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.

15.1.3. Manrique and the Croise

One of the trends that contributes significantly to our understanding of classical fencing is the increasing number of reprints and translations of period fencing texts.  One of these is the 1920 text  Fencing Foil Class Work Illustrated by Maitre Ricardo Enrique Manrique.  On first look, this is a thin and apparently rather basic coverage of fencing with the foil, along with an explanation of drill formations.  However, hiding in the book is a gem in the description of the croise (often translated as the "cross").

In background, a quick survey of several texts reveals that the croise is variously described.  It does not appear in Slee's translation of the 1877 Manuel d'Escrime of the French Army.  In 1892 Rondelle describes it as a movement with the fencers blade over the opponent's, driving the blade down vigorously without maintaining contact.  The Amateur Fencers League of America translation of the 1908 French Army manual describes it as a vertical prise de fer from high to low line on the same side.  The description is tied to the description of the liement, which is described as going from high to low line or vice versa, leaving the possibility open that the authors might have intended that the croise could also be done low to high line.  By 1948 Deladrier identifies the croise as an action from high to low line, without specifying the starting lines.  And in 1967 Crosnier describes the croise in 4th as an example with the blade pivoting over the opponent's, not ruling out that a croise could be done in 6th, but clearly stating that it is not done from low to high line.

So what does Manrique contribute to the discussion in 1920?  He describes a "brusque" movement taking the foible of the opponent's blade with your forte and moving it "from a high line to a low line or vice versa …" (page 36).  This is the first confirmation of a low line to high line croise that I have seen.  Manrique provides the specific combinations:

• From fourth to second
• From sixth to seventh
• From second to fourth
• From seventh to sixth

Note that in these descriptions the croise in fourth is executed by pivoting over the opponent's blade and directing the fencer's blade downward to land in the opponent's second.  In each case the blade pivots over (in starting in high line) or under (from low line) to hit with the point on the same side of the blade.  

The croise from high to low line is quite effective as a riposte.  From low to high line it seems to be in the same class as low to high line binds - actions that require very good timing and just the right distance.  Done in riposte, the croise might well work against the opponent who has attacked in low line and is starting a recovery.

Maitre Manrique other descriptions of actions appear to be quite within the normal range of French technique in the period.  Manrique's biography suggests that he may have received his training and Master's credential from the Cercle d'Esgrime de l'Havanne in 1888, followed by teaching in a number of fencing clubs in Havana in the period 1889-1899, and serving as the fencing editor for Havana newspapers.  He emigrated to the United States in 1899 and taught at a wide variety of fencing clubs and schools in New York and New Jersey, as well as serving as an instructor for the 71st Regiment, New York National Guard.  

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III.


Manrique and the Croise by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

E10.2.2. Parries from the Straight Arm Guard at the End of the Classical Period

A number of authors of the later years of the classical period refer to the use of the straight arm guard as a standard guard in epee.  Although the straight arm guard, the arm and weapon extended directly forward from the shoulder (essentially as a point in line) to threaten an immediate attack or counterattack has obvious applications for offense and counteroffense, can you or how do you defend from this position?  And what are you defending?

Three books provide the answer to these three questions: Maestro di Scherma Luigi Barbasetti's The Art of the Sabre and the Epee (1936), Maestro de Armas Julio Martinez Castello's The Theory and Practice of Fencing (1937), and R. A. Lidstone's Fencing: A Practical Treatise on Foil, Epee, Sabre (1952).

As noted, the straight arm guard is a threat of offensive or counteroffensive action.  If the opponent wishes to either attack or to hamper the attack or counterattack (and that pretty much covers the entirety of the purpose of fencing), removing the threat the straight arm presents becomes important.  The opponent can either wait until the fencer tires and pulls the guard back to a medium guard or either force a withdrawal or score on the arm with an attack.  In turn, to answer an attack on his or her arm, the fencer can either counterattack or parry and riposte.  In this post we will focus on the parry.

There are two parrying options.  The first is a parry with the bell.  All three of the sources consulted address the bell parry.  Bell parries are simultaneously simple in concept and difficult in execution.  Although the epee bell is significantly larger than that of the foil, it has three limitations.  The first is that it is round, and round surfaces offer little to catch and hold an opposing blade.  An alert attacker with a fast hand can conceivably roll off a bell and hit if the parry and riposte are anything but instantaneous.

The second problem is that the bell covers significantly less volume of space than the blade does.  The blade in defence can sweep a larger volume of space and gather and control the attacking blade.  Although the bell is stronger than the foible or even the forte of the incoming blade, it must be used with a high degree of precision in the right envelope of space and with the right direction of movement to ensure a deflection.  This requires practice, an extensive amount of practice to be assured of the result.

Finally, the bell, especially the bell with a centered blade as opposed to the more modern offset blade, is not just defending the arm - it is also defending the hand.  An exposed portion of the glove or, for larger hands, even a finger converts the bell from defense into a target exposure for the attack.

The mechanics of the bell parry are relatively simple.  The fencer moves the fist laterally, vertically, or diagonally to displace the incoming point with the edge of the bell.  Because the arm is extended, the amount of movement needed to protect the hand and arm is relatively small, as even a small movement closes off the angles available to the attack.  The point is retained in the line of attack, if at all possible, to either facilitate an immediate riposte or to allow the opponent to run onto it in his or her attack.

For Castello and Lidstone, those are the essentials of the bell parry.  Barbasetti adds an interesting element.  He prefers a displacement of the attack into the inside line.  He does not address why, but the resulting geometry opens up the opponent's inside line (if both fencers are using the same hand) with the better chance of a body hit in the event the arm is missed.

The second parrying option is a blade parry.  Castello suggests that over reliance on bell parries increases the probability of angulated attacks and provides a short description of the use of the blade parry as an alternative.  The arm remains extended in the guard, and the point is raised or lowered as needed to form the parries to defend the four quadrants of the arm.  He notes that, because the point in the straight arm guard tends to be below the level of the hand, parries in 7th (low inside) and 8th (low outside) are to be preferred.

Castello expands the choices to include the circular parries executed with only the fingers and wrist.  Although Barbasetti does not specifically address this family of parries he does supplement the pure bell parries with a fairly large circular parry to gather the outside line attack into the bell on the inside line.  Like the bell parry, the blade parries from the straight arm guard require practice to avoid overly large movement and deviation from the line of attack.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III 

Parries from the Straight Arm Guard 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.

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.

S10.b. Dr. Breck's Sabre Parries

Dr. Edward Breck, an active fencer in Boston, Massachusetts and the editor of the Amateur Fencer's League of America's magazine, The Swordsman, authored a booklet that was combined with the Senac's and published in 1926 in Spalding's Red Cover series of sports handbooks.  This does not appear in the earlier Blue Cover series handbook with content by the Senac's, so we can only be sure that it reflects sabre technique before 1926.  Breck's material covers 45 pages, of which 9 are devoted to sabre.  This is hardly an exhaustive treatment of the sabre, but it includes an interesting selection of parries that merits examination.

Breck includes familiar sabre parries common in any system at the time, but adds three parries which he defines as being done in the same way as foil parries.  His list of sabre specific parries is:

HEAD PARRY - a parry executed with the weapon arm oriented forward and bent with the hand above the head and in pronation, the blade held horizontally.

LEFT CHEEK PARRY -  a parry executed by raising the hand to the level of the inside breast, approximately 6 inches from the body, the blade held vertically upward, the edge turned slightly to the inside.  This parry also protects against shoulder cuts.

RIGHT CHEEK PARRY - a parry executed by raising the hand to the level of the outside breast, approximately 6 inches from the body, the blade held vertically upward, the edge turned slightly to the outside.  This parry also protects against shoulder cuts.

BREAST PARRY - a parry executed by carrying the weapon arm across the body to the inside, the forearm held horizontally at chin level or slightly above, the blade held almost vertically with the edge to the inside, the weapon hand in pronation and approximately 9 inches forward of the body.

GIRDLE PARRY - a parry executed as the breast parry, but with the arm at or below chin level.

FLANK PARRY - a parry formed by a downward movement of the hand, the forearm level at waist level and the blade sloping downward with the edge to the outside, the hand moved to the outside and turned into pronation.

Note that these parries are identified by the type of attack they defeat as opposed to by numbers.  To defend against the point thrust, Breck identifies three parries by number and notes that they are done as a foil parry is done:

TIERCE - an opposition parry executed with the forearm and blade sloping upward as a unit, the hand moved slightly to the outside and turned into pronation. This parry also protects against the arm cut.

QUARTE - an opposition parry executed with the hand brought across the lower chest to close the line in the inside, the forearm and blade sloping upward as a unit, the bade directed at the opponent, and the hand rotated past the thumb-up position toward supination.

SECONDE - a parry formed by a quick downward movement of the hand, the forearm and blade sloping downward as a unit, the hand moved slightly to the outside and turned into pronation.

Finally, he identifies two avoidances as defenses against cuts to the forward targets.  If you accept the Italian theory of parry by distance, these can be counted as parries, although does not call them such.

AGAINST THE ARM CUT - performed by withdrawing the weapon hand from range.

AGAINST THE THIGH CUT - performed by withdrawing the forward leg to the rear.  Whether by reassemble, retreat step, or pass of the forward leg to the rear is not specified, but a picture of the thigh cut shows the fencer attacked withdrawing his leg by passing.  He notes that cuts to the thigh were not allowed as valid in the Amateur Fencers League of America rules, but that it was desirable to nonetheless practice this defense.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

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

S10.a. Hutton's Sabre Parries

Captain Alfred Hutton occupies an important position in the development of fencing in the classical period.  He made a mark on the organization of fencing as a sport, serving as the first President of the Amateur Fencing Association of Great Britain.  He was a strong advocate for the military use of the sword in a day when the sword was clearly becoming obsolete on the battlefield.  And his writings still today are followed by fencers who fence with the so-called Hutton sabre.  

Two volumes in particular Cold Steel: A Practical Treatise on the Sabre (1889) and The Swordsman (1898) (both available in reprint), lay out Hutton's approach to the use of the sabre.  One area in which his method is clearly distinctive is in his selection of parries.  The system he advocates is complex, even when compared to sources that use a French approach to sabre, and requires some study because of its use of a significantly different numbering system than that of the contemporary Italian numbering of parries.  The result is 17 parries:

PRIME - the weapon arm brought across the body to the inside at shoulder height, the hand in pronation, the guard and front edge turned to the inside, the blade near vertical, point down.  This parry defends the inside line against a descending cut from the inside.

HIGH PRIME - the weapon  arm is across the body and extended to the inside front with the blade and guard up, hand in pronation, the point approximately 6 to 8 inches below the horizontal.  This defends against a descending cut from high inside. 

LOW PRIME - the weapon arm is across the body with the guard at waist height, hand in pronation, guard and blade turned to the inside front at approximately 45 degrees and near vertical point down.  This defends against a rising cut from the low inside.

SECONDE - the weapon arm is carried to the outside with the guard at waist height, the hand in pronation, the guard and blade turned to the outside front and the blade near vertical point down.  This defends against the rising cut from the low outside.

HIGH SECONDE - the hand in pronation is raised to shoulder height with the arm extended in the outside line, the front edge of the blade to the outside front, and the blade held vertically with the point down.  This defends against a horizontal cut from the outside line.

TIERCE - the arm is bent with the forearm and hand at waist or lower chest height, the blade raised at an angle and blade and guard turned to the outside, the hand in pronation.   This defends against a descending cut from the outside line.

HIGH TIERCE - the arm is raised from the position of tierce so that it is bent, the hand at head height, the guard and edge to the outside, and the blade inclined upward over the body so that the point is well above the inside line.  This defends against the vertical descending cut.

LOW TIERCE - from the position of tierce the hnad is dropped to the level of the forward thigh.  This defends against a horizontal cut from the outside.

QUARTE - the forearm is carried across the body at waist or lower chest height, the blade raised at an angle and blade and guard turned to the inside, the hand in supination.  This defends against a descending cut from the inside. 

HIGH QUARTE - the arm is raised from the position of quarte so that it is bent, the hand at head height, the guard and edge to the inside, and the blade inclined upward over the body so that the point is well above the outside line.  This defends against the vertical descending cut.

HORIZONTAL QUARTE - the guard is dropped onto the forward thigh, the blade edge downward and the blade horizontal across the body.  This defends against a rising vertical cut.  Hutton attributes this parry to the Italian School, but it is not commonly pictured in Italian texts..

LOW QUARTE - from the position of quarte the hand is dropped to the level of the thigh with the blade inclining at approximately 45 degrees to the inside front. This defends against a horizontal cut from the inside.

SAINT GEORGE'S or HEAD PARRY - the upper arm  is at shoulder height to the outside with the forearm near vertical and the hand slightly above the head in pronation, the guard and blade up, the blade pointing to the inside front and the point slightly lower than the guard.  This defends against the descending vertical cut.

SIXTE - the arm is bent, held to the outside with the guard at lower chest level, point raised, the edge to the inside, hand in supination, protecting the outside high line with a back edge parry.  This protects against a descending cut from the outside. 

SEPTIME -  the forearm is carried to the inside and lowered with the hand in supination in line with the rear hip, the guard and front edge of the blade to the inside front, the point slanted forward at about ankle height.  This protects against a rising cut from low inside.

OCTAVE - the weapon arm is lowered forward, the hand in supination, the guard at waist level, the blade protecting the outside of the forward leg with a back edge parry, the point below the level of the knee.  This protects against a rising cut from the outside. 

HIGH OCTAVE -  the upper arm  is at shoulder height to the outside with the forearm near vertical and the hand slightly above the head in supination, the fingers are relaxed to all the blade to hang vertically, guard and edge to the outside front.  This defends against the descending cut from high outside, particularly a coupe riposte to the fencer's right cheek.  This parry is identical to the Italian seventh parry.

In 1889 Hutton specified that all parries are executed from the medium guard between tierce and quarte.  At the same time he indicated that the most effective parries against attacks with the point were Quarte, Tierce, Seconde, Septime, and Prime.

In 1898 Hutton adds to the diagrams from 1889 to show the relationship flowing between Low Quarte, Quarte, and High Quarte, and the same for Low Tierce, Tierce, and High Tierce and for Seconde and High Seconde.  In essence these parries from a steel curtain to defend the vertical inside and outside lines.  Similarly Low Prime, Prime, and Saint George form a flowing defence against a transition of an attack from the inside line to the vertical cut.  And by 1898 he no longer includes the High Prime, Octave, or Horizontal Quarte parries in his method.

Also in 1898 Hutton divides the parries into parries of primary importance and auxiliary parries.  The primary parries are:

• Quarte with High and Low Quarte
• Tierce with High and Low Tierce
• Seconde
• Septime

The auxiliary parries are essentially parries of opportunity, parries taken against a riposte or counterriposte when the fencer is not in a position that would allow the use of one of the primary parries.  These include:

• High Octave
• High Seconde
• Prime with High and Low Prime
• Saint George

This is a complex defensive system.  Having 17 parries at one's disposal would seem to offer something for every situation.  However, achieving the ability to automatically choose and rapidly execute this many different parries under bout conditions would require considerable practice, and the designation of primary parries may have been an attempt at a solution to that problem.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III
 

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

B.2. The Vice President of the Jury

A Jury for a classical bout is normally composed of one President and four Judges.  The Judges and the President together determine the materiality of a hit (whether or not a hit arrived on target, at all, or not at all); the President determines the validity of the hit (whether or not a touch is awarded based on the rules of priority for the weapon).  However, for a brief time in the 1930s a sixth member could join a Jury in Great Britain, the Vice-President.

The position and functions of a Vice-President are detailed in the 1937 Rules for Competition published by the Amateur Fencing Association.  The Vice-President as a member of the Jury was first adopted by the Amateur Fencing Association in 1933.  The Vice-President position had evidently disappeared by the time of the publication of Professor Roger Crosnier's A Guide to Judging and Presiding at Foil and Sabre in 1950.

The Vice-President appears to have been an individual, probably qualified to serve as a President, whose primary function was to vote in the place of the President when the President was of no opinion on matters of either materiality or validity.  The assumption that he or she was probably qualified to serve as a President is based on the responsibility of the Vice-President to vote on matters of validity when the President had no opinion.  The specific duties of the Vice-President were to give his or her opinion (in other words, cast 1 1/2 votes as to materiality or rule on the validity of a touch):

• If the President had no opinion in the case of one Judge voting "no," "yes," or "yes but not valid" and the other Judge abstaining.  Note that "yes but not valid" is not specified as a vote in the 1937 rules. 
• If the President had no opinion in the case of the two Judges voting in opposition to each other (one "yes" and one "no") or if both Judges abstained.
• When the President had no opinion as to the validity of a touch or as to the priority in time of a hit in epee.

What does the Vice-President bring to the bout that justifies having an additional official in the Jury?  The simple answer is that the presence of a Vice-President reduces the probability that a particular phrase will result in a doubtful hit or an inability of the President to determine the priority of the action.  This does not mean that the Vice-President necessarily increases the accuracy of calls.  

A Vice-President is merely replacing the abstaining President in the decision process and has just as much of a chance to make the wrong call as the President did.  And if the President has an opinion, even if it is seen by the Vice-President as being clearly the wrong call, the Vice-President has no vote.  Although it may be tempting to think of the Vice-President as serving in the function of the modern video referee in coming to a consensus decision as to the validity of a hit, that would be an error.

Why did the Vice-President not survive into the modern era?  The available information does not suggest a reason.  However, there are two obvious possibilities.  First, finding sufficient skilled Presidents, Directors, or Referees to staff a tournament has never been an easy task.  Tieing up two qualified Presidents on a piste halves the number of pistes that can be run and reduces the availability of reliefs when a President is tired and starting to make fatigue-driven errors.  Second, actual use of the concept may have demonstrated an added level of complication with no great increase in utility.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III.

The Vice-President of the Jury by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.