T.6. Burton on the Secret Thrust

The recurring fantasy of fencing is the Secret Thrust, a technique so powerful and so rare that it will defeat any attempt to counter it.  Fencing Masters reputedly knew the secret thrust and would reveal it to deserving students for an appropriately large fee and occasionally an oath that it would never be used against the Master.  During the 1500s at least one Master is reported to have had a special room within his Salle in which he would teach the secret thrust, well away from the eyes of other students.

The Secret Thrust surfaces in two related books of the classical period.  In the first, Secrets of the Sword (Clay translation in 1900 of the 1862 text), Baron de Bazancourt dismissed the Secret Thrust with the obvious when he said "... if they were taught, they would no longer be secret."  He suggested that he believed in "out of the way and onlooked for strokes," not in ghosts, but that the use of a truly secret stroke in a duel would expose the duelist to the range from disapproval by other gentlemen for iniquitous behavior to a charge of manslaughter or murder.

Richard Burton, a noted swordsman and holder of the brevet de pointe, was heavily influenced by Clay's translation of de Bazancourt's work when he wrote The Sentiment of the Sword: A Countryhouse Dialogue, published in 1911.  In his volume he expanded significantly upon de Bazancourt's treatment of the subject:

• Repeated de Bazancourt's assessment that once a stroke was used it was no longer secret.
• Stated that what were typically called secret strokes are irregularities, not actual fencing actions.
• Suggested that their reputation as unknown was their sole chance of success; otherwise they were harmless to the fencer and dangerous for the opponent that used them.
• Classifies them as either (1) attacks or (2) actions that oppose the attack.

Burton lists a variety of attacking actions that he considered to be such irregularities:

• The attacker who suddenly withdraws his arm to avoid the parry, and then rushes forward, moving off the directing line to thrust at the fencer's flank (note that rushing is not defined and may only indicate the speed of the lunge). 
• The attacker who ducks beneath the riposte and delivers a low line thrust.
• The attacker who before the start of the attack executes a loud appel accompanied by a shout, simultaneously withdrawing his sword from engagement, to cause the fencer to involuntarily stop, followed by a quick attack to score on the startled fencer.
• The attacker who takes the blade and executes a demi-volte using a circular movement to bring the rear foot ahead of the front foot and reverse the body position (this appears to be the inquartata carried perhaps further than normal).

Burton suggests that each of these actions can be inverted to defeat the attack.  For example:

• The defender jumps to the left or right of the attacker, causing the blade to miss, and thrusts to the flank or abdomen.
• The defender executes a passata soto with a low line thrust.
• The defender beats the attacking blade down, does an inquartata, raises the hand in tierce, and executes a downward thrust before the attacker can recover (which he identifies as the imbroccata).  

It is notable that many of these actions were (and are today) reasonably well known, and Burton even characterized them as "old dodges" or "venerable practices." Looking at both the attacking actions and defending actions, we find at least half of them well described by the middle or end of the classical period.  To some degree the actions relying on attacks off the directing line by angulation might not have been practical before the introduction of wider pistes as the planche was phased out, and actions off the directing line might have seemed irregular to anyone who considered departing from that line as irregular.  The appel and shout is described in the 1880s and 1890s and was apparently a staple of exhibition bouts by Fencing Masters.  The passata soto and the inquartata were well established classical techniques.

In Burton's analysis these are actions of desperation, succeeding only by the opponent's resolve to hit and by recklessness.  They overcommit and offer no way for the individual using them to defend himself or herself in the case of failure.  He goes further to comment on the etchics of their use, noting that in his day they would be irregular, almost illegal, and, tinged with treachery, not the sort of thing a gentleman would do in a duel. This moral component, found in both de Bazancourt and Burton, reflects a common view that good technique is ethical, but that irregular technique is clearly not.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

Burton on the Secret Thrust by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

E21.3. La Marche's Flying Guard

From time to time one finds an example of the past becoming present in fencing.  In some cases it expands our understanding of the classical period.  Maitre Claude La Marche in his text The Dueling Sword (House translation of the 1898 edition) does just that.  Among all the various ways that the term flying has been used in fencing terminology in the last century (Morton's A-Z of Fencing cites 9 examples), La Marche adds one more, the Flying Guard.

To describe this technique he goes back to its origin in Maitre Labat's 1696 The Art of Arms or the Single Sword with Positions and cites supporting theoretical work by Maitres P. F. J. Girard and La Boessiere (all three authors of texts in the 1700s).  However, La Marche description is of a specific technique as opposed to the more generalized descriptions of manipulation of distance by the use of the rear leg.  This is one of two approaches to the Flying Guard that can be found in La Marche's work and represents the versions taught in drills - the second version based on La Boessiere is in post E.22.3.a. The Flying Guard (September 2018) and represents a version incorporating an attack.

La Marche's Flying Guard is a two tempo technique staring from a normal guard position.  Note that La Marche defines the normal width of the feet in the guard position as longer than in the foil guard to preserve stability on the terrain.

• Tempo 1 - The fencer brings the rear foot forward to the heel of the forward foot.  The front foot does not move.
• Tempo 2 - The fencer quickly moves the rear foot back, its full length or longer or shorter.  The front foot does not move.

To understand this movement we have to understand the physical length of the lunge and the tactical length of the lunge.  This distinction is not commonly expressed in classical texts, but is introduced here for the purpose of analysis.  The following rules apply:

• The physical length of the lunge is the distance the fencer can propel the point forward in a normal lunge when in a normal guard position.  On the piste the physical length is measured from the rear foot.  For the purpose of this discussion physical lunge length is not measured by the distance forward the point will move from the guard.
• The tactical length of the lunge is measured the way we normally think of lunge length - it is the distance the point moves forward from the guard position.
• Practically, the tactical lunge length is the physical lunge length minus the width of the feet in the guard.  

Opponents measure distance in terms of where the blades meet in engagement and in terms of their visual assessment of the distance of the opponent's body or the distance to the forward target. Distance stealing techniques work by doing two things to the distance that the opponent perceives.

• They camouflage the movement of the rear foot forward, allowing
• The physical length of the lunge to extend forward past what the opponent expects as the fencer's tactical length of the lunge - in essence shortening the distance for both the attack and the defense.

La Marche notes that the Flying Guard accomplishes the goal of confusing the opponent as to the distance by its quick execution - the opponent sees a body shift forward, implying some form of advance, followed by a body shift backwards which seems to return to the original guard (even though in actuality it is really only a small body feint).  The unwary opponent thinks that the fencer has executed a quick advance and retreat with no actual change in distance.  If, perhaps, you add an appel and a shout, as La Boessiere suggests, to the step forward to confuse the opponent the movement is further camouflaged (the advance, appel, and shout of "et-la" was a not uncommon feature of matches between Masters in the late 1800s).

In his discussion of the Flying Guard La Marche suggests that the lunge in epee is often a half-lunge to the forward target.  Closing the distance in the Flying Guard by half of the normal distance between the feet while not moving the forward foot effectively gives the fencer a tactical envelope for the lunge equal to a deep lunge.

To do this quickly, smoothly, and in a manner calculated to confuse the opponent obviously requires practice.  It may add a useful tool to your classical epee play.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III      

 
La Marche's Flying Guard by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

14.2.4. Froissement, Sforzo, Expulsion, Etc.

The Froissement (French), Sforzo (Italian), Graze (British), Scrape (British), Expulsion (American), Traverse (American), etc. is an attack on the blade that maintains contact with the opponent's blade throughout its execution in all three weapons.  By the end of the classical period it is still mentioned in texts, but with the caveat that it was a crude, wide, and dangerous (and even unethical in foil) movement that lead to rough play (Grave 1934, Deladrier 1948, Lidstone 1952).  However, in the modern period it became virtually extinct until recently.  There appears to be a current revival of the froissement as a glide with a great deal of force against the opponent's blade in a high line guard, ending in a flick.  While anyone can call any fencing action anything, this does not seem to be a froissement.

Because this is a classical period technique, it is worth spending some effort to try to identify the actual blade movement involved (question 1), and against what configuration of the opponent's blade it was used (question 2).

Question 1 - Descriptions of the actual blade movement are generally consistent:

• First, there is general agreement that this is an attack on the blade in the same family as the Beat and Press (Parise 1884, Provost 1890, Rondelle 1892, French Ministry of War 1908, Manrique 1920, Grave 1934, Castello 1937, Lidstone 1952).  Deladrier (1948) considers it as a preparation striking the blade in the same category as the Beat; this is in distinction from preparations that maintain the blade such as the Press and Glide.
• The middle portion of the fencer's blade is used (Deladrier 1948).  Castello (1937) describes the use as the middle part and finally the forte.  Provost (1890) indicates the forte should be used.  
• The action is a slightly diagonal pressure down the opponent's blade from the foible to the forte, ending with the fencer's arm fully extended and expelling the opponent's blade from the line of engagement followed by the lunge (Manrique 1920, Deladrier 1948).  Hutton (1891) describes this pressure as lateral and downward.  Lidstone (1952) indicates it may be delivered as a beat or press, and is directed generally downward.
• Manrique (1920) implies that the wrist should be rotated during the action (in his description of the Press to which he relates the Froissement).  Lidstone (1952) advocates that in the action to the outside line, the hand should turn into pronation for the initial part of the action and then turn into supination during the Graze. In contrast Parise (1884) emphasizes that hand position should be the same as for the Beat and should not change during the Sforzo:
• In fourth - the hand in third in fourth.
• In third - the hand in second in third.
• In cartoccio (second) - the hand in second.
• In mezzocerchio - the hand in third in fourth.
• The execution is sharp and prolonged with continually increasing pressure as the fencer's arm extends (Deladrier 1948).  Provost (1890) notes that the pressure should not be heavy due to delivery by clenching the muscles.  Castello (1937) notes that the forearm is used to increase the pressure.
• The end is a straight thrust with the fencer's blade still in contact with the opponent's (Deladrier 1948).

In general the action is described as similar to the Press (French Ministry of War 1877, Manrique 1920, Castello 1937, Lidstone 1952) or the Beat (Parise 1884, Lidstone 1952).

Rarely mentioned is the use of the Counter-Expulsion, the Froissement executed with an initial change of line (Deladrier 1948). 

Question 2 - When the technique is used is generally considered to be against the opponent's extended arm (Deladrier 1948).  Provost (1890) describes its use as only in Tierce and when the opponent's arm is extended.  The Amateur Fencers League of America translation of the French Ministry of War fencing manual (1908) suggests that it is generally employed against an extended arm.  Lidstone (1952) states that it is most effective against an extended blade or if the opponent is holding the blade horizontal, but with a bent arm.  Alternately, the action may be executed against an extended blade or from engagement (Parise 1884).  Parise indicates that the Sforzo can be executed in all four lines.  Rondelle (1892) does not indicate which opponent blade position is preferred.

Tactically, there is general agreement that the Froissement is used to clear a line for the straight attack (Parise 1884, Lidstone 1952).  Provost (1890) describes it as being used to paralyze the opponent's hand and arm momentarily as well as to clear the line for the attack.  Both Provost and Lidstone note that it may result in a disarm.  Lidstone notes that the Froissement can be used to cause annoyance to the opponent and upset his or her equilibrium.  Castello (1937) indicates three potential uses:

• To clear a line for the attack.
• As a feint.  Note that Parise (1884) specifically describes a Sforzo and Feint Direct (the Sforzo followed by feint of the straight thrust with a disengage to deceive the attempt to parry). 
• As an invitation to an attack by the opponent (most probably by disengage in tempo).

It is worth noting that Heintz's (1895) Chassey (see blog post 14.2.5 Heintz's Chassey) may be a description of a Froissement.  Heintz precedes the graze on the blade with a strong beat, but otherwise his description is similar to that above.  He also describes a Counter-Chassey similar to Deladrier's (1948) Counter-Expulsion. 

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

Froissement, Sforzo, Expulsion, Etc. by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

0.3.1. Evolution of the Salute

From the earliest days of the classical period, the salute in one form or another, was a fixture in fencing manuals.  An examination of the various descriptions of the salute in a convenience sample of the instructional literature of classical fencing suggests that there are three separate approaches to rendering a salute:

• (1) Coming on guard:  A number of texts do not address a salute at all.  However, the process of coming on guard, taught as a series of movements, includes a raised extension toward the opponent that could have been considered as filling the function of a salute.  Grave (1934) describes coming on guard sequences of from 3 to 7 steps. Siebenhaar (van Nort translation) has a unique version of this process involving the unarmed weapon hand. 
• (2) The Salute as a step in coming on guard: A salute is followed by a multiple step assumption of the on guard position as one complete sequence of actions.  
• (3) The Salute as a distinct and separate entity: The salute is not described as linked to the sequence of coming on guard.
• (4) The Flourish Salute: This is a complex series of 20 or more parts with sequenced or simultaneous movements to the left and right sides of both fencers and simulations of attacks.  These appear to be unique to Sabre, and to serve the same purpose of a courtesy to both the fencers and the spectators as found in the Grand Salute.  For an example, see post 0.3.2. "Rondelle's Sabre Salute" (March 2019) in this blog.

When we look at the following texts, we see a significant amount of variability in the approach selected for a salute:

• Siebenhaar (van Noort translation) (1861) - Foil: (1) coming on guard.
• French Ministry of War (Slee Translation) (1877) - Foil: (1) coming on guard 
• Waite (1880) - Sabre: (4) a complex flourish salute.
• Parise (Holzman translation) 1884 - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right).  
• Phillipps-Wolley (1890) - Single-Stick: (4) a complex flourish salute.
• Hutton (1891) - Foil:  (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front). 
• Senac and Senac (1904) - Foil: (1) coming on guard.
• Pavese (1905) - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right). 
• Van Humbeek (van Noort translation) (1905) - Sabre: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right). 
• Grandiere (1906) - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front with appel).
• French Ministry of War (Amateur Fencers League of America translation) (1908) - Foil: (1) coming on guard.
• Manrique (1920) - Foil: provides two versions of the salute - Public Salute (2) a salute as a step in coming on guard; Final Salute (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front).
• Cass (1930) - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (from guard with 3 appels and recovery to first position.
• Barbasetti (1932) - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right).
• Grave (1934) - Foil: (1) coming on guard.
• Castello (1937) - Foil: (2) a salute as a step in coming on guard.
• Vince (1937) - Foil, Sabre: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right).
• Breckenridge and Breckenridge (1941) - Foil: (2) a salute as a step in coming on guard.
• Deladrier (1948) - Foil, Epee, Sabre: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front, left, and right).
• Lidstone (1952) - Foil: (3) salute as a distinct and separate entity (salute delivered front)

Interpreting the chronology has mixed results.  It is difficult to determine whether some of the sources have omitted the salute simply because it was considered such a part of the landscape as to not require notice.  The complex flourish salutes do not appear to have survived past 1900.  The coming on guard appears to have survived as late as the early 1930s.  And the salute as a distinct and separate entity, although appearing as early as 1891, seems to become more popular as the period progresses.

In considering the four approaches to the Salute, they are often presented in period manuals as being  a technique to be executed, without attention to why that technique is of value.  When the reasons for the salute are discussed, they can be described as a:

• Reminder to the participants that this is a knightly game based on courtesy:  Phillipps-Wolley (1890).
• Courtesy for the opponent: Waite (1880), Pavese (1905), Breckenridge and Breckenridge (1941)
• Greeting the judges and audience: Parise (1994), Pavese (1905), Vince (1937), Breckenridge and Breckenridge (1941)
• Respect and exhibition of skill for the spectators: Waite (1880), Phillips-Wolley (1890).

Grandiere gives no specific reason for the salute but provides clear direction as to when it should be performed:

"This salute must always be made at the termination of every lesson, as well as by both fencers after the assault, and at one and the same moment. (How to Fence, 1906, p. 13)."

Notably, there is no discussion of the salute as psychological or mechanical preparation for combat except in the context of reminding the fencers that they should conduct themselves as gentlemen or of mechanically coming to the guard position, preparatory to the command to fence.  This is an interesting omission when we consider that the salute is executed immediately before the initiation of the bout. 

If we consider that the core purpose of the bout is to win through superior technical and tactical skill, it seems appropriate to evaluate the possible benefit of the salute as a focusing mechanism to assist the fencer in achieving maximum readiness prior to the initial command to "Fence."  The flourish salute (4) used in sabre and singlestick would seem ideal for this purpose, involving the execution of a variety of fencing actions. 

However, all is not as it seems.  Because this type of salute requires considerable practice to achieve the required steps in a smooth and graceful manner, the focus of the exercise becomes executing the sequence without making a muck of it in front of the spectators.  Those of our readers who have ever tried to perform a 50+ step Grand Salute in foil with another fencer understand that considerable memorization and practice with a partner is required to make a reasonable presentation. The salute becomes its own experience, divorced from the bout.  Psychologically the focus becomes cooperative, sequenced movement drill with the opponent, only partly related to the bout.  In addition, the actions are not executed to hit, making the last practice the fencer gets practice in missing the target.

Categories (1) coming on guard and (2) the salute as a step in coming on guard seem to offer an opportunity for the fencer to use the series of steps to enhance focus and increase readiness to fence.  The 7 to 10 movements involved are easily learned and may be executed with a rhythmic flow that allows the fencer to both relax and focus on the task at hand while using a familiar series of body movements.  If used in this manner, personal experience suggests that the fencer has not only come to a mechanically correct guard position, but has also achieved mental readiness for the assault.

There is another advantage to these two methods.  When fencing on the planche or short strip where fencers take distance from the center line (as opposed to coming on guard at marked on guard lines), the last step of the sequence allows the fencer to control the distance.  Typically the two fencers come to a position of attention with their weapon arms extended and tips touching to establish the correct distance for coming on guard.  If the fencer comes on guard by moving the front foot forward, the distance is closed some amount facilitating a rapid initial attack.  However, if by moving the rear foot backwards, the fencer has opened the distance to protect against such an attack.

Category (3) the salute as a distinct and separate entity can allow focusing, especially if the movements are executed with precision.  However, in modern fencing, this has become a very relaxed, even sloppy, act, often executed as a hand wave with as little effort as possible, that simply delays putting the mask on and getting down to fencing.  And, because it is physically a smaller number of movements, it provides less time for relaxation and focus.

What this all suggests is that it is worth experimenting with each approach (if consistent with the master you are studying) to determine its value as a tool for mental preparation for the command "fence."

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

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

C3. Waite's Sabre Curriculum

Professor J. M. Waite authored a small volume entitled Lessons in Sabre, Singlestick, Sabre & Bayonet and Sword Feats, published in London in 1880.  Professor Waite had served in the 2nd Life Guards, an elite regiment of the British Household Cavalry, and had studied fencing under Maitre Prevost (smallsword) and Mr. Platts, a student of Bushman, (sabre and singlestick).  His resume includes teaching fencing and sabre for the London Fencing Club, the Honourable Artillery Company, the London Athletics Club, and a variety of volunteer rifle regiments.  His students won a variety of first and second places in fencing (foil) and singlestick in London competitions.

Waite's approach to the sabre is a mixed system.  In his opinion, English sabre fencing at the time could be considerably improved, largely because most sabre fencers has only moderate ability and no previous fencing experience.  Thus his sabre curriculum reflected the parts of English practice that were, in his opinion, good, along with a significantly increased attention to the thrust.

Those interested in singlestick should note that Waite believes that all the material in the sabre portion of his manual is applicable to singlestick.  This is consistent with the singlestick fenced as sabre of the late 1800s-early 1900s, and not the original and traditional country game of singlestick (also known as backswording) that survived as late as the 1950s as a village sport.    

Waite presents a significant number of actions in his manual in an order tied to the illustrations he includes.  In many cases these are combinations of an action and its counter, one of the common ways of teaching technique in the classical period.  As a result, his curriculum does not have clear groupings of like techniques typically found in modern fencing manuals (for example, a chapter on attacks on the blade, another on parries, etc.), or even later volumes of the classical period.  However, the presentation of techniques organized into plates offers the reader a good view of how Professor Waite viewed the progression of instruction.

How to hold the sabre

Plate I

• Preliminary position before going on guard

Plate II

• Engaging guard
• The inside guard or quarte
• The outside guard or tierce
• Advance
• Retire
• The attack
• Recover
• Opposition

Plate III

• Feinting
• Guards

Plate IV

• Direct lead off at the head, and guard
• Guard for the head (prime)
• Feint a straight thrust at the breat, and cut at the head

Plate V

• Feint at the head and cut at the left cheek, and guard
• Guard for the feint at the head and cut at the left cheek

Plate VI

• Feint at the head and cut at the left breast, and guard

Plate VII

• Feint at the head and cut inside the wrist

Plate VIII

• Feint at the head and cut under the right arm, and guard
• Guard for the cut under the right arm

Plate IX

• Feint at the head and cut outside the leg, and guard
• Guard for the outside of the leg 

Plate X

• Feint at the breast and cut inside the leg
• Another way of attacking inside of the leg
• Guard for inside of the leg

Plate XI

• Shifting the leg to avoid a cut, and countering on the head

Plate XII

• Shifting the leg when a man attacks with his hand below the shoulder, and counter on the arm.

Plate XIII

• A draw and guard for shifting the leg to avoid a cut and counter on the head or arm

Plate XIV

• A draw and stop for shifting the leg to avoid a cut and counter on the head or arm
• Feint and cut at the arm
• Guard for the arm - the engaging guard

Plate XV

• Guard for an upward cut at the fork (groin)
• Straight thrust
• Thrust by disengaging over the blade
• Feint a straight thrust and disengage over the blade
• To guard the attack
• "One, Two"
• Attack made with an advance
• Returns - from guarding the head
• Returns - from guarding the right side under the arm
• Returns - from guarding the left breast with the point of the sword down (prime)
• Returns - from guarding the left breast or left cheek with the point up (quarte)
• Returns - from guarding the outside of the leg
• Returns - from guarding the inside of the leg
• Returns - from guarding the thrust under the blade
• Returns - from guarding the thrust over the blade
• Stop Thrusts

Plate XVI

• To deceive the beat under the blade (quarte thrust)
• To avoid the deception of the beat under the blade 

Plate XVII

• Stop cut after deceiving the beat over the blade
• To draw the stop thrust and stop cut

Plate XVIII

• Another  stop thrust used against a man who lunges with the arm bent or who draws his hand back when attacking
• Remise
• Renewal of the attack or redoubling
• Reprise attack

Plate XIX

• Time thrust with opposition
• Another time thrust
• To draw and stop a time thrust

Plate XX

• A time cut
• Drawing

The text also includes a number of observations that expand the material found for each plate:

• Observations on feinting
• How to deal with a man who is constantly countering
• When opposed to a man who engages in quarte to tierce
• On countering and hard-hitting
• Cut versus thrust
• Useful hints
• The salute (a formal salute for opening a bout)

Note that when Waite follows an attack with the phrase "and guard," he is describing an attack followed by the assumption of the best guard for the fencer who has executed the attack against any return.  The term guard appears to be used as both a position to assume and the parry that results. Also note that the leg is considered part of the target.

Source: Waite, J. M.; Lessons in Sabre, Singlestick, Sabre and Bayonet, and Sword Feats; [Fencing Manual]; Weldon and Company, London, United Kingdom; 1880.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

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

T.4. Castello on Timing

Julio Martinez Castello received his diploma as Maestro de Armas from the Sala de Armas Carbonel in Madrid in 1906 starting a career in Spain and Argentinathat culminated in a long period of training fencers in New York.  His final work, The Theory and Practice of Fencing, published in 1933, built on an earlier text Theory of Fencing (1931).

Maestro Castello's two books present a well thought out description of timing, normally thought of as picking the correct moment to attack, not necessarily a topic addressed in detail in either modern of classical period texts.  In Theory of Fencing Castello provides a very limited discussion of the subject, but in the three sentences he makes three important points that deserve considerable attention:

• The movements of the two fencers in the bout have an interrelated sequential relationship with the proper timing of one movement depending on the preceding movements.
  
• Timing is the selection of the most opportune moment to execute either an attack or a parry.
• The use of timing requires that the fencer have combined sense of both time and distance.

I completed an analysis of modern timing concepts three days before I wrote this blog post.  Castello used three sentences to do what took me 51 sentences and detailed study of two important sources,  Czajkowski's Understanding Fencing and Szabo's Fencing and the Master.  Castello's work is theoretically both impressive and modern, once more demonstrating the link between classical period and modern fencing. 

In  The Theory and Practice of Fencing Castello expands on the subject of timing.  He suggests that the opportune moment for the action must be created in most cases.  Two fencers of equal speed and skill will tend to create a stalemate in which attack is met by the defense.  Attack and defense operate in a rhythm that both fencers adopt.  The key to success is to break the rhythm, taking advantage of the other fencer's commitment to it with a hesitation or unexpected movement.  The opponent will continue with the normal sequence and rhythm for a fraction of a second, allowing the fencer to score.  To Castello this is as much a psychological problem as it is a fencing problem.

Maestro Castello offers two examples of how this change can be executed:

• Attacking with multiple threats.  When the defender accepts the rhythm and attempts to parry each, a break in tempo breaks the rhythm creating the opportunity for the final attack.

• When the opponent advances or threatens.  The defender appears to adopt a plan of attempting to react as the attacker expects, only to counterattack when the attacker thinks that the defender should be following the feint.

Castello acknowledges that there are risks associated with this tactical approach.  Most obviously, you may not be able to establish a rhythm.  The opponent may break the rhythm first, employing a counterattack into the threats you are using, or making a real attack when you are attempting to set up your counterattack.

Castello's bottom line is that timing is most commonly used to attack when the opponent is preparing an attack.  In this case you take advantage of the very short interval between when the opponent is focused on the development of the attack and the point at which he or she realizes that a parry is needed against the attack into preparation.

In examining Maestro Catello's comments on timing, I would offer several comments of my own related to his first three points:

• The identification that timing is based on expectations of a common sequence of actions between the two fencers is important.  For one fencer, the opponent's actions create the opportunity to break the sequence.  For the other fencer, the fencer's own actions create a situation in which he or she becomes vulnerable to a break in rhythm.  
• The idea that timing can apply to execution of the attack or the defense sets the theoretical basis for the selection of the stop hit, time hit, the feint of parry to draw the commitment of the attack to its final line, or the forward parry or parry in the lunge to collapse distance.
• The thought of time and distance as being interrelated leads one to conclude that in operational terms we can apply the time-speed-distance equation to understand that distance defines the time required and that time defines the distance possible.  When we add to that the gain in time created by the opponent having to react to the break in the rhythm, the advantage of time actions becomes clear.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

 
Castello on Timing by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

T.5. The Theory of Defense

At what point does defense become defined as a key element of fencing theory and practice?  Today, we accept that the real actions (the ultimate actions in a phrase) include offense, counteroffense (or as Czajkowski 2005 termed them, Offensive-Defensive Actions), and defense.  But was this always so?  

The 1877 French Ministry of War Manuel d'Escrime (Slee translation) defines and describes the purpose of the Attack, but does not mention defense as a concept.  The Amateur Fencer's League of America translation of the 1909 Reglement d'Escrime includes Defense as a heading, but offers no theoretical discussion, restricting itself to listing 1. The Parry and 2. The Riposte - The Contre-Riposte (note that today ripostes are considered to be attacking actions).  In the discussion of the bout, a section devoted to defense speaks of the importance of the defense being very active and including the coup de temps and contre-temps (neither of which are considered defense today). 

An examination of the indexes and tables of contents of a variety of texts, including Holzman's translation of Parise's 1884 treatise, Rondelle 1892, Grandiere 1906, Barbasetti 1932, and Castello 1933, do not reveal any great attention to defense as an overall theory.  Discussions of parries refer to their character as being defensive in nature, but do not provide a theoretical basis as part of the overall system of fencing. 

Barbasetti's The Art of the Foil (1932) is interesting in this context in the author's provision of an expansive definition of the parry that with a word change would have come close to a description of defense.  Barbasetti defines the parry as "any movement that renders an opponent's attack harmless is called a parry.  In the fullest sense, the stepping back, the dodging aside, the bending or turning adside of the body away from your adversary's point could also be termed a Parry" (p. 40).  He goes on to discuss the parry proper, in other words the parry with the blade, and emphasizes its value as allowing scoring by the counter-attack (which he identifies as the riposte, not a stop hit) in addition to scoring with the attack.  This may be the beginning of a theory of defense.

G. V. Hett (1939) provides the first explicit theory of the purpose of defense:

• Primary Purpose - to parry the attack.
• Second purpose - scoring with the riposte.
• Third purpose - to allow the time needed to assess the opponent by using defense in the early stages of the bout.

His discussion of defense starts with the need for a balance between offense and defense.  He identifies one of the most significant faults in defense as being the failure to riposte after a successful parry. His view of defense includes jumping back, retreating while parrying, and parrying repeated attacks.

The Second Edition (1940) of Joseph Vince's Fencing adds further detail to the concept of defense by introducing the terms "active defense" and "passive defense." In active defense the fencer uses the parry and riposte combination, the stop hit, or the time hit with the objective of scoring.  Passive defense is based on parrying and not riposting or retreating with the objective of not being scored upon.

The derivation of these terms is uncertain, and they do not generally appear in subsequent fencing literature.  Vince's book was published in 1940 and republished in 1962 - it is unknown if any significant changes were made in the 1962 printing, but internal evidence suggests that none were.  If the text remains the same as the 1940 text, there is a possible military connection.  The terms active and passive defense were widely used in the development of air defense and civil defense doctrine at the time in the runup to World War II, with very much the same meaning (active defense shot down enemy bombers, passive defense used decoys, camouflage, and hardening to prevent damage from bomber attacks).

Deladrier (1948) provides basic advice on "defensive play" for each weapon:

• Foil - the emphasis in fencing foil should be on the attack, mixed with some use of defense.  Retreats may be used, but doing them routinely will reduce confidence in the parry and riposte.  Parries should be taken as late as possible to ensure that they address the final attack.  Parries should be varied and taken in both vertical lines.
• Epee - the attack is more successful, and thus relatively little emphasis should be given to parries and ripostes.  Counterattacks can be launched from a defensive position.
• Sabre - the attack is more successful, although counterattacks play a significant role.

R. A. Lidstone (1952) also provides contributions to the theory of defense for each weapon: 

• Foil - the main defense is the parry.  All actions require blade action and the coordinated use of footwork in positioning the body.
• Epee - the nature of the guard allows the parry and riposte to be executed simultaneously as opposed to the parry and then riposte of foil.  The retreat should be used in defense, especially against attacks to the body.
• Sabre - defense is conducted by parry or by counterattack, and counterattacks are often accompanied by a rearward displacement of the body.        

So what does all this mean to the classical fencer?  Based on these sources it is possible to develop an overall theory of defense in the classical period.

First - the nature of what is called defense varies over time and by the author of the text.  That is true to this day, although the idea of what is defense today tends to be relatively standard and more limited.

Second - all sources agree that the parry is defense.  In many cases defense per se is not addressed, and the parry is treated on the same level as the overall categories of attacks in categorizing actions.  Commitment to the parry must be against the final movement of the attack. Like attacks the parries selected should vary and not be repetitive.

Third - the attack is generally seen as the primary form of fencing.  It is viewed as more often successful for a variety of reasons, including its power in younger fencers, differences in the complexity of threat it provides, and speed.  Defense is an adjunct that is included for balance.

Fourth - in the more completely developed descriptions defense consists of more than just the parry.  There are actions that today we recognize as part of defense, retreating, jumping back, and evasions.  Footwork should be well coordinated with bladework.  In Italian doctrine the parry by distance is considered a parry and thus defense (implying that the action to hit after the opponent falls short may be a riposte).

Fifth - today we consider the riposte to be offense.  That is not necessarily the case in the classical period.  Ripostes are commonly discussed in discussions of defense.  Because they are so closely integrated with the parry, this makes sense.

Sixth - time hits and stop hits are also considered by some authors to be part of a well developed defense because they offer a response to hit the attack, and because the time hit combines the parry and riposte into one action.

Seventh - defense properly done can perform what we now recognize as a reconnaissance role in assessing both the skills and psychological state of the opponent early in the bout.

Eighth - although the distinction appears to only have been made by Vince, one can divide defense into two categories of actions, those intended to hit the opponent (parry-riposte and counterattacks) and those only intended to prevent the attack from landing (parries by themselves, retreats, and evasions).

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

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

M.1. Siebenhaar's Masters

Sergeant-Fencing Master Christian Siebenhaar of the Guard Grenadier and Rifle Regiment of the Dutch Army developed a unique School of fencing in the Netherlands that gained a significant number of adherents starting in 1858.  Because its rules diverged significantly from the development  of fencing in France and Italy, Siebenhaar's Hollandsche Methode did not long survive his death in 1885, apparently starting to disappear by 1887-1888.

Any School requires people to teach its technique.  In fact, the Academy believes a body of Masters who teach the School to be one of the criteria that defines a School.  So where did Siebenhaar find enough people to teach the Hollandsche Methode to make it a School?

The answer to some extent lies in Siebenhaar's objectives in developing this new method of fencing.  Van Noort (2017 - the only English language translation of information on the Hollandsche Methode)  highlights the importance of developing fencing terminology in the Dutch language as one of Siebenhaar's reasons for undertaking the effort.  The very unique target, rules, and technique all mark this School as a very deliberate departure from the developing French School.

The context is that this is a period in which national identity becomes more important in a number of countries.  We see in France the resurgence of interest in fencing and dueling as a sign of national prowess in the aftermath of the country's dismal defeat in the Franco-Prussian War.  In Italy, the unification of the country leads to a mandated Italian School taught at the military Fencing Masters School at Rome.  Siebenhaar can be viewed as a contemporary manifestation of nationalism in the Netherlands.

As a result it is not surprising that a meeting of Dutch Masters to define the rules for fencing contests would draw 80 Masters from the five provinces in December 1864 at the Hague.  This seems to be a fairly significant number of Masters in a relatively small nation and also a body quite large enough to consider the Hollandsche Methode to be a national School.

The other potential source of Masters was the training of new Masters in the Hollandsche Methode.  Thanks to Van Nort's translation of Siebenhaar's Manual for the Instruction in the Art of Fencing we have a window into the requirements for becoming a Master.  First, some context:

• Siebenhaar describes an integrated system of combat that includes the Sword, Sabre, Long Stick, Short Stick, and the Rifle (with bayonet).
• The first three weapons (Sword, Sabre, and Long Stick) are divided into three sections of multiple lessons.  The Short Stick is a package of 18 lessons.
• Credentialling in two ranks (Provost and Master) is envisioned for both military and civilian trainers.
• Credentialling could be by individual weapon or as in the complete system.

Provosts were required to meet the following requirements:

• In the Sword, Sabre, or Long Stick - be able to perform the tasks of all lessons in all sections for the weapon and be able to teach the first section of the material.
• In the Short Stick - be able to perform the tasks of all 18 lessons and be able to teach the first 12 lessons.
• In the Rifle - be able to perform all tasks and teach the principles.
• For all weapons, be able to prove their ability to use their weapon in combat.

Masters were required to meet the following requirements:

• In the Sword, Sabre, or Long Stick - be able to perform all tasks and teach all lessons.
• In the Short Stick - be able to perform all tasks and teach all lessons.
• In the Rifle - be able to perform all tasks and teach all lessons.
• For all weapons, be able to show effective mastery of the weapon in combat.

Masters of all weapons were required to have thorough knowledge of all five weapons and have taught the weapons for a considerable period of time.  Siebenhaar does not define a minimum length of time, but four or five years does not seem unreasonable if this was the individual's sole responsibility.

Appointments to a rank in a weapon was by Masters in the weapon.  However, the Sword was considered the primary weapon, and Masters of the Sword could therefore sign the brevet (certificate) of a candidate in any weapon.  This seems consistent with Medieval practice in which the longsword was considered to core weapon upon which the practice of other weapons was based.

Military candidates for rank were required to be of excellent behavior and attention to duty and to be of a character that they could be expected to bring honor to the rank to which they were promoted.  This is  a military requirement that has a long history in appointments to instructor positions in most armies.  Civilian appointments to Provost required that the candidate be at least 14 years of age, and to Master that they be at least 16 years of age.  Siebenhaar gave no explanation for the apparent difference between the requirements for military and civilian candidates.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

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