outside, the thumb toward the ground, and the crossbar vertical
• Seconda (Second) -  hand held in pronation with the crossbar horizontal.
• Terza (Third) - hand held with the fingers to the inside line, the thumb up, and the crossbar vertical.
• Quarta (Fourth) - hand held in supination with the fingernails upward and the crossbar horizontal.

Parise and Barbasetti also describe two Intermediate positions:

• Seconda in Terza - hand held at 45 degrees from the vertical with the fingernails downward between Seconda and Terza and the crossbar at the diagonal from low outside to high inside.
• Terza in Quarta - hand held at 45 degrees from the vertical with the fingernails upward between Terza and Quarta and the crossbar at the diagonal from low inside to high outside.

Terrone (1952) identifies one further intermediate position.  However, he indicates that it was "worse than useless" for instructional purposes, and neither Parise nor Barbasetti address it.

• Between First and Second -  hand held at 45 degrees from the vertical with the fingernails downward between Prima and Seconda and the crossbar at the diagonal from low inside to high outside.

Note that in each case, the position is defined in terms of hand position (pronated or supinated), fingers (up or down, inside or outside), thumb (up or down), and angle of the cross bar (vertical, horizontal, or diagonal). The complete set of seven positions moves the hand through a complete circle in 45 degree increments.

• Prima (First) … to
• Between First and Second … to
• Seconda (Second) … to
• Seconda in Terza … to
• Terza (Third) … to
• Terza in Quarta … to
• Quarta (Fourth)

Parise identifies two fundamental purposes for the variety of hand positions.  First, rotation through applicable positions facilitates the movement of the point from high to low or low to high lines.  Thus, to attack from the chest to the flank the hand moves from Quarta to Seconda.  Second, the position of the hand closes the line against counterattacks into the attack.  

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

Italian Hand Positions by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.