14.2.5. Heintz's Chassey

George Heintz, Sr. served as Master of the Sword at the United States Naval Academy as an assistant to Antoine Corbesier.  In 1890 Heintz wrote Theory of Fencing With the Foil in Form of a Catechism, originally published in the journal of physical culture Mind and Body and subsequently in the Freidenker Publishing Company National Library of Physical Culture series.  Heintz's monograph is available in reprint and is interesting for a number of reason, not the least of which is his use of the catechism approach to teaching core fencing knowledge and an extensive list of drill actions.

In the text Heintz uses a unique term, the "Chassey."  When you first read the description, this appears to be one of the names for Froissement, also termed a "Graze," "Expulsion," "Scrape," or "Traverse," depending on the source.  The Froissement itself is not unique.  It appears in a number of texts before 1900, including the French Ministry of War Fencing Manual (1877, Slee's translation) and Rondelle's Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing (1892).  What is different is the description of the technique in detail.

Heintz describes a Chassey as an action with a preparation and a final attack.  In preparation the fencer detaches from the opponent's blade by one to two inches, followed by a strong beat.  Two points in this deserve consideration.  First, the fencer detaches his blade from the engagement.  At a period where fencing was still taught as starting from the engagement, detaching the blade is required in order to execute a beat.  In modern fencing cocking the blade is an undesireable cue to the opponent that a beat is coming; in the classical period it was a necessity.

Secondly, the preparation of the Chassey is described as a beat.  Both the French Ministry of War and Rondelle describe the froissement as being executed with prolonged continuous pressure.  If we look at texts by classical trained Maitres at the end of the classical period, this interpretation of the Froissement remains as the standard (see, for example, Deladrier 1948 and Crosnier 1967).  This makes the Chassey a distinctive action, not otherwise widely reported.

The final attack is consistent with the approach of the Froissement.  It is described as a graze, with the blade leveling, followed by a strong opposition with the extended arm as the blade moves from foible to forte.  The fencer's blade should not contact the opponent's guard.  Although the graze is described as maintaining contact when executed alone, it seems more likely that the opposition fills the void left when the opponent's blade is beaten.

The Chassey has a three tempo variant, the Counter-Chassey.  This is described as being similar in execution to the Counter-Beat.  The Counter-Beat is described as being executed by passing the point under the opponent's blade to the opposite lateral line, followed by the beat and straight thrust.  The Counter-Chassey is executed in the same manner, except that the thrust is done with strong opposition as the blade slides from the opponent's forte to foible.

The question that we have to answer is whether the Chassey is an unusual description of the Froissement or a distinct technique.  It is certainly unusual when compared with other readily available manuals from the period.  However, we distinguish other actions as separate techniques when they use different forms of preparation or of execution of the final attack.  For example, a beat disengage and a press disengage are clearly different techniques.  In addition, the Chassey has a more complex derivative, the Counter-Chassey, a distinction not found in the readily available descriptions of the Froissement.  These factors suggest that the Chassey and Counter-Chassey represent a different evolution line than the Froissement and deserve some study in their own right.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III


Heintz's Chassey by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

15.1.3.a. A Family of Croises

In modern fencing, the Croise is typically taught as a high line to low line vertical transport of the blade.  It is generally described as an action initiated in Fourth and ending in the flank (Crosnier 1967), although it can be executed in Sixth against a left handed fencer (Handelman 2014).  Is this all there is?  

Well, no.  Any examination of classical fencing technique reveals a rich variety of possible applications of a particular technique, either alone or in concert with others (see the Classical Academy of Arms Classical Fencing Actions Project for a steadily growing catalog of these).  The Croise is no different.  

We know of four applications of the basic technique of Croise, formed by a pivot of the fencer's blade across the opponent's extended blade, forte to foible, followed by a vertical transport of the opponent's blade and a thrust to the resulting exposed target.

The Croise appears in Maitre Louis Rondelle's Foil and Sabre: A Grammar of Fencing in 1892.  Rondelle uses the Anglicized term "the Cross" for the Croise, and describes it as similar to the bind in that it is executed over the blade, suggesting a downward Croise (much as does the 1908 French Ministry of War fencing manual as translated by the Amateur Fencers League of America).  Rondelle differentiates between the Croise and the Bind in that the Croise pushes the opponent's blade away energetically to create an opening, whereas the Bind maintains contact with the blade.   

In his 1920 volume, Fencing Foil Class Work Illustrated, Maitre Ricardo Manrique lists four possible Croises, including both high line to low line and low line to high line:  

• from Fourth to Second
• from Sixth to Seventh
• from Second to Fourth
• from Seventh to Sixth

Manrique provides an important remark about the tactical application of the Croise, noting that it is usually employed after parrying the opponent's blade.  Thus the parry of Four becomes effectively the preparation for the Croise from Four to Second.  Note that Manrique uses the Anglicized term "Cross."

Maitre Felix Grave provides the most detailed description of the Croise in his 1934 text Fencing Comprehensive.  He defines the movements in terms of movement between the quadrants, and offers specific attacks as examples, suggesting that Eighth and Second or Third and Sixth might be to some degree interchangeable.  His pairings are:

• from low inside to high outside line - engage in Septime, Croise, hit in Sixte
• from low outside line to high inside line - engage in Octave, Croise, hit in Quarte 
• from high inside line to low outside line - engage in Sixte, Croise, hit in Septime
• from high outside line to low inside line - engage in Quarte, Croise, hit in Octave

Grave states that the Croise may also be used as a parry, and offers two examples:

• from (1) engagement in Sixte, (2) the opponent feints a disengage in Octave, (3) the defender opposes in Octave, and (4) executes the Croise to high Quarte to hit.
• from (1) engagement in Quarte, (2) the opponent feints a disengage into Septime, (3) the defender opposes in Septime, and (4) executes the Croise to Sixte to hit.

Grave is not an advocate of the use of these parries because he feels that they lead to large and uncontrolled movements.

Grave's discussion of the Croise adds an additional element which fits with Rondelle's description of the action and brings into question whether the common description of the Croise as a vertical transport on the same side of the body misses the actual distinguishing characteristic of the action.  Grave notes that the origin of the term Croise (with a translation into English of "cross" or "crossed") is descriptive of the movement pattern.  The same side of the body works in the Croise from Fourth, and to some degree from Sixth.  However, it is difficult to see how it can be done safely from low to high line.  

However, if we look first at Rondelle's description of the Croise as being the same as what Rondelle terms in his discussion the Half-Bind, except that it pushes the blade away, and does not rely on continued contact to manipulate the blade, there is the inference that this is a diagonal movement.  Grave adds to this the assertion that the four options of high and low directed Croises create a cross (or more accurately an X shape).  If this is the case, the Croise is distinguished from the Bind by its reliance on a strictly diagonal pushing movement as compared to the partly circular rotation of the Bind.  Both techniques rely on a diagonal high to low or low to high track.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III 

A Family of Croises by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

S10.5. Barbasetti's Yielding Sabre Parries

We normally think about Yielding or Ceding Parries as being something one does in foil, and to some extent in epee, fencing.  Because they are done in response to blade pressure by an opponent who is trying to deflect your blade, and because they require continual contact with the opponent's blade, they would seem to be not particularly useful in a cut weapon.  And yet Maestro di Scherma Luigi Barbasetti's 1936 The Art of the Sabre and the Epee contains two different classes of yielding parries with a total of 6 different parries.

Barbasetti first describes what might be termed true yielding parries.  Because sabre is both a point and cut weapon, sabre technique when Barbasetti first wrote the textbook that became The Art of the Sabre and the Epee included substantial point work and the use of the filo (translated as the graze), an attack in the bound opposition thrust family.  Barbasetti's volume (first in Italian and then translated to German) dates from the early days after he assumed the directorship of the Austro-Hungarian Normal Military Fencing School of Wiener-Neustadt in 1895.  However, the thrust with the opponent's blade bound is retained in the sabre lexicon throughout the classical period and as late as Beke and Polgar's 1963 classic The Methodology of Sabre Fencing.

Barbasetti identifies two yielding parries that are appropriate for use against the Filo.  Both of these are intended for use against pressure from the outside line.  Against pressure in Third, the fencer follows the pressure to lowers the point to the inside, turns the cutting edge to the inside, and raises the guard in one flowing motion maintaining contact around the attacker's blade to form First and  complete the parry of Yielding in Prime.  Against pressure in Second, the fencer again follows the pressure to swing the point upward and around the attacker's blade, bringing the guard downward in one flowing motion to form Low Fourth and complete the parry of Yielding in Low Quarte.  Both of these parries appear in Beke and Polgar in substantially this form.

However, Barbasetti goes further by recognizing that the principle of yielding can be used in the defence against percussion.  His discussion focuses on defence against the beat of the blade in an invitation.  To understand his descriptions it is important to understand two concepts.  First, invitations are part of the consistent use of the blade in a single line.  The position of a Guard of Third is operationalized against an attack by the Parry of Third displacing the parrying blade as needed to the outside.  And the guard is also operationalized by the Invitation of Third which also moves the blade further to the outside, in this case to increase the fencer's exposure in the Line of Fourth.

Second, one response to an invitation is to attack in the opening line; in the case above of an Invitation in Third, the opening line is Fourth.  However, if a fencer is inviting in Third, the attacker should expect that the defender is expecting an attack in Fourth, is ready for it, and will enthusiastically parry and riposte in Fourth.  The answer to preserve the opening is an attack prepared by a beat in what Barbasetti terms the inner line.  This is an attack from the center line of the fencer to drive the invitation further away from the center line either from the inside toward the outside line (a beat in fourth or low fourth toward third or second) or from the outside toward the inside (a beat in Third or Second toward Fourth or First).  Barbasetti's application of the yielding principle is to use the momentum imparted by the beat to perform the same function as pressure, even though the pivot will be around the movement of the opponent's blade rather than maintained by contact with the blade.

Barbasetti identifies four techniques related to response to a beat on the invitation:

• In the case of a preparatory beat in Second against an Invitation in Prime, followed by an attack to the chest, a Yield in Low Quarte, pivoting the blade upward over the beat and the guard downward to roll into the inner line and close with the parry against the attack.
• In the case of a preparatory beat in the low line against an Invitation in Second, followed by a cut to the flank, a Yield in Low Tierce, pivoting the blade upward over the beat and the guard downward to roll into the inner line and close with the parry against the attack.
• In the case of a preparatory beat in Fourth against an invitation in Third, followed by a cut to the arm, a Yield in Septime, pivoting the blade downward to the outside, raising the hand and forearm and guard, directing the cutting edge to the outside to interpose the blade to parry the attack.
• In the case of a preparatory beat in Third against an Invitation in Fourth, followed by a cut to the inside cheek, a Yield in Prime, pivoting the blade under the beat and the guard upward, to roll into the inner line and close with the parry against the attack.

Barbasetti does not indicate why these parries should be used only against invitations.  The reason may be that the wider position of the invitation allows more time for the parry to form after the beat.  However, it would seem that they might have utility against a slow beat or a beat with a hesitation in the initiation of the final movement of the attack.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III.

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

12.3.1. The Stop Thrust in Foil

The stop thrust appears to be a simple action - you stick your arm out when the opponent attacks and hope for the best (he or she misses).  However, when we review the record of comments on the stop thrust, the situation becomes more complicated with a number of subtle variations, and some differences in what the action is called.

The French Ministry of War's 1877 manual (Slee's translation) describes the Stop Strike as an attack executed on a passing attack (the context suggests this is the advancing attack described by later sources) which uses multiple feints.  The thrust is executed on the opponent's advance.

Parise (1884, Holzman's translation) suggests the use of the Arrest at the moment an opponent initiates a feint or counterdisengage. His examples include the use of opposition to close the line of the thrust.  If the action is to be performed in tempo, the opponent must use an action with at least two motions.  It is possible, and artistic, to hit in the last feint if the opponent employs a double feint at lunge distance, but Parise recommends the use of inquartata or passata sotto to remove the body from the line and avoid the double hit.

Heintz (1890) describes the stop thrust as being executed against an opponent who is closing the distance with an advance or series of advances.  It should be done immediately at the moment the opponent lifts the front foot for the step.  It may also be employed on any body movement preparatory to an attack, including a backward shift of the body to gain power in the lunge or a gathering forward step of the rear foot.

Pollock, Grove, and Prevost (1890) define the stop thrust as a simple attack executed at the moment the opponent raises the front foot when attacking with an advance.  They believe the stop is an excellent answer to the attack with the advance or the opponent who rushes with a series of steps to collapse the distance, and suggest that a properly executed stop thrust is almost impossible to parry.

Rondelle (1892) states that the stop thrust is executed by simple extension or lunge to check the execution of the attack.  To this end it should be delivered on the start of the advance, the start of the attack from a standstill, or on all wide feints up to the last feint. 

Grandiere (1906) describes two counterattacks, both of which may be identified as stop actions:

• Stop Thrust (Coup d'Arret) - a quick feint (the author terms this a feint, but also describes it as arriving) executed against an unprotected part of the body prior to the completion of the attack when the opponent is advancing or lunging.  Grandiere makes it clear that frequent use of this tactic is considered an abuse in foil and is bad form.
• Counter Attack - an attack delivered on the opponent's attack with the objective of forcing the opponent to abandon the original attack and remain on the defensive.  Grandiere's examples include the use of the froissement and the bind against the attack.

The 1908 edition of the French Ministry of War's manual (Amateur Fencers League of America translation) describes three counter attacks, all of which meet the core requirements of a stop thrust:

• Coup de Temps - the stop thrust employed against a composed (compound) attack so that it gains one or more tempos.
• Coup d'Arret - the stop thrust executed on an opponent's advance, whether or not the opponent follows the advance with an attack.
• Tension - an apropos extension of the arm against a simple attack  with does not establish sufficient cover.  Note that this opportunistic action is condemned with some force by Rondelle as being essentially a panicked reaction by a poorly trained fencer, not an actual fencing action. 

Manrique (1920) characterizes the stop as a rapid attack executed on the opponents advance in an attack starting with an advance, especially one with a wide feint or feints.

Castello (1933) indicates that the stop thrust is done against the opponent who attacks with a bent arm or with the point out of line.  Opposition is used to prevent the opponent's action from landing at all.  Castello recommends the stop thrust be employed in two ways.  Against an attack to the high outside line, the stop thrust is directed to the low line, with the blade closing the low outside against any replacement or attempt to parry low outside.  If the attack is to the inside line, the stop thrust is made in the high line, again closing the line. 

Grave (1934) describes the application of the stop thrust as an attack delivered with or without a lunge on the opponent's attack made with several feints with a bent arm or the point out of line.

Vince (1937) complicates the discussion with a different description of counterattacks:

• Time Thrust - a counteraction which arrives appreciably ahead of the attack.  This appears to be equivalent of the 1908 stop thrust by Coup de Temps.
• Stop Thrust - an ideal counterattack which prevents the opponents attack from landing.  He offers two cases for this.  The first, by landing on the preparation, prevents the actual development of the attack. This is consistent with the earlier discussions of being executed when the front foot is lifted in the advance of an attack by advance lunge and is thus a stop thrust as understood by the other authors.  The second option requires that the stop closes the line and lands with opposition.  

Deladrier (1948) states that the stop thrust is a straight thrust which may be executed with or without a lunge against the opponent's attack to arrive before the attack lands.  The timing of execution should be when the opponent starts to raise the front foot for the advance, or at the very start of the attack if there is no advance.  Deladrier clearly states that the stop thrust is executed on the attack, not on preparation.  The stop thrust is used when the opponent: (1) makes several feints, (2) leaves his line open during the advance of an advancing attack, or (3) or abandons blade contact in the attack. The conditions for employment of the stop thrust may be created by retreating on the lunge to provoke the opponent to make a subsequent attack with an initial advance and then lunge.

When we examine these descriptions of the stop thrust there are a number of common characteristics which identify the classical stop hit:

1. The thrust itself is direct.  It may be delivered with or without a closing of the final line or opposition to the opponent's blade.
2. The stop thrust may be delivered with or without a lunge.
3. The thrust is executed on the start of the forward step of an advance lunge attack or on the start of the lunge if there is no advance.  The intent is to prevent the successful development of the attack.  
4. If the opponent's attack consists of multiple feints or is incorrectly executed with a bent arm, the stop is intended to either land with a tempo advantage (the completion of the thrust during a feint, prior to the start of the final tempo of the attack) or prior to the start of the attack (the bent arm or the blade out of line offering that opportunity with a competent President and Jury).
5. The action clearly requires keen observation to detect the start and timing of movement and the ability to translate observation into an immediate thrust.
6. The action also has a psychological component that demands the ability to recognize the moment for action in the general flow of the phrase. 

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

The Stop Thrust in Foil by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

12.3.2. Rondelle's Time Thrust

Counterattacks traditionally come in two varieties, one in which the fencer extends directly or indirectly to the target, relying on speed, distance, and timing to hit,  and one in which the fencer counters the attack with opposition and an extension in the final line.  Today counterattacking actions tend to be considered Stop Hits, Stop Cuts, or Stop Thrusts, with a descriptor attached, such as stop hit with opposition or intercepting stop hit (for example, see Handelman 2014).  However, in the classical period the action without and with opposition were considered distinct actions.  A separate post will consider the differences in more detail.

Maitre Louis Rondelle (1892) provides a detailed description of the execution of the one of these, the Time Thrust.  The time thrust is executed between the opponent's last feint and the final attack - it is thus intended as a counterattack against the compound attack (Rondelle uses older terminology, the composite attack, in place of compound attack).  The timing is important and is predicated on the completion of the step forward with the feint.  Effectively it gives the fencer a half-tempo advantage of the opponent as it lands while the opponent's blade is still in transit to the final line.

This requires either very good reconnaissance and an excellent understanding of the opponent's skill set and the tactical progression of the bout or the detection of a tell to identify when the feint is the last feint.  In a compound attack, the last feint is the one in a one two, the two in a one-two-three, the three in a one-two-three-four … the coupe in the tour d'epee.  In other words, given the complexity of classical period compound attacks, potentially dozens of different points in the progression of the incoming attack.  The Time Thrust is not an action for the feint of heart or those prone to indecision.  However, given a predicable opponent, it can be devastating.

    

Rondelle divides the time thrust into two categories based on the line into which the final attack is made.  Theoretically these categories could be extend to cover attacks into any of the four quadrants of the target, but his restrictions make sense when the geometry of the action is considered.

The Direct Time Thrust is a straight thrust that anticipates the final line of the attack and hits the opponent in that line, simultaneously closing it to his or her attack.  It deals with any compound attack in sixte against the high outside line.  It is executed with a lunge and the weapon hand closing the line.

The Time Thrust in Opposition deals with attacks in quarte into high inside.  As the opponent starts the final disengage, the fencer lowers the point and intercepts the opponent's blade when it is in low sixte, maintains contact with opposition in octave, and hits the opponent in the low line.

The assignment of the two different time thrusts to two specific lines makes considerable sense.  Attempting to close quarte with a direct time thrust requires considerable practice and some good luck - the final disengage into quarte is much easier to intercept and hit in octave.  Similarly, attempting to intercept a disengage into sixte with opposition in septime is a relatively large movement that would seem open to being deceived, but closing the line in the final sixte is a strong position.

Rondelle stresses that the fencer must follow the opponent's feints carefully to be able to judge which action will be the final.  Controlled execution of intentional parries against the feint encourages the opponent to make the final attack, which can then be defeated.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III
    

Rondelle's Time Thrust by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

B.1. One to Best of Five Touches in Epee

Classical Epee started its existence as a sport in the aftermath of the revolution in preparing fencers for the duel in the late 1800s.  A gradual realization that foil did not address the actualities of combat in the duel led to calls, starting with de Bazancourt in 1862 (Clay's 1900 translation), for increased realism in fencing training.  In the late 1800s Maitres Jules Jacob, Claude La Marche (1898, House's translation), Ambroise Baudry, Anthime Spinnewyn, and others introduced training for the duel with the epee of the salle, a rebated version of the epee of the terrain.  Fencer's being fencers, the epee of the salle quickly became a weapon of competition, with epee clubs, such as the Societe d'Epee de Paris and The Epee Club of London, emerging to engage in epee training and competition (Fare, Fildes, and Gray's 1902 history The Epee Club - 100 Years provides an excellent chronicle of one such club and of the development of epee). 

Epee as a sport at the first retained the character of the duel, fenced outdoors on a gravel path, with various lengths of pistes up to 40+ meters, variable time periods, priority determined by who lands first, and for one hit simulating the duel to first blood. These five characteristics shape the tactics of the bout, providing the time and space to allow the fencer to look for the one best opportunity to attack and hit without sustaining a hit in the process.  

However, two of these also were characteristics that conspired to limit the appeal of epee of aficionados, a suboptimal characteristics for a sport where growth was desirable.  First, longer, or even no, time limits allowed long, boring bouts, a buzz kill for spectators.  Second, the one touch was generally acknowledged to allow a certain element of chance in the outcome.  As a result, if we concentrate only on the number of touches required for victory, we see three periods:

• First - late 1880s to approximately 1909 - epee fenced for one touch.
• Second - 1909 to approximately 1932 - epee fenced for the best of three touches. 
• Third - 1933 to the end of the classical period - epee fenced for the best of five touches.  

The introduction of electric scoring in 1932 significantly changed the tactical culture of the epee.  Rene Monal of France, a leading epeeist who specialized in the attack by fleche, was one of the first to understand that epee had changed from hitting without being touched in return to hitting more that 1/25th of a second ahead of one's opponent.  This inevitably led to fencers adopting tactics that would not have been adopted in the duel with the sharp epee of the terrain. 

Not everyone embraced these changes as progress.  Maitre Felix Grave (1934), a holder of the Diplomas as Maitre of both the Academie d'Armes of Paris and the Academie d'Epee of Paris, acknowledged that a fencer's opponent could win by scoring a lucky touch.  But then so could the fencer win against an opponent by a lucky touch.  In the long run, such touches should even out, and the better fencer will most probably win.  Grave believed that the one touch bout demanded the greatest alertness and subjected the fencer to the greatest stress throughout the bout.

The classical epee fencer can maintain reasonable fidelity to the period by fencing to one touch, best of three, or best of five.  However, the closest simulation to the conditions of the duel remains fencing for a single touch.  

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III.

One to Best of Five Touches in Epee by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

10.1.1.7.1.a./10.1.1.8.1. The Old French Parries of Seventh and Eighth

In the early years of the classical period the target at foil extended from the line of the hips to the line of the collar bone (Colmore Dunn 1891).  Various means were used to delineate the lower limit of the target, one, a fencer's belt (Louis Senac is pictured wearing such a belt in his 1904 text), dating back into the 1600s.  The eventual result was the waist length jacket that survived until the introduction of electric sabre.  Having the lower target limit at the waist explains the curious parries of Septime (Seventh) and Octave (Eighth) pictured in a variety of sources ranging from Clarke's The Boys Own Book (1829) through various texts by Benedict (1883), Colmore Dunn (1891), Rondelle (1892), and Grandiere (1906), and including the 1877 French Ministry of War Fencing Manual (Slee's translation). 

If you only have to protect against thrusts to the area below the high line guards (tierce and sixte to the outside, and quarte to the inside), the blade does not have to be able to interpose forte against thrusts to the cuissard (the lower triangle of the modern jacket below the waist).  It becomes possible to defend the low line without moving the arm from its upward orientation found in tierce sixte and quarte.  The parry becomes a combination of changing the angle of the hand at the wrist and semi-circular fingerplay.

This results in the parries depicted in the texts mentioned above.  Although there are minor variations in the illustrations and descriptions, the following is a general model:

… Septime (Seventh).  This parry is also known as Half-Circle, terminology that survives to this day in Italian fencing as mezzocerchio.   The arm is held in a similar position to the parry of fourth (arm bent at the elbow with the forearm raised).  The hand is inclined downward in supination with the blade and point directed toward the opponent's low line.

… Octave (Eighth).   The arm is held in a similar position to the parry of sixth (arm bent at the elbow with the forearm raised).  The hand is inclined downward with the blade and point directed toward the opponent's low line.  There is some variation in the description and pictures of the hand position, with pure supination, the fingers turned somewhat upward, or a pronation that appears to take the pommel outside the hand being mentioned.  However, none of the pictures are of sufficient quality or detail to have confidence in them as being determinative of the best technique.

By the 1908 edition of the French Ministry of War's fencing manual (translation by the Amateur Fencers League of America) the upwardly bent arm parries of Seventh and Eighth appear to have been discarded in favor of a much flatter blade position.

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III
  

The Old French Parries of Seveneth and Eighth by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

0.2.2. Italian Hand Positions

The Italian School is distinguished by a wider selection of hand positions than found in French fencing.  The adoption of these positions precedes the classical period.  For example, Paolo Bertelli (1800, Swanger's translation) describes the principal positions of Prima through Quarta in the same terms as classical Period Fencing Masters, and reports that a fifth position, the opposite of Prima, was by that time thought to have little utility by contemporary Masters.

There are either six or seven hand positions for the sword in the Italian School of the classical period.  Four of these are Principal Positions, and either two or three Intermediate ones.  Masaniello Parise (1884, Holzman's translation) and Luigi Barbasetti (1932)  describe the Principal positions as:

• Prima (First) - hand held with the fingers turned to the outside, the thumb toward the ground, and the crossbar vertical
• Seconda (Second) -  hand held in pronation with the crossbar horizontal.
• Terza (Third) - hand held with the fingers to the inside line, the thumb up, and the crossbar vertical.
• Quarta (Fourth) - hand held in supination with the fingernails upward and the crossbar horizontal.

Parise and Barbasetti also describe two Intermediate positions:

• Seconda in Terza - hand held at 45 degrees from the vertical with the fingernails downward between Seconda and Terza and the crossbar at the diagonal from low outside to high inside.
• Terza in Quarta - hand held at 45 degrees from the vertical with the fingernails upward between Terza and Quarta and the crossbar at the diagonal from low inside to high outside.

Terrone (1952) identifies one further intermediate position.  However, he indicates that it was "worse than useless" for instructional purposes, and neither Parise nor Barbasetti address it.

• Between First and Second -  hand held at 45 degrees from the vertical with the fingernails downward between Prima and Seconda and the crossbar at the diagonal from low inside to high outside.

Note that in each case, the position is defined in terms of hand position (pronated or supinated), fingers (up or down, inside or outside), thumb (up or down), and angle of the cross bar (vertical, horizontal, or diagonal). The complete set of seven positions moves the hand through a complete circle in 45 degree increments.

• Prima (First) … to
• Between First and Second … to
• Seconda (Second) … to
• Seconda in Terza … to
• Terza (Third) … to
• Terza in Quarta … to
• Quarta (Fourth)

Parise identifies two fundamental purposes for the variety of hand positions.  First, rotation through applicable positions facilitates the movement of the point from high to low or low to high lines.  Thus, to attack from the chest to the flank the hand moves from Quarta to Seconda.  Second, the position of the hand closes the line against counterattacks into the attack.  

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

Italian Hand Positions by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

S10.1.2. Varieties of Second in Sabre

Fencing guards and parries in the classical period (1880-1939) were more numerous and varied in interpretation on the theme than in modern fencing.  Nowhere was this truer than the variety of guards employed in Sabre, the cut and thrust weapon.   Because the purpose of a guard is to provide a starting point for both offensive and defensive action, guards are paired with parries which operationalize the guard to block an attack into the line which the guard theoretically closes.

One of the guards universally described in period texts is Second, protecting the outside line flank (the portion of the target under the fencer’s arm on the right side for the right handed fencer and on the left side for the left handed fencer) and the underside of the arm.  These are low line targets as they are exposed below the guard of the Sabre.

The selection of Second guards in contemporary texts falls into three categories:

1.  Guards with the arm only partly extended at waist level and the blade parallel to the ground.

2.  Guards with the arm extended in the high line and the blade slanting downward.

3.  Guards with the arm extended only partly and the blade vertical.

We can describe these based on blade angle from the horizontal, the blade orientation relative to covering the target, the hand position, and the arm extension.  These descriptions are from the text and illustrations in a sample of fencing manuals by noted Fencing Masters available in English.

Among the guards and parries with the blade parallel to the ground and the arm only partly extended at waist level are the following:

… Parry of Flank (Louis Rondelle 1892) - the hand and elbow are at belt level with the hand a little to the outside of the target, the hand in pronation, the blade cutting edge to the outside inclined downward and inward toward the opponent's knee.

… Horizontal Second (Antonio Domingos Pinto Martins 1895) - the weapon forearm is level parallel to the ground at the fencer's waist, the hand in pronation, the point several inches below the level of the guard with the blade turned front edge to the outside.

… Second (Julio Martinez Castello) - the weapon forearm is partly extended forward parallel to the ground at lower chest level, the hand in pronation slightly to the outside of the target, the blade turned front edge to the outside and parallel to the fencing line, the point several inches below the level of the guard.

… Second (Clovis Deladrier in 1948) - the weapon arm is level parallel to the ground at the fencer's waist, the hand in pronation, the point several inches below the level of the guard with the blade turned front edge to the outside, and the arm is at the outside limit of the target.

The following guards are taken with the arm extended in high line and the blade slanting downward:

… Second Engagement and Second Parry (L. J. M. P. Van Humbeek 1895) - the arm extended slightly to the outside with the hand at shoulder height, the pronated hand and guard oriented 45 degrees above the horizontal to the outside, the blade slanted downward toward the opponent's thigh, and the cutting edge diagonally upward to the outside. 

… Second (Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina 1912) - the weapon arm is fully extended, hand at shoulder height, the pronated hand and guard oriented 45 degrees above the horizontal to the outside, the blade slanted downward toward the opponent's flank, and the cutting edge diagonally upward to the outside. 

… Second (Leon Bertrand 1927) - the weapon arm is fully extended, hand at shoulder height, the pronated hand and guard oriented 45 degrees above the horizontal to the outside, the blade slanted downward toward the opponent's hip, and the cutting edge diagonally upward to the outside. 

… Second (Luigi Barbasetti 1935) - the weapon arm is fully extended, hand at shoulder height, the pronated hand and guard oriented 45 degrees above the horizontal to the outside, the blade slanted downward toward the opponent's hip, and the cutting edge diagonally upward to the outside.

… Second (Joseph Vince 1938) - the weapon arm is fully extended, with the hand in pronation slightly to the outside of the outside shoulder at chest height, the cutting edge to the outside, and the point of the blade directed toward the opponent forward knee.

… Right Flank (Clovis Deladrier in 1948) - the weapon arm is three quarters extended and at the outside limit of the target, the hand is at the level of the outside shoulder, the hand in pronation with the wrist bent down so as to direct the point to the lowest part of the opponent's groin, the cutting edge to the outside.

Only one source describes a guard with the arm extended only partly and the blade vertical:

… Vertical Seconde (Antonio Domingos Pinto Martins 1895) - the arm is in the high line, bent, the hand is in front of the outside shoulder, the blade is held vertically with the cutting edge to the outside.  

With the exception of Maestro Pinto Martins's Vertical Second, all the guards described are either a flat blade with a partial extension at the waist level or a downward slanted blade with a full extension of the arm at shoulder level.

When we consider the schools in which these Fencing Masters taught, the arm extended in the high line is clearly Italian in application.  Pecoraro, Pessina, Barbasetti are Italian trained and Bertrand held the Diploma of the Accademia Nazionale di Scherma of Naples; Van Humbeek's association with the Italian School is not mentioned in his text and the source of his training is uncertain.  

R. A. Lidstone describes the waist level guard as a Short Second Guard and attributes it to the Italian school, and Castello identified his sabre methods as Italian in origin.  However, Rondelle and Deladrier were Maitres d'Armes trained in the French school.  The source of the waist level guard thus requires more research.  

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III


Varieties of Second in Sabre by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

E21.3.a. The Flying Guard

A quick search of Morton's A-Z of Fencing and Evangelista's The Encyclopedia of the Sword reveals that the word "flying" has been used to describe a variety of blade and footwork actions over the last 200 years, ranging from parries to fleches.  Maitre d'Armes Claude La Marche (1898, translation by House), one of the founders of the epee as a fencing discipline, adds to the list the "flying guard."  In doing so, he harks back to a technique taught by Laboessiere fils and recommends it for the epee fencer of the 1880s and 1890s. This is one of two approaches to the Flying Guard that can be found in La Marche's work - the simpler version is in post E.21.3 La Marche's Flying Guard (December 2019) and represents the version taught in drills.

The Flying Guard is intended to achieve three tactical goals:

1.  To close the distance with an opponent who believes himself or herself to be at a distance that makes an attack unlikely,

2.  To disguise the effort to close the distance, and

3.  To allow a fast attack once a suitable distance is reached.

The Flying Guard is executed by:

1.  Coming on guard, ready for offense or defense.

2.  Taking several very small steps, each ending with an appel.  These appels are taken to ensure that the fencer maintains balance and that the legs are ready to act.  At the same time the weapon is held in a relaxed manner to ensure a fast reaction if needed. 

3.  Then make a loud appel combined with a shout to distract the opponent, as you …

4.  Bring the rear foot forward, keeping the leg well bent to avoid any body movement that would disclose the change in foot position, to close up to the front foot (gaining approximately 7 inches of distance), and

5.  Execute the attack with a lunge.

The final combination of advance, distance steal, and lunge has characteristics in common with the patinando.   The distinctive characteristic is the series of approach steps as part of an integrated, forward moving attack.

It is an uncommon thing to think of a guard as being "flying," especially when compared to other uses of the term in fencing.  In this case, the series of step-appel-step-appel-step-appel seems to be slower rather than faster.  Flying in this context appears to be used to connote the constant forward movement of the guard.

The flying guard must be viewed in the context of epee at the time (La Marche cautions that half lunges would usually suffice to carry the attack forward) and of the broader practice of classical footwork.  We know from accounts of professional bouts that the appel and shout combination was used in the 1870s and 1880s.  In this case we see an interesting combination of two of the uses of the appel, as a balance check and as a distractor.  Combined with the distance steal of bringing the rear foot forward, this makes the flying guard an interesting action worth practicing for the required coordination and as a surprise action that might be useful once in a classical bout. 

Copyright 2018 by Walter G. Green III

The Flying Guard by Walter G. Green III is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.