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.