5./6./7./9. Grave and Multiple Tempo Compound Attacks

The Classical Fencing Actions Project's Catalog of Classical Fencing Actions lists a large number of three and even four tempo compound attacks.  As early as Parise (1884), the idea of actions with three feints, termed Disordinata, was consider to be inadvisable due to the potential for successful counterattacks. When we get to the end of the classical period, Lidstone (1952) suggests that one should not use a compound attack when a simple one would suffice to hit, and that, if a compound attack is used, it should be made with as few feints as possible.  Deladrier (1948) advises that one and two blade tempo attacks should be used in the bout, and that three and four tempo actions were really only useful for developing judgement and the suppleness of the fingers, wrist, and forearm.  So what were Fencing Masters in the 1920s and 1930s teaching in foil?

One possible answer lies in Fencing Comprehensive (1934), written by Maitre Felix Grave.  Grave held two diplomas, Maitre d'Armes of the Academy of Arms of Paris and Maitre d'Armes of the Academy of the Epee of Paris.  Given the time to write and publish a manual, it seems likely that his volume reflects French practice of the 1920s.

Grave catalogs not only two tempo actions such as the One-Two and Double, but also three and four part actions.  His list includes:

Three Part Actions. There is nothing really uncommon in this selection, but it provides a full range of attacks capable of being used to defeat most combinations of high-line parries:

• One-Two-Three - a disengage added to the One-Two (two disengages in opposite directions with the additional disengage in the same direction as the first one) to deal with successive lateral parries.
• Double and Disengage - a Double (two successive disengages in the same direction to deceive a circular parry - we tend to describe this as a disengage followed by a counterdisengage) followed by a Disengage in the opposite direction.
• One-Two and Deceive the Counter - a One-Two (2 disengages, with the second being opposite in direction to the first) followed by a third disengage in the same direction as the second one to deceive the circular parry at the end.  This can also be termed a One and a Double.
• Cut-Over (Coupe) and One-Two - a coupe followed by a one-two, the second and third actions being in the opposite direction to the previous ones to deceive successive lateral parries.
• Cut-Over (Coupe) and Double -  a coupe followed by two disengages in the opposite direction to deceive the circular parry at the end.
• Treble - three disengages in the same direction to defeat two circular parries.
• Double Cut-Over (Coupe) and Disengage - two coupes in opposite directions followed by a disengage in the same direction as the first coupe to deal with a series of lateral parries.

Four Part Actions.  Grave describes only two four tempo actions with the notation that these are "rather complicated attacks, only taught to very advanced pupils …":

• One-Two-Three-Four - a series of disengages, the second, third, and fourth of which are executed in sequentially opposite directions to the preceding disengage to deceive a series of lateral parries.
• Double and Redouble - two doubles in opposite directions to defeat a parrying combination of circular-lateral-circular.

Today, given the rapid changes in modern fencing technique to exploit equally rapid changes in the rules and developments in modern physical and psychological training, it may seem quaint that three and four tempo actions survived, even if only as a training tool, during the entire classical period.  However, the fundamental nature of the sport and of technique remained relatively stable, especially as fencing as a whole became more organized and with the introduction of standard rules.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III


Grave and Multiple Tempo Compund Attacks by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

2.2. Grandiere's Feint for the Straight Thrust

In 1906 Maurice Grandiere authored a small fencing manual titled How to Fence: A new and original treatise on the art of the Foil and Epee as studied and practiced in France.  Grandiere has so far escaped our efforts to identify his status, but the quality and scope of the manual suggests either a very experienced amateur, or more likely a Maitre d'Armes.  Incidentally, for those puzzled by the (2/6) on the cover, it is the price 2 Shillings and 6 Pence, approximately $15 in today's money for a leather bound book, with a photograph of the author inset in the cover.

The prevailing definitions of the feint in the French School at this time can be found in Rondelle (1892) and the French Ministry of War manuals of 1877 (Slee translation) and 1908 (Amateur Fencer's League of America translation).  These leave the clear impression that the feint is a simulation of an actual attack executed from the guard to cause the opponent to move his or her blade, creating an opening that the fencer immediately exploits to hit.  The feint is described in a context that suggests it is part of an integrated series of blade and footwork actions that form the attack in the moment.

Grandiere's description of the feint for the simple attack is very different, and is more tactical than technical in its character.  He emphasizes that every attack by straight thrust or disengage must be preceded by a feint.  These feints are of two types: 

• The Large Feint - made to force the opponent to parry, creating the opportunity for a disengage, or
• The Feint near the opponent's guard.

The difference in these two categories appears to be primarily in defining the parry the opponent must take, an opposition parry for the large feint and a circle parry for the feint near the guard.

Grandiere's description of the feint for the straight thrust immediately attracts the reader's attention, first because we are not used to thinking about preparing the straight thrust with a feint, and second because the method is novel (this being the first example encountered). 

1. The feint for the straight thrust is delivered in a manner resembling an actual attack as possible, with a very rapid extension of the arm with the hand high, the blade downward, and with a slight forward movement of the body "to command more freedom and vivacity in making the feint."    
2. If parried, the arm must be recovered very rapidly to a half extension and covering the line of the original engagement.
3. The feint should be delivered several times.
4. When the opponent starts to lessen his or her response to the feint, the fencer should execute one more feint followed immediately by the lunge to deliver the hit.

The feint for the disengage is executed as a feint of straight thrust above to draw the parry and open the line, followed by the disengage and lunge.

In effect Grandiere's straight thrust is a multiple tempo compound action intended to score when the opponent's defenses start to not take the feint seriously; the disengage is what we might consider in later years to be a compound attack.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III


Grandiere's Feint for the Straight Thrust by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

12.3.1.1.1. The Disengage in Tempo

In modern fencing, if an opponent attempts to take the fencer's blade and fails because the fencer deceives the action with a disengage and attacks to hit, we call that a derobement, assume the opponent lost right of way because of the failure to connect, and go on our way happy.  Today we don't typically call it a disengage stop hit.  But, is this correct?

The Italian School has a broad view of counterattacks.  Maestro Barbasetti, in his The Art of the Foil (1932), identifies a range of counteraatcks, and subdivides them into passive and active tempo actions:

A.  Passive tempo actions act against the final phase of the opponent's attack including:

1. Coup d'Arret
2. Appuntata
3. Inquartata
4. Passata Sotto
5. Imbroccata
6. Counter-Action

B.  Active tempo actions halt the opponent's action at its start including: 

1. Disengage into tempo
2. Feint into tempo (a feint of any of the thrusts listed above)

Maestro Parise's 1884 Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre (Holzman's translation) defines the Disengage into Tempo as an action in tempo of the first tempo.  The disengage is executed as the opponent attempts to find the fencer's blade to remove it from the line of offense, forcing the opponent to stop the attack and parry.  Barbasetti expands this, making it clear that the disengage is followed by a lunge, not just the disengage alone.  He offers four cases:

• Against the beat attempting to contact the blade in fourth - disengage to the outside line.
• Against the beat attempting to contact the blade in third - disengage to the inside line.
• Against the beat attempting to contact the blade in second - disengage to the high line.
• Against the beat attempting to contact the blade in half-circle (fifth) - disengage to the low line.

It is interesting to note that the disengage in tempo (or disengage stop hit) is not well developed in equivalent French sources.  Rondelle (1892), the two editions of the French Army manual (1877 and 1908), Prevost (1892), and Deladrier (1948) do not mention it.  Lidstone (1952) and Crosnier (1967) both writing with a strong classical period influence, mention the indirect stop hit, but only in passing.

The modern derobe and hit against the attempt to take the blade depends on the referee's interpretation that right of way is lost by the evasion.  Viewing the Disengage into Tempo as a stop hit in the period when concepts of priority in the rules were in considerable flux lends a much more offensive flavor to the technique.  The Disengage into Tempo depends on taking the opponent's time, not on making him lose it.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

The Disengage in Tempo by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

21.2.4 The Fleche at the End of the Classical Period

The fleche appears in the second half of the classical period.  At the end of the classical period there are two distinct versions of the fleche to be found in the literature.  The older appears to be the forward pass to lunge.  The younger version appears to be a run at the opponent.  The exact chronology of when the fleche emerged and when it transitioned from one version to the other is difficult to establish.  However, it appears that the forward pass to lunge model was well established in the 1920s, and that the running model was in use by the early 1930s.

Note that in these descriptions the front foot remains the front foot through the pass and ends again as the front foot at the completion of the lunge.  For right handed fencers the front foot is the right foot and the rear foot is the left foot throughout; for left handed fencers the front foot is the left foot and the rear foot is the right foot throughout.  This eliminates the need for descriptions such as "the rear foot comes forward becoming the front foot, while the front foot becomes the rear foot."

Afred E. Finckh in Academic Fencing (1946, but largely written prior to 1928) in large part in the 1920s) described the fleche in one blade and two footwork tempos:

1. The extension of the thrust,
2. While bringing the rear foot forward to land at an angle 90 degrees to the inside off the directing line, 
3. The lunge is then executed by pushing off the front foot.

G. V. Hett in Fencing (1939) described the fleche in two parts:

1. The fencer unobtrusively as possible brings the rear foot forward of the front foot, and
2. Brings the front foot back around in the lunge.

It is hard to see how the forward pass could be unobtrusive (Hett's choice of words), although this may suggest a slow balanced movement that could be mistaken for a normal advance.

Maestro Julio Martinez Castello's The Theory and Practice of Fencing (1933) contributes to both versions of the fleche.  His depiction of the fleche (which is nor described in the text) shows a three step process:

1. The right handed fencer is on guard, 
2. The rear (left) foot passes forward in a step as the blade is extended, 
3. Followed by the right foot swinging forward into a lunge. 

The last clear example of the fleche as forward pass-lunge appears in John Kardoss's 1955 Sabre Fencing (although published outside the classical period, evidence in the text suggests this is clearly based on the author's training in the Royal Hungarian Army in the classical period):

1. From the half-lunge position (Kardoss terms this the French method) or guard position,
2. The majority of the fencer's weight is transferred as stealthily as possible to the forward foot,
3. The rear foot swings forward as far as possible landing flat,
4. End with a half-lunge.

A common comment among the authors who describe the forward pass-lunge model of the fleche is the need for control to avoid over-balancing converting the movement into an uncontrolled rush forward.  Finckh condemns the run at the opponent as being unsafe, noting that it had contributed to a fatal accident.  He cites a Federation Internationale d'Escrime suggestion that at the completion of the pass, the fencer should be able to immediately retreat in the case of a counterattack into the poreparation, and that at no time should the fencer fail to have one foot on the ground. Hett suggests that the fencer fleching often will break into a quick rush through a loss of balance or in response to the opponent retreating.  He observed that some fencers have completely abandoned the initial pass and simply sprint at the opponent. Kardoss describes this as a "desperate type of attack."

R. A. Lidstone in Fencing (1952) describes an unusual leaping version of the fleche which may be an intermediate step between the forward pass to lunge and the running models:

1. The fencer, out-of-distance, swings the body forward,
2. With or without a half-lunge,
3. Until the body's weight is completely over the front foot,
4. Then overbalancing forward and jumping as far forward as possible landing on the rear foot in the pass, with the front foot extended out behind, 
5. While extending the final attack, and finally bringing the front foot back forward to reestablish balance.

In this version the pass is an unbalanced  forward leap with the attack, but it is not followed by the lunge.

Castello's description of the running version emphasizes that this is a surprise move to be done against an opponent who maintains a position slightly out of distance or whose ability to retreat is faster than the fencer's ability to lunge.  It is executed in two parts:

1. The fencer imperceptibly shifts weight onto the forward foot,
2. When the opportunity to attack appears, the fencer hurls himself at the opponent. 

Joseph Vince, in his 1940 text Fencing, describes the running form of fleche as being executed by:

1. The rear foot is placed ahead of the front foot,
2. Followed by one or more running steps,
3. Ending in a run past the opponent on his inside line. 

Maitre Clovis Deladrier's 1948 text Modern Fencing describes the fleche as a five part action: 

1. The Arm is extended threatening target,
2. Weight is shifted from the rear to the forward leg,
3. The rear foot is placed slightly in front of the front foot,
4. The distance is closed with a rush, and
5. The fencer may rush directly at the opponent (stopping before corps a corps), passing to the outside line, or passing to the inside line (preferred).

Lidstone also describes the running fleche as a separate action distinct from his regular fleche:

1. The fencer executes the fleche by leap, and
2. Rather than landing with both feet, converts the movement into a run past the opponent.  

This allows the fencer to use the momentum generated by the leap.  The steps in the run should be as short as possible to allow the fencer to stop forward movement and regain control when needed.  

Many of the authors emphasizes that the fleche is a risky action that should be:

• employed as a surprise and/or infrequently (Castello, Deladrier, Hett, Lidstone),
• used in epee (Castello, Hett, Vince), in foil (Finckh), in foil or epee (Lidstone) or all three weapons (Deladrier) 
• used to close distance against an opponent out of distance (Lidstone) who cannot be hit by a coordinated lunge or advance lunge (Castello, Vince), although Deladrier emphasizes it's use from as close a distance as possible,
• accompanied with an attack on the blade (Vince) or taking of the blade (Castello - glide, Deladrier - opposition), although can be done as a direct action at the moment the opening appears (Deladrier), 
• has the advantage of closing the distance so that an opponent cannot effectively riposte (Lidstone),
• most valuable when employed as the opponent is recovering to guard (Deladrier), and
• understood as vulnerable to the riposte (Castello) or stop hit (Vince).

The fleche represents part of the transition from historical fencing to modern fencing that occurs during the classical period.  The version executed by forward pass and lunge is relatively safe, graceful, accelerating attack which can correctly belong in the toolbox of fencers studying systems or Masters from the 1920s forward.  The run at the opponent model (which extends from the 1930s well into the 1980s) can only be excluded by convention in your Salle.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

The Fleche at the End of the Classical Period by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.