0.3.2. Rondelle's Sabre Salute

Maitre Louis Rondelle in his Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing (1892) includes a description of the steps of the Grand Salute.  Even more interesting, however, is a description of a formal, multiple step Sabre Salute.  The Grand Salute was typically performed with the foil; Rondelle's shorter version for sabre is the only example we have encountered so far for that weapon.

Rondelle describes the Grand Salute in his section on foil as a customary prelude to the assault (note that, as used by Rondelle and a considerable number of other Masters of the period, the term assault is not an artistic encounter where counting touches is not done, but rather the competitive bout for touches).  It serves as a type of warm-up to increase flexibility, and is a courtesy to not only the fencers but also to the audience.  There is no such description of the Sabre Salute, although he does note that it precedes the bout itself.  The description of the salute itself is abbreviated, and some reasonable assumptions (noted below) must be made as to its execution.

To reach the starting point for the Sabre Salute, we have to assume that Rondelle intended for us to come to Preliminary Position and then to On Guard.  This sequence is:

(1)  Assume Preliminary Position:

• Feet at right angles, heels together, weapon foot forward, feet on the directing line.
• Weapon arm is extended down the side of the body, not touching the body, with the blade and arm as a straight line slanted downward and directly forward so that the point is 4 inches above the floor [assumption is that the hand is in pronation].
• Rear arm crosses in the small of the back.
• The body is erect with the legs straight, the head facing the opponent.

(2)  Assume the Guard:

1. Raise the weapon arm slightly above the horizontal with the point at the height of the top of the head, keeping it straight and directed toward the opponent, the hand in pronation at eye height.  The body remains erect with the legs straight.
2. Execute two vertical moulinets, one to the left and one to the right, ending with the hand in pronation at chest height forward of the forward shoulder, the arm half bent, the elbow held a little to the outside and approximately 8 inches from the body, the point at eye height. [With fencers both using the same hand this requires some focus to keep the movement vertical and parallel to the directing line in order to avoid blade clashes.]
3. Bend the knees to lower the torso and advance the weapon foot approximately 20 inches on the directing line.

(3)  Both fencers simultaneously execute an undercut (a vertical circle executed as the reverse of the moulinet, ending with the blade held cutting edge up) to the outside with a lunge slightly off the directing line to the outside.

(4)  Both fencers recover to first position of assuming guard [(2).1. above].

(5)  Both fencers assume the guard performing two moulinets [as in (2)].

(6)  Both fencers recover forward to standing upright, rear arm still in the small of the back and cross sabres in third.

(7)  Each fencer executes two changes of guard from third to fourth and then fourth to third [agree in advance who will initiate the sequence - the fencers executing first one, then the other, is an assumption].

(8)  Both fencers escape to the rear [based on the sequence of illustrations, this is most probably a step rearward with the back foot to return to the guard position as in (5)].

(9)  Both fencers execute two appels.

(10)  Both fencers salute to the right and to the left [the illustration suggests that the salute is an arm and blade movement executed while in the guard position and indicates that this salute ends with the torso, arm, and weapon turned to the direction indicated from the directing line].  Recover forward to the standing position.

(11)  Both fencers assume the on guard with two vertical moulinets.

(12)  One fencer [agreed upon in advance] invites the other to attack [note that the invitation series is much the same as that of the Grand Salute, although the bladework is abbreviated]:

1. The invitation is "To you the honor."
2. The other fencer replies "I obey."  
3. The fencer who has been invited executes either a point thrust or a flank cut and recovers to on guard [to avoid unfortunate reactions the attack chosen should be coordinated in advance].
4. The first attacker then invites "To you the honor."
5. The other fencer replies "I obey."
6. The other fencer then executes either a point thrust or a flank cut and recovers to on guard. 

[Note that in most versions of the Grand Salute no arrest is made.  Rondelle does not specify whether or not the attack in this portion is expected to land, but to be consistent with the Grand Salute the initial distance should be taken at (1) as being such that a full lunge will fall short but not excessively so.]

(13)  Both fencers salute to the outside from the guard [see description of this salute in (10)], and then recover backwards to the standing position [assumption that this is a recovery to the preliminary position in (1)].

(14)  Both fencers salute the opponent [assumption is that this is a simple vertical salute bringing the weapon up with the guard at face level, hand in pronation, and then back directly down and forward].

Note that the sequence of action may have to be modified to achieve the goal of a smooth presentation, free of blade collisions, if one fencer is right handed and the other left handed.  In particular moulinets will require attention, practice, and a solid level of control.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

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

12./17. An Italian View of the Family of Time Actions

The most completely developed approach to time and countertime actions in the classical period appears to be reflected in the various fencing manuals associated with the Italian Schools.  The sources available in English include Holzman's translation of Del Frate's 1872 Instruction in Fencing with the Sabre and the Sword, Holzman's translation of Parise's 1884 Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre, Vere Wright's 1889 translation of Masiello and Ciullini, Pavese's Foil and Sabre Fencing (1905), Holzman's translation of Pecoraro and Pessina's 1912 Sabre Fencing, and Barbasetti's The Art of the Foil (1932).

For the purposes of the following discussion it is important to note that this is a complicated topic involving (1) a first intention action, the fencer's attack, (2) the opponent's action to insert a counterattack into the time (tempo) of the attack, and (3) the fencer's effort to defeat that attempt to steal the time by a countertime (against the time stealing) action, (4) the opponent's attempt to defeat the countertime by avoiding it, and (5) finally the fencer's action to defeat the evasion.  In the first instance, the initial attack, the action is first intention.  In the second instance, the counterattack by stop or time hit is also first intention, but the opponent's first intention.  In the third instance, the action is the fencer's second intention.  In the fourth instance, the action is the opponent's third intention.  In the fifth instance, the action is the fencer's fourth intention.  So how do the Italian Masters describe this flow?

The ATTACK - everyone agrees that the phrase starts with the fencer's attack. When the attack is executed as first intention, this is an actual attack.  However, when the phrases extends past attack-counterattack, the initial attack becomes an action not intended to score in order to draw the counterattack.

The COUNTERATTACK - the counterattack is executed as the opponent's first intention action to hit the attack in the simple version of the phrase.  As the phrase extends into countertime, the counterattack becomes an action not intended to score in order to draw a parry.

• Del Frate (1872) describes the blow in tempo as a strike against a slowly executed action of first intention or against feints in blows of second or third intention.  He notes that time blows differ from other attacks only in the tempo in which they are executed.  This does not appear to differentiate direct or with opposition actions.  To deal with strong attempts to take the blade he describes the cavazione in tempo, a disengage counterattack executed just before blade contact to make the taking miss.
• Del Frate introduces contratempo.  This is not the modern countertime but rather a specialized type of counterattack in which the blow in tempo is not executed, but rather suggested by a feint, an appel, or an exclamation to cause the opponent to stop his or her action. 
• Parise (1884) indicates that actions in tempo (uscite in tempo) stop the opponent from carrying out the attack by striking uncovered target.  Such actions are actions in the first tempo if they stop the opponent in the first movement.  Similarly, actions in the second tempo and actions in the third tempo stop the opponent by hitting his or her second and third movement respectively. The two key blade actions are the arrest and the cavazione in tempo.
• Vere Wright (1889) translates the counterattack as a time blow and subdivides it into either an arrest or a disengage in time.  The disengage in time is described as being executed at the moment the opponent is striking the blade or starting to transport it to open the line of attack.
• Pavese (1905) describes two time attacks: (1) the arrest in time and (2) the disengage in time (cavation in time).  The cavation in time is an action to avoid the opponent's blade by immediately disengaging just before contact and extending to hit.
• Pavese also distinguishes between touches in first time (after the opponent's first  or second movements of the attack) and in second time (after a parry).
• Pecoraro and Pessina (1912) describe counteroffensive actions in tempo (uscite in tempo) as including the arrest, the cavazione in tempo (disengage in tempo), and the controazione (time thrust or stop thrust with opposition).  
• Barbasetti (1932) describes the counterattack as coup d'arret, being either a time hit (the stop hit with opposition), also termed by Barbasetti the counter-action,  or the direct stop hit.  It may be executed either as the coup d'arret in first tempo against the initial feint or as a coup d'arret in second tempo against the opponent's second tempo action after he or he is parried.  In addition he describes the disengage into tempo as the counterattack against any attempt to take the blade.  

The disengage in time described above is today considered a simple attack executed by a disengage derobing a lateral or vertical attempt to engage or beat or press the blade.  It is not typically classified as a counterattack.

Italian School counterattacks commonly combine bladework with evasive footwork, including the inquartata and the passata soto.  The appuntata and imbrocata are often included in the counterattacks, but will be discussed in a separate blog posting.     

The COUNTERTIME - countertime is executed by the fencer to defeat the counterattack.

• Parise (1884) describes controtempo as a contrary action against an opponent that wishes to act in tempo.  He suggests a range of scenarios including the attempted arrest on the fencer's step forward (in a role equivalent to an attack on preparation), the opponent's invitation or attempted engagement to draw the fencer's attack, or the opponent's attempted disengage in tempo against the fencer's attempt against the blade of the point in line.  
• Vere Wright (1889) describes two types of countertime, delivered either by a stop hit or by a parry and riposte on the attempted arrest or disengage in time  This is the first time that we see a  division of countertime into a defensive countertime with the parry and a counteroffensive countertime with the stop action.
• Pavese (1905) defines contro tempo as a contrary action (one which directly opposes another action).  Contro tempo opposes the opponent's intended time attack.  For example, when an opponent attempts cavation in time the fencer immediately parries and ripostes into an uncovered line.
• Pecoraro and Pessina (1912) describe the controtempo as being able to be executed with an attack that gives the impression of being a true attack to draw the counterattack followed by a parry and a riposte to the exposed target.  They broaden somewhat the scope of countertime suggesting that it can be carried out with a wide variety of actions, including even an engagement or invitation.

The FEINT IN TEMPO OF THE ARREST - the feint in tempo of the arrest (finta in tempo del colpo d'arresto) is described by Pavese (1905) and appears to be the very similar to the modern feint in tempo.  The sequence he describes is: (1) opponent feints,  (2) fencer makes a feint of an arrest against the opponent's feint, (3) opponent attempts to parry, (4) fencer avoids the blade and lunges.    

The FEINT IN TEMPO - the feint in tempo is executed by the opponent to deceive the fencer's attempt to parry the counterattack.

• Parise (1884) describes the feint in tempo as a deception of the opponent's attempt to countertime a direct arrest.  If the parry is executed laterally, the fencer's action to deceive it is a feint in tempo; if the parry is circular, the action is a circular feint in tempo.   The feint may also be feint by cavazione in tempo to deceive a lateral parry or a feint by controcavazione in tempo to deceive the expected circular parry.  Parise suggests that more complicated actions, including the double feint by cavazione in tempo or the controcavazione with a feint, would be difficult, would defeat the purpose of speedy execution of actions in tempo, and would be an error.  As in other cases of similar wording, this suggests that other Masters may well have taught such complicated actions.    
• Pavese (1905) stated that the feint in time is executed to defeat the contro tempo.  His first example describes an action that is similar to those of the modern concept of the feint in tempo: (1) fencer executes an attack drawing a time action, (2) opponent executes the time action, (3) fencer executes a contrary action with a feint and a touch to the uncovered line.  The second example is more complex: (1) opponent attacks, (2) fencer executes a time thrust, (3) opponent countertimes and feints a disengage in time, (4) fencer countertimes, (5) opponent feints a disengage in time.  Pavese's description of this action is difficult to follow, and this description is only a best guess of his intent. 
• Pecoraro and Pessina (1912) suggest the use of the feint of arrest, followd by the deception of the parry to strike in the exposed target.  Their feints in tempo fall into two categories: the feint of the arrest and the feint of the disengage.  The opponent's parry in countertime may be made either laterally or with a circular or half-circular parry.   Against the circular or half-circular parry the fencer may use the counterdisengage to finish.  
• Pecoraro and Pessina specifically state that they do not discuss the double feint in tempo because its use is very difficult.  This suggests that other Masters may have taught such a movement.
• Barbasetti (1932) describes the feint into tempo as a combination of the coup d'arret followed by the disengage in tempo.  

The ARREST IN COUNTERTIME - this is a counterattack to defeat the feint in tempo, as opposed to making an attempt to parry it.  This is a fourth intention action; its rarity may be explained by Parise's (1884) dismissal of actions in fourth intention as being overly complicated and impractical.

• Pecoraro and Pessina (1912) identify this as the arrest on the feint in tempo executed when the fencer realizes that the arrest or disengage in tempo is a feint to draw the parry, the feint in tempo can be defeated by a stop hit rather than a second parry.
• Barbasetti (1932) describes the coup d'arret into contretemps as a coup d'arret against the feint in tempo.

The descriptions of actions above show some ideas that were abandoned, differences based on the development of fencing in the classical period, variations in terminology, etc.  They also show a rich understanding of the tree of actions that flow naturally from the simple stop hit.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III  

An Italian View of the Family of Time Actions by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

9. Disordinata

The term "disordinata" appears in three fencing manuals connected with the Military Fencing Masters School of Rome, in both coverage of the foil and of the sabre.   The coverage in each manual varies slightly from that of the other two, allowing us to piece together a fuller understanding of the term, the actual technique, and its tactical application.

Classical period blade technique is rich with compound actions, starting with a feint, possibly following feints, and ending with a final attack.  Two and three tempo attacks of this type are common, and four tempo not completely rare - for example, the current edition of the Academy's Classical Fencing Actions Project Catalog includes 13 three and four tempo actions initiated by the disengage alone.  

Generoso Pavese (the first description of the Military Fencing Masters School technique published in  English in the United States), Masaniello Parise (Holzman's translation), and Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina (Holzman's translation) all address the disordinata.  They all define the technique as an attack of more than two feints, with two being executed on the advance before the initiation of the lunge, followed by one and the final attacking tempo in the lunge.  Each describes the number of feints differently.  Parise speaks of 3 feints, Pavese of more than 2 feints, and Pecoraro and Pessina described the action as having not less than four movements.  

In addition to the basic definition, each source contributes to understanding the disordinata: 

A.  Tactical Employment:

Pavese (1905):  It is done to disorder the defense by confusing the opponent.  The series of quick feints makes it difficult for the opponent to determine when the fencer will actually attack.

Pecoraro and Pessina (1912): It can only be used against an opponent of impressionable character who attempts to parry rather than counterattacking.

B.  Vulnerability:

Parise (1884):  The disordinata is not recommended because it is vulnerable to the opponent's action in tempo, including the stop thrust, appuntata, disengage in tempo, imbroccata, inquartata, and passata sotto.

Pavese (1905): The fencer must be alert to a counterattack while the feints are in progress.

Pecoraro and Pessina (1912):  It is even less recommended than the double feint because of the easy access it gives to the counterattack.

C.  Expanding the Technique:

Pavese (1905):  Two feints are executed on the advance unless the fencer initiates a raddoppio.  Pavese does not explain how additional feints are to be added.

All of the sources describe the disordinata as being a complicated action, and all describe that complication as making it vulnerable to a variety of counterattacks. Considering the large number of multiple tempo attacks that have been identified by the Classical Fencing Actions Project, the cautions against use of the disordinata because of its complexity are interesting.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

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