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.

C.2. Foil Actions from the 1877 Manuel d'Escrime

The authoritative definition of technique in the French School at the start of the classical period is the Manuel d'Escime, published in 1877 by Ministere de la Guerre (the French Ministry of War).  Chris Slee's translation, published by Long Edge Press, is the source for this discussion.  

The text is divided into two sections, one for the epee and one for the sabre, and Slee states that the foil is excluded.  I believe this is an error resulting from a misunderstanding of the near universal practice of the time of using the foil for training in place of the actual epee de terrain (sword of the dueling ground) or the military epee (the sword carried by officers and non-commissioned officers of the Army).  Arguing in favor of the use of the foil for training Pointe fencing (fencing conducted with thrust weapons) are the following factors:

(1)  the depictions of the technique in the Manuel are essentially of foil technique as described and pictured in works by a number of French trained Masters (Cordelois, Provost, Rondelle, and Senac as examples). 

(2)  the illustrations, although inexact in their depiction of the sabre, clearly show a Pointe weapon that lacks the enlarged, dome shaped guard characteristic of the epee de combat or the epee de terrain.  The pictures look like a side view of a lunette guard, or one of the square, lens shaped, or rectangular flat guards in use in the period.  This is confirmed by the text which describes the guard as a lunette guard.  It is dangerous to say that something in this period never happened, but the lunette guard was a foil guard and does not appear as part of an epee in any commonly available source. 

(3)  prior to the epee de salle revolution of the 1880s, the epee is not commonly addressed in general fencing texts.  Even in Rondelle's 1892 Foil and Sabre the two weapons described are foil and the sabre.  It is worth noting that prior to his emigration to the United States in 1881 Maitre Rondelle was a graduate of the military fencing academy of Joinville-le-Pont and a working Maitre d'Armes in the 8th Regiment of Chasseurs a Cheval at the time the 1877 Manuel was in force. 

Therefore, it seems reasonable to consider the description of Pointe technique in the Manuel to be applicable to the foil.  As a document that is at the start of the classical period time line, it is worth examining the range of technique it describes:

(1)  the manner of holding the sword

(2)  the guard

(3)  preparatory movements

(4)  taking the guard in seven steps

(5)  gathering, forward and backwards

(6)  stepping, forward and backwards

(7)  appels

(8)  deployment of the arm

(9)  lunge

(10)  salute in arms

(11)  engagement

(12)  change of engagement

(13)  double engagement

(14)  fingering

(15)  the attack, simple and compound strikes

(16)  straight strike (simple attack)

(17)  disengagement (simple attack) (lateral action)

(18)  feint (simple attack)

(19)  cut-over

(20)  glide

(21)  beat

(22)  pressing

(23)  expulsion

(24)  disengagement (from high to low line)

(25)  bind

(26)  remise

(27)  reprise

(28)  redoubling

(29)  timed strike

(30)  stop strike

(31)  parry

(32)  counter

(33)  the actual parry

(34)  varieties of parries

(35)  execution of prime

(36)  execution of seconde

(37)  execution of tierce
(38)  execution of quarte

(39)  execution of quinte

(40)  execution of sixte
(41)  execution of half-circle
(42)  execution of octave
(43)  riposte
(44)  counterriposte

This is predominantly a list of simple or one tempo actions.  The Manuel describes the simple actions and then uses them as building blocks to aggregate multiple tempo actions in the script for a series of lessons that progresses to as many as four part actions.  These are not defined or specifically described in the way that later fencing manuals do.  Rather the doctrinal approach appears to be that the key element is the simple action and that any simple action can be combined with others to create multiple tempo actions in reaction to the opponent's response.  The lessons include actions that require significant skill such as:

• beat, double, disengage
• feint a straight strike, feint below, one, two above 
• feint of cutover, one, two 
• glide, double

Although this is a relatively short text, it clearly demonstrates the variety of actions available to the fencer of the French School, sets the stage for the growth of the volume of technique, and provides a doctrinal approach of some flexibility in the assembly of complicated bladework.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

Foil ACtions from the 1877 Manuel d'Escrime by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

T.3. The Early French Lines

The 1877 French Ministry of War Fencing Manuel d'Escrime (Slee translation) provides a discussion of lines that is consistent with the understanding that appears in the 1908 edition of the manual (the Amateur Fencers League of America translation).  However, this discussion differs significantly from later interpretations in the classical period and with modern practice.

The 1877 model envisions four lines, as do following models of the line to this day:

• The Right Line - also known as the Outside line - defined as being the envelope of space to the right of the blade.  The manual does not address how a left handed fencer would view this, but for a left handed fencer this would be to the outside. 
• The Left Line - also known as the Inside Line - the envelope of space to the inside of the blade.
• The High Line - the envelope of space above the fencer's wrist.
• The Low Line - the envelope of space below the fencer's wrist.

So far, that would be familiar to any fencer in the later portion of the classical period and even today.  The difference comes when the lines are numbered:

• Outside (right) Line - Tierce 
• Inside (left) Line - Quarte
• High Line - Prime
• Low Line - Seconde

The Manuel adds a set of tactical rules to this model:

(1) The Inside (Left) and Outside (Right) are the only lines in which engagements are taken.  This suggests that one engages in tierce or quarte.

(2) The High and Low lines are the lines into which attacks are directed.  This suggests that one attacks in prime and seconde.

(3) The High Line defeats the Low Line.  This appears to be a reference to the practice of attacks in the high line taking priority over attacks in the low that maintained popularity for some time (and that was actually rejuvenated in an international fencing tournament in the 2000s for an hour in the morning before a mass mutiny of the competitors forced an immediate rethink by the Federation Internationale d'Escrime).

(4) Fencers should only attack in the low line (derobement) when the high line is closed by a feint, a beat, or opposition or press in a way that prevents a timed strike.

Because today we often use the name of the guard or parry used to defend an envelope of space to describe a line, this identification of lines seems confusing.  In addition, the naming of lines as left-right vertical and up-down horizontal does not make it obvious that the target is viewed in quadrants.  This formulation of the Ministry of War's approach to fencing continues as late as the 1908 edition of their manual.  

However, Rondelle (1892) significantly clarifies the theory of the lines by identifying that there are in fact four quadrants and that there are a set of guards (and thus parries and invitations) associated with each quadrant.   He presents a diagram that shows the theoretical target divided into four quadrants:

• High Sixte - high outside quadrant - defended by the parries of Sixte or Tierce
• Low Sixte - low outside quadrant - defended by the parries of Seconde or Octave
• High Quarte - high inside quadrant - defended by the parries of Prime or Quarte
• Low Quarte - low inside quadrant - defended by the parries of Quinte or Septime

There is not complete agreement on names for quadrants.  Provost (1890) in Fencing (with Pollock and Grove, although it appears that the technical section of the part of this combined volume in the Badminton Library was written by Provost) identifies a quadrant structure with four lines:

• high inside - termed the Inside Line
• high outside - termed the Outside line
• low inside - termed the Lower Line
• low outside - termed the Exterior Line

A footnote suggests that these are Provost's anglicizations of "dessous" and "dehors" and that exact translations are not possible.  Provost also notes that to determine the line the blade must be either raised or lowered, but that there is no requirement for engagement.  His wording suggests that unspecified individuals were of the opinion that the existence of a line depended on engagement.

Additionally, in 1898 Cany and Gosset's Manuel d'Escrime: Methode Rationnelle names the four quadrants as High Line (high outside), Inside Line (high inside), Low Line (low inside), and Outside Line (low outside).  The four quadrants have distinct names, although they appear to form a pattern of diagonal opposites with the High Line and Low Line quadrants being outside and inside and the Inside Line and Outside line quadrants being high and low.

The variability these sources provide suggests that it is important in earlier texts to understand the meaning of the lines as the author intends them, and to understand that French terminology was not as stable in the early days as one might expect.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

The Early French Lines by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

W.1. How Many Sections to the Foil Blade?

If we start at the pommel end of the foil blade and work toward the guard, the French blade and orthopaedic grip blades typically have a tang within the grip that is secured to the pommel and that ends at the guard.  In true Italian pattern blades the tang transitions into a flat ricasso inside the guard.  And that is all there is to a blade until it emerges as one long, tapering piece of steel from the guard.  The question becomes how many regions is the fencing end of the blade divided into?  The answer is not as obvious as you might think ...

There is common agreement that the blade has two regions (not including the point):

• Hutton (1891) describes two parts, the Forte, extending from the guard to the center of the blade, used for turning aside attacks, and the Feeble, the portion of the blade extending from the Forte to the point.
• The 1908 French regulations (the Amateur Fencers League of America translation) clearly states that the blade has two parts, the Forte which is the half of the blade nearest the guard, and the Foible which is the half nearest the point.  The forte is used for parries and takings of the blade, and the foible for beats and presses.
• Deladrier (1948) states that the blade is divided into two halves, the Forte, the stronger half from the guard to the middle, and the Foible, the weaker half from the middle to the point.

And there is agreement by some that the blade has two asymmetrical regions:

• Colmore Dunn (1899) divides the blade  into two parts, the one third closest to the guard as the Forte and the remaining two-thirds toward the point as the Foible.
• Grandiere (1906) uses the same one third Fort and two-thirds Faible division.  However he describes the use of the point to execute touches, the middle for engagement, and the Heel or Fort for parrying.

But there is also common agreement that the blade has three regions (not including the point):

• The 1877 French Ministry of War Manuel d'Escrime (Slee's translation) references the Heel, the strong part next to the guard, used for parries, the Middle, the middle part used for engagement, and the Point, the forward, weak part of the blade with which hits are made.
  
• Parise (1884, Holzman's translation) divides the blade into three equal parts, from the guard forward, the Forte, Medio, and Debole.
• Rondelle (1892), a French trained Master, also identifies three equal parts of the blade, from the guard, the Heel, used for parries, the Middle, used for engagement, and the Point, the part used to make touches. 
• Heintz (1895) identifies the first third of the blade from the point as the Feeble, used for thrusting.  The middle third is the Middle, used for engagement.  The third closes to the guard is the Fort, used for parrying.
• Manrique (1920) divides the blade into three equal subdivisions, the Forte nearest the handle, the Middle, and the Foible from the Middle to the point.
• Castello (1933), who describes foil technique in a French context, delineates three regions of the blade from the pint rearward: Weak, Middle, and Strong.   Beats are executed with the middle of the blade, and takings of the blade with the strong of the blade. 
• Vince (1937) identifies, from the guard forward, the Strong, Middle, used for beats and presses, and Weak.
• Nadi (1943) refers to the third nearest the guard as the Strong, the middle third as the Middle, and the supplest third nearest the point as the Weak.

The above is not an exhaustive coverage of all sources.  However, it suggests that the theory of the foil blade has three alternatives: (1) a blade with two equal parts, (2) a blade with a strong occupying one third of the length and the foible two thirds of the length, and (3) a blade with three equal divisions.  The understanding of the foil blade as having two regions appears to be a distinctly French understanding.  However, the three-region approach finds Italian and French School advocates.  There is some variability in the terminology, but the deciding factor in both terms and in divisions lies in the perception of apparent strength and the potential value for defense, engagement, and attack of each segment.

Note:  This post has been updated by post W.2 Additions to the Number of Sections of the Foil Blade (December 2021).

Sources:

Castello, Julio Martinez; The Theory and Practice of Fencing; [fencing manual]; Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Collmore Dunn, H. A.; Fencing; [fencing manual]; George Bell and Sons, London, United Kingdom; 1889.

Deladrier, Clovis; Modern Fencing; [fencing manual]; United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, United States of America; 1948.

Manrique, Ricardo Enrique; Fencing Foil Class Work Illustrated; [fencing manual]; American Sports Publishing Company, New York, New York, United States of America, 1920.

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing Manual; translation by Chris Slee; [fencing manual]; reprint by Long Edge Press, no place; 1877 reprinted 2017.

France.  Ministry of War; Fencing: Foil, Epee, Sabre, Theory, Method, Regulations; translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America; [fencing manual]; Alex Taylor and Company, New York, New York, reprinted by Rose City Books, Portland Oregon, United States of America; 1908, reprinted 1908, Rose City Book reprint no date.

Grandiere, Maurice; How To Fence; [fencing manual]; The Walter Scott Publishing Company, New York, New York, United States of America; 1906.

Heintz, George, Sr.; Theory of Fencing With the Foil, in Form of a Catechism; [fencing manual]; Freidenker Publishing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States of America; reprint by Forgotten Books, London, United Kingdom; 1904, reprint no date.

Hutton, Alfred; The Swordsman: A Manual of Fence for the Foil, Sabre, and Bayonet; [fencing manual]; H. Grevel & Company, London, United Kingdom; reprint by The Naval and Military Press, Uckfield, East Sussex, United Kingdom; 1891, reprint no date.

Nadi, Also; On Fencing; [fencing manual]; G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, New York, United States of America; 1943.

Parise, Masaniello; Treatise on the Fencing of the Sword and Sabre; in The Roman-Neapolitan School of Fencing: The Collected Works of Masaniello Parise, Maestro di Scherma; translation by Christopher A. Holzman; [collected works]; Christopher A. Holzman, Wichita, Kansas, United States of America; 1884 reprinted as a collected work 2015.

Rondelle, Louis; Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing in Detailed Lessons for Professor and Pupil; [fencing manual]; Estes and Lauriat, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America; 1892. 

Vince, Joseph; Fundamentals of Foil Fencing; [fencing manual]; Joseph Vince, New York, New York, United States of America; 1937.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

How Many Sections to the Foil Blade? by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

G.1. Miss McDonald's Cross Formation

How to arrange one's students for drills and other instruction is a significant portion of a trainer's duties.  Classical period fencing manuals tend to address these formations in three contexts: (1) a purely military one for instruction of military personnel (see, for example Corbesier 1869 Principals of Squad Instruction for the Broadsword), (2) a civilian adaptation of military formation and commands (Manrique's 1920 Fencing Foil Class Work Illustrated is an example), or (3) the theatrical for stage or exhibitions (see Cass's 1930 The Book of Fencing).  But there are unusual exceptions …

The British Pathe film collection includes a 1937 film of Miss Eleanor McDonald, the "foremost professional fencing instructor," teaching a class (https://youtube.com/watch?v=qK0uvn-BrCs).  Leaving aside the issue of Miss McDonald's preeminence as a fencing instructor, she employs an interesting cross shaped formation for groups of four students. 

In this formation the fencers are positioned at right angles to each other, and engage in the drill with the fencer directly opposite.  The distance chosen is easy lunge distance.  The formation requires each pair's blade action to occur at right angles to and across the action of the other pair.  Theoretically this might allow a greater number of drilling pairs to be fitted into a limited space, but it would seem to make supervision and correction more difficult.  Correction of one fencer would seem to bring activity by all four to a standstill, and demonstrations could be difficult for all participants to see.  

The exercise McDonald has her fencers demonstrate appears to be intended for use in an exhibition, as opposed to being instructional.  The exercise is conducted by command:

(1)  the fencers start on guard,
(2)  the fencers engage,
(3)  fencer A beats the fencer B's blade, and drops their own blade out of line,
(4)  fencer B swings the blade back over the arm and lunges,
(5)  both fencers recover and engage, and repeat,
(6)  the fencers recover backwards to attention with the arm and blade raised straight up,
(7)  the fencers resume guard,
(8)  the fencers recover, and salute the three opposite sides,
(9)  the fencers step to guard,
(10)  the fencers recover forward, and salute,
(11)  and shake hands across the cross.

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III


Miss McDonald's Cross Formation by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

S.21.2.3. Back and Forward to Power the Cut

Maestro di Scherma Giuseppe Radaelli (in Captain Settimo del Frate's 1876 Instruction in Fencing with the Sabre and the Sword - Holzman's translation) and Professor Leopold J. M. P. Van Humbeek (in his 1905 Manual for Fencing with the Sabre - van Noort's translation) describe a set of body and leg movements made in conjunction with the moulinet (French), molinillo (Italian), or omhaalhouw (Dutch).  These challenge our interpretation of the moulinet and of attacking footwork, and, therefore, deserve examination.

Holzman's translation of del Frate reads (Chapter VIII):

"In order to power the sword, body movement is made by bending and straightening the legs alternately, while simultaneously tilting the trunk in the direction of the bending leg."

Van Noort's translation of Van Humbeek reads (Chapter II.15): 

"... upper body backward by extending the right leg and bending the left.  3.  Continuation of the circular arm movement in the same manner, cut to the head, in which the upper body is brought forward …"

Del Frate's volume appears to illustrate the sequence of leg and body movement he describes above in illustrations number 25, 26, and 28, all of which apply to removal of the opponent's blade from the line by expulsion.  Van Humbeek provides photographic illustration (figures and 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15) of a technique that involves a wider range of body movement and that can be characterized as:

(1)  Starting from a normal guard position. 

(2)  As the blade in the moulinet (executed from the elbow, not the hand or shoulder) travels in the early part of its circular movement toward the fencer's rear and away from the opponent, the fencer leans backward by fully straightening the front leg and further bending the rear leg.  The torso is far enough back to approach forming a straight line with the front leg.

(3)  As the blade starts to travel forward toward the opponent, the fencer shifts the body forward eventually ending with the sword arm fully stretched toward the target, non-weapon hand on the rear hip, torso leaning forward approximately 20 degrees from vertical, rear leg fully straightened, front leg bent with the knee directly over the toe of the front foot.

So what was this movement used for?  It seems to clash with van Humbeek's stress of balance in both the guard and the lunge.  The forward position clearly is not compatible with his photographic depiction of a correct lune. The weight distribution at the forward and rearward limits would clearly interfere with any footwork.  It could be combined with a regular or flying parry with a following moulinet riposte.  The rearward movement might deceive an attack or a remise … the first time.  After that an opponent would make appropriate adjustments of tactics to hit what becomes a very exposed target during the rearwards phase.  

The answer may lie in del Frate's phrase "in order to power the sword." Moulinets executed primarily with wrist and fingers are fast and heavy hits unless well controlled.  A cheek riposte executed with forearm, wrist, and fingers cost a competitor in a modern veterans event her hearing for a substantial amount of time in a bout.  The heavy cut to the head with a modern sabre thus clearly generates an impact that, if repeated chronically, could contribute to the same type of brain injury as a concussion.  Throwing the power generated by body weight movement into the impact of the heavier early classical sabre clearly can expel of disarm an opponent's weapon, and has the potential to be physically very dangerous. 

The second possibility is that by van Humbeek's time the backwards and forwards movement had become a training device, much as the moulinet survived for training for years after cuts had become the simple direct cut.  Although van Humbeek does not say that this is the case, his discussion of the movement is in the description of a technique identified in a section titled "Preparatory exercises" and ends with the statement that (Chapter II.18):

"It is said once more that these preparatory exercises form the basis of fencing with the sabre.  All movements of offense and defense are derived from these movements.  The more that you have mastered the last, the easier you learn the one mentioned first." 

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III.

Forward and Back to Power the Cut by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

S.10. Barbasetti's Categories of Sabre Parries

Maestro di Scherma Luigi Barbasetti authored two fencing manuals in English, one on Foil and one on the Sabre and the Epee.  The Art of the Sabre and The Epee was published in 1936, but represents a translation of the German text, itself a translation of the Italian original text, prepared as a didactic fencing textbook for the Austro-Hungarian Normal Military Fencing School of Wiener-Neustadt sometime after Barbasetti was appointed director of that school in 1895 (and presumably prior to World War I).  Barbasetti stated that the Sabre and Epee were united in one book specifically because they were the dueling weapons.

For Barbasetti the parry in sabre falls into one of three categories.  It is not actually that simple, because Barbasetti describes subclasses, resulting in seven distinct types of parries:

(1)  Simple Parries

(2)  Yielding Parries

(2.a)  Genuine Yielding Parries

(2.b)  Yielding Parries in Response to Beats

(3)  Counter-Parries

(3.a)  Half-Counter Parries

(3.b)  Counter-Parries Executed While in the Lunge

The Simple Parries are a familiar set of 9 parries, executed as a change from an invitation, engagement, or parry to close another line:

• Prime
• Seconde
• Tierce
• Quarte
• Quinte
• Sixte
• Low Tierce
• Low Quarte
• Septime

Barbasetti describes the primary selection of simple parries as Prime, Seconde, and Quinte, forming one of the two traditional sabre defensive boxes.  He notes that the other parries should be practiced so that they can be used occasionally.

Yielding Parries use the opponent's force to position the parry and are divided into two categories based on the nature of the opponent's blade action and the fencer's response.

Genuine Yielding Parries maintain contact with the opponent's blade while yielding to the pressure of the graze (or glide) and thereby deflecting the blade.  These are:

• Prime in response to the opponent's pressure in tierce.
• Low Quarte in response to the opponent's pressure in seconde.

Yielding Parries in Response to Beats use the impetus of the beat to initiate the movement into the parrying position: 

• Yield into Low Quarte in response to a beat in the inner line and attempted cut to the chest against the fencer's invitation in prime. 
• Yield into Low Tierce in response to a beat in the inner line and attempted cut to the flank against the fencer's invitation in seconde.
• Yield into Septime in response to a beat in the inner line against the fencer's invitation in tierce.
• Yield into Prime in response to a beat in tierce and attempted cut to the inside cheek against the fencer's invitation in quarte.

Counter-Parries are circular parries executed by abandoning an engagement or parry to move the point in a circle returning to the original line:

• Counter-Parries of Tierce and Quarte pass the blade under the opponent's blade.
• Counter-Parries of Prime, Seconde, and Quinte pass the blade over the opponent's blade.
• There is no counter-parry of Sixte.  Barbasetti does not explicitly say so, but the mechanics involved rule out a counter-parry of Septime.

Half-Counter Parries derive from the circular movement patterns of the full counter-parries.  They include:

• Half-Counter from Seconde to parry in Quarte.
• Half-Counter from Seconde to parry in Sixte.
• Half-Counter from Quarte to parry in Sixte.
• Half-Counter from Tierce to parry in Prime.
• Half-Counter from Tierce to parry in Quinte. 
• Half-Counter from Quinte to parry in Prime.

Counter-Parries Executed While in the Lunge include two parries that are intended to be used against an opponent's riposte before the fencer recovers from the lunge:

• Counter-Prime following a parried head cut and an attempt by the opponent to riposte to the abdomen.
• Counter-Quinte following a parried head cut and an attempt by the opponent to riposte to the head.

Understanding how Fencing Masters describe and categorize the actions they teach may seem to be a "so-what" for the average fencer or the coach who simply focuses on how do you do enough to win.  However, understanding these taxonomies are important to understanding the doctrine of a School or an individual Master as well as the general state of the art.  For example, the inclusion of yielding parries in a sabre classification scheme shows how sabre technique retained a shared lineage with foil technique, something not commonly taught to sabre fencers today. 

Copyright 2019 by Walter G. Green III

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

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.