E10.6. La Marche and Parries

In modern epee there is considerable variation in what suite of parries is possible and necessary to protect the fencer.  For example, Terence Kingston lists the standard eight, adds Ninth and a High Second.  In contrast, Imre Vass stresses the need for a smaller number (typically 4 to 5) of parries organized in an integrated system that is consistent with the fencer's preferred tactical approach to fencing.  So, what is a classical fencer to do … master all of the parries or use a smaller set tailored to his or her view of epee?

Maitre Claude La Marche addresses this problem in The Dueling Sword (House's translation), and it appears that he is very much a system advocate.  Some background is important.  The French Dueling Sword (what we term an epee, whether of the salle or of the terrain) was an evolving weapon when La Marche wrote his two editions in 1884 and 1898.  Training for the use of the sword in the duel originally was based on the foil, but by the 1880s the complication of foil play was recognized by some French Masters as being unrealistic for the dueling ground (the terrain).  In that evolution we see a number of Master's adopting different approaches to teaching the dueling sword; La Marche is one of these Masters.

The turbulence in technique extended to what we would consider very fundamental differences in how to execute blade actions.  For example, today a modern fencer knows how to execute a circular parry - the hand and arm stay stable and the blade and point is moved in a teardrop "circle."  In contrast in La Marche's time the circular parry could be executed in that way or, according to other masters, by maintaining the point in one location in space and moving the hand and wrist in a circular motion.  The tenor of La Marche's comments suggest that blade movement is more desirable than the hand and wrist technique.

In this environment, La Marche defined two classes of parries.  These were oppositions and counter-oppositions, the latter being the circular parry.  They could be simple (one tempo) or complex (two tempo).  He believed that the six necessary parries were:

• Fourth opposition
• Fourth counteropposition
• Sixth opposition
• Sixth counteropposition
• Second opposition
• Second counteropposition

He advocated that these parries should be employed as follows:

(1)  Simple oppositions and counteroppositions:

• Fourth opposition or fourth counteropposition
• Sixth opposition or counteropposition

(2)  Complex (compound) oppositions and counteroppositions:

• Fourth opposition and fourth counteropposition
• Sixth opposition and sixth counteropposition
• Fourth counteropposition and sixth opposition
• Sixth counteropposition and fourth opposition
• Sixth counteropposition and second opposition

There are a couple of points that deserve discussion in evaluating La Marche's choices for simple and complex parries.  First, this is clearly a system in the same sense as Vass suggests.  The limited number of opposition parries (3) and the smaller number of counteropposition parries (2) makes it easier to learn and to automate defensive responses.  

Second, if we assume the system is intended for use in the duel, the system provides a solid defense for the arm, especially when combined with the short retreat he suggests in response to any attack.  The sequencing of opposition and counteropposition parries allows the fencer to deal with both indirect and direct attacks with sufficient options to complicate the opponent's tactical decision making. If we look at what these actions defeat, the defense deals with the following common attacks:

• Fourth opposition - straight thrust in fourth
• Sixth opposition - straight thrust in sixth
• Fourth counteropposition - disengage from fourth
• Sixth counteropposition - disengage from sixth
• Fourth opposition and fourth counteropposition - feint of straight thrust disengage starting in fourth
• Sixth opposition and sixth counteropposition - feint of straight thrust disengage starting in sixth
• Fourth counteropposition and sixth opposition - two successive disengages (double) in the same direction starting in fourth
• Sixth counteropposition and fourth opposition - two successive disengages (double) in the same direction starting in sixth
• Sixth counteropposition and second opposition - disengage starting in sixth followed by half disengage to the low line

This system deals with the common direct and indirect single tempo attacks and with the feint of straight thrust-disengage, double, and a high-low attack all supported by an opening of the distance sufficient to allow the compound parries and to remove the torso and leg targets.

Sources: 

Kingston, Terence; Epee Combat Manual; [fencing manual]; Terrence Kingston, Surbiton, Greta Britain; 2004.

La Marche, Claude; The Dueling Sword; translation by Brian House; [fencing manual]; Ernest Flammarion; Paris, France; reprinted by Paladin Press, Boulder, Colorado, United States of America; 1898 reprinted 2009.

Vass, Imre; Epee Fencing; [fencing manual]; Corvina Press, Budapest, Hungary.

Copyright 2020 by Walter G. Green III

La Marche and Parries by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.