Tag: fencing curriculum

Head to Desk, Repeat: Explaining ROW to HEMA

Hiro banging his head against a desk, “Big Hero 6” (2014)

Our sister school, Barbasetti Military Sabre since 1895, recently held its annual SabreSlash event in Prague, Czechia (Oct. 1 & 2). Maestro Michael Kňažko, a dear friend and one of the chief organizers of the event, related that it was the largest crowd they’ve yet had. As one of the best events I’ve ever had the privilege to attend, this naturally makes me happy, and having left most social media I’ve been slowly gathering what news I can from him, attendees, and those following the various stories on sites like facebook.

Of these, one of the more interesting if tragic tales related to me was about the confusion so many in “HEMA” have around right-of-way (ROW) and how it works or used to work in sabre. Much of this is explained by a lack of familiarity or experience with sabre pre-electric as well as electric. As someone who competed before the widespread adoption of electric scoring for sabre, and suffered for several years trying to make it work, I have some perspective that might help should they chance to read this.

One of the comments shared with me was this:

AFAIK, what they wanted to do with electric sabre didn’t work due to the technology. They experimented with sabres that had motion measuring devices, to try and only score proper cuts, and also looked at how to only have the edge and point score. In the end none of it worked properly and they gave up and ended up with the current ‘touch with any part of the magic wand’ result, and I guess in that context they thought they needed to have ROW for some reason. I don’t actually know why they chose ROW for Olympic sabre, but certainly in the late 1800s sabre rules ROW was not universal, and in at least one of the early Olympics they still allowed legs as a target. There was a lot going on at that time and it’s difficult to know why they landed on certain decisions, such as no-legs and ROW. But it was clear by the 90s that everyone was gaming the ROW horribly in sabre.

I don’t know who wrote this, but they raise key points that are worth examining.

First, sabre, like foil, employed ROW before the adoption of electric scoring. The only weapon that does not use ROW is epee. Officially, electric scoring for sabre was adopted in 1988, was first used at a major event in 1989, and was adopted for NCAA fencing in the mid-90s. It was a complete disaster and led, so the author above remarked, to “the current ‘touch with any part of the magic wand'” calamity that has dogged the sport ever since.

Second, the use of the capteur or accelerometer was short-lived. This device, a small gauge inserted into a port in the knuckle-bow of the bell-guard, more often created foil and epee-like mechanical issues on the strip than it did assist in determining the impact of a cut.

As I understand it, there is now a move afoot to reintroduce the capteur as well as the fleche. Good luck FIE, you’ll need it: at least two generations of sabre fencers have learned how not to fence and have about as much notion of proper edge alignment as they do why not getting hit might have value (a failing they share with their cousins in “HEMA”).

Right of Way

This concept is misunderstood and much abused in historical fencing. I get it, I do. As I’ve written here ad nauseam the logic behind ROW is solid–it’s the abuse of the rules around it that is the problem. Briefly, this is what ROW is:

IF threatened/attacked, one’s response should be defensive

In terms of specifics, the Refereeing Handbook provides a nice, short list:

  • A properly executed attack has priority over a counterattack
  • A properly executed stop-hit (attack in preparation) has priority over an attack
  • A riposte has priority over a remise
  • A properly established point-in-line has priority over everything
  • None of this applies in epee [1]

Fencers love arguing over what constitutes a “proper” attack, etc., but the first point “should” make sense: if something sharp is speeding toward one, the absolute stupidest thing one can do is counterattack–sure, maybe one hits, but one also failed to defend. Not smart.

The exception, point two, is a counterattack made in the right situation, and thus, at the right time and measure–normally this means one has at least one tempo of fencing time to attempt the counter. Such a tempo is often created by an attacker starting out of distance or attacking poorly, say with their arm too exposed. Ideally one has enough time to make the counterattack AND parry-riposte should that counter fail.

The riposte trumps a remise for the same reason as point one–the initial attack was parried and the initial attacker “should” expect that having lost their initiative, that their opponent is going to make a return. Thus, ignoring that riposte in order to push through a remise, that is a second attack in the same line, is utterly daft.

Ha! I got the touch! You lose bruh!

As an example, a close friend and old comrade from college, recently bouted in longsword with a KdF club in his area. His opponent made an Oberhau, or a descending cut from above and my friend parried this with Ochs; the attacker ignored the parry and thus the riposte and continued to push through, sans any force (it having been spent when parried) and received a Mittlehau or horizontal cut to the abdomen. The attacker was upset with my friend, but the weight of the riposte’s impact was entirely his fault. My friend, realizing that his opponent didn’t have the foggiest notion of the logic of the sharp point/edge attempted to explain it to him, but came away feeling that he had both failed and poisoned the well. It didn’t matter that he himself had been hit, only that he had eventually made contact, however weakly, with my friend’s mask.

Herein lies the major stumbling block with HEMA–getting the touch is not everything, it’s how we get the touch. If the only virtue is making contact, then one doesn’t need classes, drill, or practice. Find a friend, armor up, and just whack away–it requires no art, no science to do that.

The point-in-line, again a subject of pointless (haha) debate among fencers, is a simple concept: if someone is pointing a sharp thing at one, then it behooves one to deal with the sharp thing first before trying to reach target. [2] Put another way, don’t run onto a sword. The line has priority, and thus ROW, because it is, again, rather silly to rush upon something sharp.

No, generally they don’t

ROW as Pell

When historical fencers raise their hackles about ROW it is, nine times out of ten, not ROW they’re upset about but the ways in which their Olympic colleagues game it and/or misapply it. The examples of this are legion and cataloguing them of little value, so I’ll share two classics.

Exhibit A: Slappy Sabre

It would seem illogical that one could score by striking the strongest part of an opponent’s defense, but… one can. Thanks to the nature of the Olympic blade, a well-placed blow–yes, even with the s2000–can whip over the guard and hit. Because the rules allow any part of the blade to score, it’s irrelevant in the sport if one hits flat. This was a major problem in the 90s and one of the things that drove some of us out of competition–the choice was leave or adapt to the idiocy of some game divorced from fencing. Careers and more than one generous commercial deal were made this way.

It didn’t used to be like that. Before electric, before the director had to obey the box, they listened for the sound of steel or fabric, or the order they were in, and moreover, looked to see if a thrust was passe, that is, whether it had brushed against the target rather than sticking or slicing into it. The entire approach to sabre, even to how much of it is taught, exploited the disappearance of these critical nuances and does so still.

Exhibit B: Floppy Foil

Changes in timing within the box have helped, but a standout example from foil is the infamous “flick.” If one has ever held an actual smallsword or epee d’combat, one will realize instantly how insane this attack is. The argument for it was that it constituted an attack because the fencer had “forward momentum.” It was irrelevant that their blade might be pointed towards the sky or behind them.

Many of these flicks landed on the back and no one was turning tail, so… how an ostensibly rigid thrusting weapon should reach the back when no back was in view might have raised some doubts, but nope. Coaches and fencers eagerly adopted it and referees and rulebooks bent over willingly. For a time the language in the ruleset changed from “extended” arm to “extending” arm, a subtle but important distinction. [3]

It’s not just Making the Touch

George Bluth, “Arrested Development,” a Fox TV show on 2003-2019 at various intervals

Both “HEMA” and Olympic fencing struggle with poor understanding of what a touch means, and thus it’s little wonder they resemble one another more and more. There is a difference between making a touch at the right time and way and just merely making contact, however powerfully or “martially.” IF the goal is to fence as realistically as one can and/or in accordance with the principles that aimed to keep fencers of the past alive, then focus ought to be first on defense and second on reaching target without being hit oneself.

This changes how we fence. We attack less often or haphazardly; we’re more careful. It takes considerable effort and practice to do this at all, let alone well, for as I’ve blathered on and on about we feel safe and do this for fun. There is nothing wrong with fun–it’s maybe the best reason to fence. Likewise, it would be moronic not to fence safely, least in my country where legal and insurance reasons make not following safety protocols truly unwise choices.

This said, as a community we ought to focus a bit more on being honest about what it is we’re doing. If one is not concerned about being hit, only hitting, there are better and less expensive venues for living out sword and sorcery fantasies. You’ll get no judgement from me, I don’t kink shame. You be you and find like-minded consensual folks with whom to play. However, for so many in HEMA to insist upon a “martial” approach and then jump into the fray without any concern for protecting themselves and solely focus on getting the touch, whatever happens, is about as close to gaming the system in Olympic fencing as it gets.

ROW–Theory vs. Practice

Returning to ROW, the principles behind it are sound. They make sense, but importantly these ideas only work if one abides them, and, attempts to fence correctly. Playing to the director and/or judges, exploiting weaknesses in the rules, etc. are all part of fencing and have been for a long time, but one doesn’t have to fence that way. One can fence properly and in accordance with ROW–the problem is most people don’t, whether Olympic or HEMA. They want to win, not necessarily win and fence well, and too many people don’t realize that there is a difference. As I’ve commented more than once, one doesn’t need to fence expertly to win–if one knows the rules and how to massage them, if one is focused on making the touch at any cost, one can go super far.

Events like SabreSlash, in employing an interpretation of ROW, are raising the bar–appropriately–for competition in historical fencing. To anyone who understands ROW, and how it attempts to introduce the reality of the sharp point, most HEMA competitions look exceedingly poor. For all the time and effort HEMA players put in, the average skill level, if competitive bouts are any guide, is low. One reason for this is that too few fighters approach the bout with the logic ROW attempts to instill.

For colleagues in “HEMA,” learning to distinguish between theory and practice (exploiting rules, poor judging, etc.) will do a lot to lower one’s blood pressure. Learning to fence according to the logic of the sharp point will, if one works at it, improve one’s understanding and skill. [4] There is nothing to lose, and much to gain.

The Unexamined Training Regimen is not Worth Pursuing

ROW is not perfect. It’s just a concept meant to capture some of the reality behind fighting with actual swords. Like any theoretical framework it is subject to human foible, but this doesn’t mean that the core of ROW is silly–it isn’t. The whole point is first, not to be hit, and second, to strike the opponent in ways that minimize risk to oneself.

It’s difficult to understand why this would be such a point of contention in a pursuit like “historical martial arts.” It begs the question: why is it such a problem for some HEMA players? In this instance I think it perhaps comes down to being unable to reach the bar that events like SabreSlash present.

Looked at another way, many if not most of the directors that Barbasetti Military Sabre use are masters. They know more about fencing, and more about competitive fencing given their decades of experience, than most anyone competing. Some attendees have next to no experience outside of HEMA’s flawed rule-sets, and so stepping back, which is more likely, that a collection of masters with decades of experience are worthless, or, that the HEMA players whining are unhappy that their usual approach failed them? It is easier to cry foul than face the possibility that their training, years of hard work, and ability are flawed, that they may have in fact wasted considerable time and effort on poor interpretations and training.

My heart goes out to them, honestly, because that is a wretched place to land. They have a choice, though, and if anything it’s a harder one than facing the reality that their skill level is inferior, their years of training wasted. Anytime our sense of self is tied so intimately to training and where we believe ourselves to be with that training, we face two options. One, the easier and more popular choice, is to blame others, the ruleset, and seek communal support.

The other choice, is to step back from one’s sense of self, and examine the facts more objectively, to entertain the possibility that the real issue might be ourselves and not something else. It takes considerable strength to make this second choice, because if we intend to continue study it means starting over, at least in part, and acknowledging that some of the ideas and practices we’ve railed against for so long might, in fact, have merit that would have saved us from being in the very sport we’re in. It can be done. A good friend of mine, who started out in HEMA, faced this very situation and made the hard choice–he’s not only a better fencer now, but a happier one.

If I’ve learned one thing with these posts it’s that they are mostly a vox clamantis in deserto–my audience is extremely small and oddly enough, with less than five exceptions, comprised of European, East Asian, and South American readers. If anything I post here helps anyone, anywhere, even one person, then great. Site stats for this post have proved no exception to the handful o’ readers rule, which is too bad as I think this piece could help some HEMA players better understand ROW, and, what it might do for them, but as a teacher and fencing instructor I feel duty-bound to do what I can to help regardless of the actual impact it might have (its a lot like teaching freshman survey courses actually).

NOTES:

[1] USA Fencing Refereeing Handbook, Version 1. 2 (April 2012), 38.

[2] In Olympic fencing a proper point-in-line must be held at the right height, established before an opponent is in range, and is thus often a point of contention despite being a simple concept. In historical fencing, issues of when it is established aside, it doesn’t matter if that line is shoulder-height or not: if made in time, and projecting forward, then one must deal with that point. A surgeon likely wouldn’t ask the person spiked by such a line whether it was at the right height or not.

[3] For an old examination of the “extended” vs. “extending” arm, see JBT Emmons and Dennis Le, “The Difficulty of Judging an Attack in Modern Foil,” 2002, https://saladellatrespade.com/instructors/research-media/

[4] IF HEMA players understood the logic of the sharp point better, the issues they have with double-touches and the afterblow would be greatly reduced. Doubles are often a result of not paying attention or reacting to an attack incorrectly. The afterblow, as used in competitive HEMA anyway, is a way to exploit the rules–it’s the same as doubling out in epee. Get one point ahead, then double or afterblow and win the match. It’s smart gaming, but not good fencing.

Comparison of Radaellian Manuals

The excellent Sebastian Seager of Radaellianscholar blog and translator of Rossi’s 1885 treatise posted the following recently. It’s an excellent read:

http://radaellianscholar.blogspot.com/2023/09/what-are-differences-between-radaellian.html?m=1

Collaborative Teaching

2016 Italian sabre seminar, Grit City HEMA, Tacoma, WA–Will Richomd is in black, center of frame

Thanks to a notification from Google I was reminded today that on this day a few years ago I team-taught a class with a colleague at SwordSquatch, a yearly event hosted by Lonin League in Seattle, Washington. Our topic, Radaellian sabre and considerations for fencing “on the ground” a la Masaniello Parise, didn’t garner much interest, but it was challenging to do, fun, and a good experience. [1] Despite the fact that much of my life, from school to martial arts, has been directed along more authoritarian lines, and perhaps because of it, I have long advocated and attempted to follow a collaborative model of teaching. Working with someone versus approaching instruction as a one-way transfer has worked well, though in fairness it’s not for everyone. It’s important to note that students should seek out and find what works best for them—if one’s current coach is not a great fit, hopefully they have the sophistication to recommend someone who might better meet one’s needs.

To date, the best discussion of the collaborative model I’ve yet found, for fencing, is in Zbigniew Czajkowski’s Understanding Fencing: The Unity of Theory and Practice. [2] It’s a fantastic book, but can be difficult to use. On the one hand, Czajkowski assumes some familiarity with the topic, but on the other it’s not a read cover to cover style of book, though one can. In his coverage of leadership styles Czajkowski includes the following:

Dictatorial Style: extreme form of formal and directive styles—the coach behaves like a dictator: he does not explain anything; he does not care about the pupil’s opinions and feelings; he simply gives orders. He applies negative reinforcements, often treating his pupils instrumentally.

Directive Style: the coach distinctly plays the part of the superior and leader. He lectures and gives orders, and the athletes listen and follow the orders, but the tone is not as severe as the dictatorial style.

Formal Style: the coach and athlete co-operate, concentrating on the achievement of consecutive training tasks.

Cooperative Style: this style may be applied even with you pupils: the coach directs the course of training but he explains his decisions; he takes into account the pupil’s feelings, doubts, questions, and opinions; he stimulates student initiative and independence.

Friendly Style: this style may be applied with adult, intelligent athletes: there is friendly cooperation and a marked emotional linkage. [3]

It will come as no surprise probably that I agree with the authors conclusion that one gets the best results from the last two styles of teaching. Just for spice, these two styles, cooperative and friendly, are also two of the hardest to employ effectively.

I have had coaches, fencing and otherwise, that fit all of these categories in some degree, but most have been either dictatorial or directive. No style of teaching is easy—all include managing personalities, distractions, and learning styles, not to mention attempting to teach the material. Since dictatorial instructors allow no latitude for anything other than their approach, students either fall in line or leave. Those that stay make it work regardless of how they may feel, how best they may learn, or what the coach may say to them. My first sabre coach, for example, was notorious for the negative reinforcement he used in lessons. A navy veteran, his approach was closer to boot camp than a classroom; for people like me raised within a military culture it was easier to see past the insults, but he reduced more than one student to tears. Many quit. It was not fun to be told that we moved like a bovine or that the coach’s grandmother, and I quote, “has bigger balls, fucking hit the guy!” Outside of practice we enjoyed comparing and compiling a collection of his better quips, but few of us looked forward to the day he showed up to teach.

My next master, Al Couturier, and his assistants, were more directive, but friendly and best of all, open to questions after lessons or classes. This was important to students like me who never really outgrew the constant query of three-year olds the world over, “why?” It follows that Al and his prevots had the greatest impact on me since I studied with them longest, but subsequent training as a teacher cemented what I suspected was true with them, namely, that it’s possible to focus lessons and explain why we do what we do.

What is Collaborative Teaching?

Czajkowski explains it far better than I ever could, so I will quote him here in full:

Essence and Main Characteristics: the athletes cooperate in creating general training plans and forming tasks for consecutive training stages. Not only are they informed about what they have to do, but they have a certain influence on the coach, who listens to their questions, doubts, and proposals. The coach wants the athletes to precisely understand the essence and goal of all exercises and to be able, by themselves, to assess the quality of their performance, and application of learned actions in competition. The athletes cooperate in directing the process of training.

Coach’s Approach: the coach, appreciating the value of competition and results, tries, at the same time, to develop athletes’ personalities, their upbringing and education. He is interested in an increase of his pupil’s abilities, skills, and knowledge.

Main Feature of Coach-Pupil Relationship: the coach treats his pupils as partners, taking into consideration their feelings and views. He takes care of their development, emotions, satisfaction, progress, and results in competition.

Coach’s Perception of the Athletes: cf. McGregor’s “Y” theory, i.e.

  • Physical and mental effort is as natural and pleasant to people as rest and play
  • People can direct their own lives and work, themselves; they are able to check the fulfillment of the tasks with which they identify themselves.
  • The average human being, in favorable conditions, not only willingly accepts responsibilities, but actively seeks them out

Empathy: a lot of empathy; cooperative and friendly relationships

Most Important Factors of Achievement Motivation: Task and self-improvement involvement; feeling of independence and responsibility; fascination and interest in the chosen discipline of sport; optimal (not mania-like) level of motive of success. The opponent ought to be treated as partner and colleague, not enemy.

Psychological Basis: Cognitive psychology—appreciating and stressing the social humanistic values of sport; also taking into account emotions and emotional intelligence.

Difficulty; Range of Application: this style is quite difficult to apply. It requires from the coach a good deal of experience, knowledge of pedagogy, and tact and patience. The most effective style when dealing with intelligent and cultured persons. The coach develops positive dimensions of personality and endeavors. [4]

There is a lot there, and not all aspects apply all the time; for example, few of my students currently compete, but that is largely because there are too few events available, especially for younger students. This said, competition is the crucible in which we test our mettle, refine our skill, and slowly replace the dross of awkward form and/or bad habits with more efficient and effective technique and tactics.

When I started teaching fencing more often, rather than as just helping a master with newer students, I pretty quickly turned to people I knew and respected to help me. The first seminar I was invited to teach, I held in conjunction with my friend Will Richmond. I worked with Chris Bigelow, then the sabre instructor at Northwest Fencing Academy in Eugene, Oregon, at another seminar. While coaching at Northwest Armizare, I taught with a friend that had been my first adult student, Natalie Rowland. Though the class size waxed and waned, it led to future opportunities, not just at events like Swordsquatch, but to sharing sabre with friends at another area school, Indes WMA (now Indes Ferox Gladio), where Natalie went on to teach for a while. In more recent years, I had the pleasure to work with Maestro Michael Kňažko at SabreSlash (2021) in Prague, Czechia, and work in close association with Russ Mitchell and other instructors at the St. George Exhibition of Arms (April 2023). Even now, in most places I teach, I lean heavily on others, or, work more behind the scenes to support their efforts.

Swordsquatch, “Protecting your Lily-White Honor–Late 19th cen. Italian Dueling Codes and the Advice from Military Fencing Masters,” Natalie R, me, Vincent Chiu in purple, and Natalie’s husband, David, in yellow 2017, Seattle, WA

For me, the value of the collaborative approach is multi-layered. On the one hand, it conforms best to my own values—it assumes the best, is inclusive, and recognizes each student’s personhood. Much as I may teach them, I learn from them too, and in fact, listening to their questions, their insights, and debating points with them all make me a better teacher. Having been a life-long student, and firmly believing one should always retain a student’s mind, I know how difficult acquiring new skills and information can be. Little comes to us without effort, and so, support while we struggle is useful.

Pre-seminar Warm-up, Chris Bigelow in green, Hertzstich Dueling Club, Tacoma, WA, 2018

As an historian, and moreover one who majored in classical Greco-Roman language, literature, art, and archaeology, the humanist appeal of fencing as education and personal development appeals to me. One of the best, most recent expressions of this ethos is from Sifu Adam Chan, an instructor of Chinese martial arts, who remarked in an interview that:

Gung fu is about horizontal, as a metaphor. Because how many times are you going to get into a fight in your life. Out of a hundred fights, how many of them are actually against someone skillful who can take your life? So, I’ve known plenty of people that lived and died without ever getting into one real fight. That was actually life-threatening. So if you’re training only to be able to kick ass, buy a gun. It works better, and it’s a lot quicker than training thirty years. The whole point of learning how to kill, or learning how to fight, whatever you want to call it, however far you take it, it’s to be able to transcend it to the point where it becomes a metaphor. Without words. Take all the lessons you learn in combat, like I illustrated today, and use it in your conduct to better your life, to better your relationships. Right? To problem solve, to kill problems. To not be attached to fullness and going to emptiness to flow around obstacles so you’re not a victim and yet you’re not fighting your way through life…. Gung Fu and all Warrior Arts if taken to the point of a metaphor is teaching you how to solve problems by killing it but without killing it, without being attached to fullness, without fighting your way through life without all that stuff. [5]

If one is familiar with Bruce Lee’s work, among others, many of the sentiments here will resonate. The thing is, I think it’s true—if we recognize the fragility of life, something we should learn in the pursuit of martial arts, then we’re going to be far less likely to take life for granted or be quick to risk our own or anyone else’s; if we strive to improve and in so doing realize that everyone, no exception, is also struggling to become who they are, then we become more empathetic. The ability to problem solve, the formation of resilience, the cultivation of patience, and a better sense of ourselves, good and bad, and our place in the world, are all outcomes of proper study.

To be fair, not all martial arts schools, of whatever type, focus on this; some could care less. But, for those that do, the value one gets in this training goes far, far beyond any skill we develop with fist or weapon. In this light, it’s impossible not to see one’s schoolmates as well as opponents as partners in learning. Early exposure to East Asian martial arts, I know, has influenced my approach to fencing, and especially to how I teach it.

Ex Dolore, Vis

From pain, strength. One of the lessons we learn in the acquisition of a hard-earned skill like fencing is that difficulty, while often unpleasant, can build us up if approached the right way. It’s in part because learning all one needs, from footwork to complicated blade actions, from assessing measure to interpreting and exploiting tempo, takes time and considerable effort, and all of that is easier with a compassionate guide. Why make it harder?

I know, almost weekly, that the collaborative style I favor is not for everyone. There is at least one adult in my classes whose body language reveals his impatience with explanation. That’s okay. I do my best to keep people moving, but they need to know why we do what we do too, so when he starts looking at the clock, I realize I probably need to wrap it up. Whether he intends it or not, he’s collaborating with me, he’s helping me teach, and do a better job of it.

Requirements

Czajkowski’s explanations for how the style works is valuable, but to add to it I should say that collaborative teaching requires several attitudes and practices to work. First, and again as Master Czajkowski remarked, one needs to know what they’re doing, have some knowledge of how to teach, and patience. Second, it helps to recognize that people learn in different ways, and that the more ways we can share an idea, the better—what doesn’t work for one person, may for the next. Third, empathy, not only for how challenging it can be learning how to fence, but also for any outside difficulties a student may have only helps. They may, or may not, tell you about past trauma, how shy they are, or whatever it might be, but being sensitive, paying attention, and seeing them for who they are will help.

Lastly, and in some ways the most critical element I have found that makes or breaks a class or lesson, is that it is not about me. It’s about the material, the subject, and sharing it with others. When we focus on the material, and not our experience of it, we tend to do a better job, because our passion for the subject comes through with less ego to filter it. People respond best to genuineness, to our excitement for a topic, even when they may not care for it as much as we do. That is also okay. Fencing is something we do, and martial arts may greatly inform our approach to life, but neither fencing nor the Art itself is the totality of who we are. This said, when we are honest, open, and passionate about something, when its genuine, that shines through, and tends to say far more about us than how fast our beat attacks are or how many bouts we win.

NOTES:

[1] Swordsquatch is a yearly event, but not one I’ve attended since 2017. That year, my colleague Natalie Rowland and I co-taught the class covering “on the ground” actions and tactics. It was… not well attended, but her husband, David was there, an excellent chap named Vincent from Vancouver BC, and a few others as well. Neither of us is particularly extroverted, so team-teaching was not only a way to bounce off one another’s strengths, but a way to manage discomfort with strangers. The Rowlands have left fencing for the most part and study Brazilian Jiu Jitsu at a local school and have found it super rewarding. The Art is one, but a one with may paths.

[2] Zbigniew Czajkowski, Understanding Fencing: The Unity of Theory and Practice, Staten Island, NY: SKA Swordplay Books, 2005. For collaborative teaching see especially 189-196.

[3] Ibid., 189-192.

[4] Ibid., 192-193.

[5] See Adam Chan, “Fullness VS Emptiness,” Adam Chan Yotube Channel, 4 Sept. 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3J5qMFoDEQ&t=1726s , accessed 8 Sept. 2023. For this section, start around 24 minutes into the interview.

Leaning… into the Molinelli

from _Istruzioni per la sciabola di sciabola_ [_ (Instructions for Sabre Fencing_], by Arnoldo Ranzatto, first published in 1885, Venice; this is from the third edition, 1889.

Thanks to long-standing injuries and their maintenance I’ve not been teaching as much sabre than I have in the past, but I still have a few students grand-fathered in as well as one or two new people whom I’ve agreed to meet for Radaellian sabre. This summer I’ve had the pleasure to work with two adult fencers, both with experience, but new or newer to Radaelli’s method. As a firm believer that a teacher is (and should always remain) a student, I’ve found that no matter how many times I’ve taught the same, day-one material, that there’s always something new to learn, or, to appreciate in a way that I didn’t before. Students have a way of asking questions that help me refine answers, make them more succinct and intelligible, and that changes not only how I see the material, but also and importantly how I teach it.

The Scarto

In this post I’d like to focus on the scarto, a “shying away,” which was a key feature of Radaellian sabre, and, what sometimes proves a missing piece in modern reconstructions. In March of 2021 I added a post here entitled “Italian Sabre & ‘HEMA'” where I explored some of the reasons for the lack of popularity for this system. [1] One of the major criticisms leveled at the Radaellian method is the size of the cuts and the relative time it takes to make them. I’ve hear this from people in the community as well as from new students with some experience. It’s an important observation, and reveals to me that those of us teaching Radaellian sabre likely need to make the purpose of the scarto far more clear in our lessons.

What’s Up with this Leaning Stuff?

A natural question comes up in viewing the scarto–why should one do it? Everything we teach should have a solid reason for inclusion; it’s never satisfactory to say “because it’s in the treatises.” The why is critical. In origin, this shift of the trunk likely derives from fencing in the saddle. Giuseppe Radaelli, after all, was a cavalryman and his system was designed to revamp then current practice. Before Radaelli, the wrist was used as the axis of rotation for cuts, but in actual use some troopers found it ineffective in battle and thus Radaelli’s innovation, the elbow-driven cut. [2]

Christopher A. Holzman, who more than anyone else has opened up the Radaellian corpus to the English reading world, discusses briefly the connection between the scarto and mounted combat. His take on the scarto in The Art of the Dueling Sabre, which provides a translation of the 1876 edition of Del Frate’s manual–the first to codify Radaelli’s method–is corroborated by the evidence contained in Ferdinando Masiello’s 1891 Sabre Fencing on Horseback [3]. In short, from the saddle, both cuts and thrusts include a slight lean towards the target; in part this is explained by the height of one in the saddle, but it also helps ensure, for cuts, that enough of the weapon meets target to be effective.

Remember that when mounted one’s feet are in stirrups, one’s thighs grip the flanks of the horse, and one’s left-hand grips the reins (all troopers regardless of handedness were trained as right-handers)–all of these contact points affect movement of the upper body. Reach and angle are both affected–even in late cavalry practice we see troopers leaning forward if not to the side in stills from drill and maneuvers.

French Dragoons illustrating the lean in the saddle

Though I’m not a great fan of Patton’s sabre, his Sabre Exercise from 1914 is another excellent point of reference for the place of the lean or scarto:

Patton, Sabre Exercise, 1914

Moreover, and without meaning to upset animal-right’s activists, the lean we often see in period photographs and illustrations owes something to the fact that the horse’s head and breast offered some cover as one faced the enemy. Though most late period cavalry engagements did not assume one-on-one melees between troopers, the lean toward the enemy may have helped one void the enemy’s weapon as well as assist reach to target. In reverse, leaning back to parry introduced that much more distance to attempt to defend.

Unmounted cavalry sabre exercise in Italy, as in other places, included the use of the lean. [4] Even for exercise on foot, which is to say not standing as if mounted, we see this lean:

Compare the angle of the trunk here, in line with the rear leg, to that in Del Frate:

Del Frate, 1868: while rendered rather extended, as the red lines I’ve drawn indicate the trunk should be no farther than the angle of the rear leg.

What the Scarto Achieves

The historical precedent for the scarto is important to know, but for the vast majority of us fencing only on the ground vs. in the saddle, what good does it do us? Everything. The scarto, combined with proper management of measure, tempo, and judgment is what makes the system work against those traditions which rely more on quickly made direct cuts.

It’s the scarto which provides that additional bit of insurance when we attack or defend, and which when used properly discourages counter-attacks to the forward target. It should anyway. If you’re a Radaellian fencer and you’re experiencing stop-cuts or an arrest when you make your cuts, then add the scarto.

There is one caveat and a vital one for anyone mixing with non-Radaellians in “HEMA:” many if not most opponents will try to hit you anyway.

I forget which number of dead horse this is that I regularly beat, but many opponents will ignore the giant cut speeding toward them and select the ify counter-attack. They will argue that they hit you, and sure, they did, but they should not have: they should have opted to defend themselves first. Here as in most things we must artificially remove the mask and safety gear and imagine the weapons in our hands are sharp. NOTHING we do in historical fencing makes sense if we neglect this.

For example, imagine an opponent makes a cut to your head. You parry in 5th, then start the molinello from 5th to the inside cheek (assuming two right-handers). Made with the torso upright you might get the cut out without being hit with an incidental slice, but with the opposing steel there, and the tempo the elbow-generated cut takes, it’s possible for the opponent to draw the sabre back to guard and rake the arm as they do.

Now, add the scarto. When you take 5th, you add a little more distance with the slight lean back; this not only charges the blow a bit more, but importantly means that you start the cut from slightly farther away. The weapon always leads the way–it’s a universal–so… with the cut starting sooner, from juuuust out of distance, they have a choice: stop the giant cut or go for the counter.[5] One of these is sensible, one stupid. For it to work, however–and this is the important part–the opponent has to recognize the difference. Thanks to the fact that too many in HEMA are thinking more in terms of points than imagining sharps, one is likely to be hit a lot trying this out.

Do it anyway. We shouldn’t limit ourselves because our opponents are poorly-trained and approaching bouts as if slapping bells, however “martially,” with their cousins, Olympic sabreurs.

Incorporating the scarto will take some practice if you’re not already doing it, but it’s worth the effort. Start by employing the scarto in solo drills. [6] Next, use them in pair drills–a simple parry/riposte exercise is perfect for this. Once you’re comfortable, add it into all drills and into any bouting. With your fellow Radaellians, this will improve your appreciation for the system. Used against skilled opponents, the addition of the scarto will demonstrate why it is Radaelli who has been called the “father of modern sabre” and not someone else. [7] Lastly, remember against the average “HEMA” sabreur you cannot expect them to understand why despite their sense of victory they’re actually getting spanked, but you can take some comfort in knowing that you’re doing right by the system we study and more closely approaching what historcal fencing should be.

NOTES:

[1] Cf. https://saladellatrespade.com/2021/03/22/italian-sabre-hema/

[2] For the impact of Radaelli’s innovation, see William M. Gaugler, The History of Fencing: Foundations of Modern European Swordplay. Bangor, ME: Laureate Press, 1998, 166-167; see especially 194-205.

[3] Much of Chris Holzman’s work is available at Lulu Books, https://www.lulu.com/search?gclid=CjwKCAjwloynBhBbEiwAGY25dD4EsfGlo8I0X-ZcEcP7Pb5PF4NejSh4IpqJtYqE0iGWEChGQcQiRRoCBhMQAvD_BwE&page=1&q=christopher+a.+holzman&pageSize=10&adult_audience_rating=00, but his seminal The Art of the Dueling Sabre (2011) is of print. He has plans to revise and reissue it, but no word yet as to when.

[4] We see use of the lean in other systems–this image from Aldershot, for example, would suggest the influence of Masiello on the 1895 English Infantry Sabre Exercise. NB: Radaellian sabre was split into three expressions–mounted practice, drill as if mounted but on the ground, and, on foot, the latter intended for combat as well as the growing agonistic sphere. What does “unmounted cavalry drill look like?” Like this:

English cavalry recruits, unmounted drill, 1914

[5] Counterattacks are a risk against a certainty. In the sport, so long as one makes the touch before the light (i.e. as if “in tempo”), fine, but it doesn’t work that way when they’re sharp. Put another way, if something sharp and pointy is about to hit one the smartest thing to do is go on defense, to parry, not to think “oh yeah, I’m just gonna go for it and hit them first; should work fine, no problem.” No, it might not work out if one’s goal is not to be hit too. In teaching counterattacks, regardless of weapon, I generally advise students to counterattack only if they’re at least one tempo ahead of the opponent’s attack; it follows, then, that in most cases the opponent has made a tactical error. They might have started the attack from out of distance; they might have started the attack with a bent arm or foot/body before weapon; or maybe they’ve just failed to cover their arm on the way in; in these cases one should, distance, timing, and judgment allowing, have a chance to attempt the counterattack and cover with a parry/riposte should it land or fail. If it looks like one might not have time to cover, don’t try it. Just parry and riposte.

[6] For a great example see the gifs Sebastian Seager made for his site: http://radaellianscholar.blogspot.com/2017/10/

[7] See Gaugler, The History of Fencing, 194. See also, https://www.ars-dimicatoria.cz/en/italian-military-sabre/

Addendum, Shadows in Caves

It’s never my intention to be mean or divisive. To the best of my ability, I try to focus on the material and evaluate both arguments and support. The more directly and clearly one does that, the better, but directness, especially online, can read differently to people. It’s easy to take any criticism personally even when it’s not intended. [1]

I didn’t pull any punches in my last post, but no blow was aimed at people as people—my intent was to target interpretations, argumentation, and issues of authority either widely acknowledged as problematic, such as “HEMA” lacking any real oversight, or, concerned with questions about credentials that have long been under discussion. [2] It’s important.

As an instructor and historian I have a responsibility to my students and everyone else to be honest about my training, how I arrive at the interpretations I do or why I use those by someone else, and to be as transparent as I can. When I get things wrong (and I do), I owe it to all involved to own it, correct it, and give credit where credit is due.

Few things are harder than declaring, publicly, that one made a mistake, but it’s one of the most important things we can do. First, it’s honest—everyone screws up. Second, owning mistakes and trying to correct them argues for one’s credibility. Third, because our interpretations are shared, we owe it to those who use them to keep them in the know. My own experience with this has demonstrated to me that not everyone will appreciate it, but it’s the right thing to do regardless of reception. Thus, whenever someone offers us valid criticism, it’s on us to consider it and if necessary adjust our conclusions.

Working remotely in a tiny corner of the world, and rarely able to travel to events, conferences, or seminars (though I try), I know of, but do not know, most of the people engaged in the current debate within smallsword circles. I know them only via their work or participation in the community. Even if I did know them, I should not judge them as people (provided they’re not bigots or overly arrogant) but evaluate their work. I expect people to do the same with anything I might share of my work. That is how research works, well, how it’s supposed to work. [3]

All of this is to say that if you are hurt reading my critique, please remember I see you as a colleague in a difficult endeavor; that we, all of us, owe it to all using our work to do right by them and produce the best work we can. Good research is a collective pursuit—we rely on others for support, for correction, and for making our work better. In like vein, we also owe it to our students and one another to be honest, frank, and ready to back up any credentials we claim. The study of martial arts, any branch, relies on trust, and we establish that trust more in action than words.

Notes:

[1] Even in person it can be hard to face criticism, but it’s part of the job. Online communication is notorious for confusion; lacking facial cues, body language, etc., we have to work harder to be clear in what we write and be sensitive to how things might read.

[2] The burden of proof for one’s credentials is on the individual. Normally, it’s easy enough to prove should one question things—maestri, for example, are handed a diploma produced by the organization that granted it and that displays the signatures of those masters that evaluated the candidate. There shouldn’t be any mystery around it.

[3] Work in research long enough and you will see the best and worst in people when it comes to using or evaluating one’s work. For every instance of helpful, well-intended help, there are a legion of people who fail to read it completely, or worse, misconstrue and misrepresent our work. For example, one reviewer of a book I wrote failed to read the preface; had he done so he would have realized that his major criticism, that the book was less monograph than he expected, was targeted towards undergraduates. For a more serious example, a dissertation from 2014, and which mentioned my dissertation from 2002, not only resorted to insulting language, but also misrepresented my work (how her dissertation committee let that go is anyone’s guess—mine would have read me the riot act for such a breach of professionalism).

Shadows in Caves

One of the benefits of not having to suffer the tempests in teapots that boil over on social media is that I only hear of them second-hand. I’ve heard a lot in the past few days about an unfortunate debate on one of facebook’s smallsword pages concerned with a particular action. Controversies like this have a way of forcing people to show their colors, and this latest hullabaloo is no exception.

The lines, as I understand it, are drawn between those upset by the inclusion of a passing attack, a collection of enthusiasts including a number of English fencers, at least one sword-maker, and a few vocal students, largely American. Their opposition consists of an assortment of historical fencers who have argued for this attack based on the sources. If one is familiar with my posts here it will not be difficult to determine where I land in this debate (not that what I think will matter to many participants). However, as an instructor and historian I feel a duty to those I work with to say something.

False Equivalencies & the Fleche

The action in question is a rapid attack meant to surprise an opponent and one made by passing the back foot in front of the lead foot. To work, one chooses the right measure and tempo, and then applies the right speed and weapon angle to close the line. Whatever the name, these are the component features. It is, in truth, a dangerous action, especially if made poorly or at the wrong time or distance, but the fact that it shows up in so many works means it is worth study.

The criticism aimed at the passing-step proponents centers upon this action being too “sporty,” too “modern,” and since that first generation of classical and historical fencers arose in large part because of the excesses in the sport, anything remotely whiffing of the modern piste is immediately suspect. I  know because I was there, and like these poor folks, once over-compensated and over-corrected. This was easy to do in the 1990s and early 2000s for several reasons. The  complete lack of concern and disdain from fellow fencers about over-use of the fleche, of the flick in foil, of duck and cover, or any of the other aberrations was hard to understand and unpleasant to face. Second, and in ways that echo in the current debate, none of the evidence–and there was plenty–proving that these were departures from the point of fencing and ahistorical made the slightest dent in their resolve. On the one hand, older fencers unaffected by much of this failed to see the danger. On the other, many newer fencers, having made their reputations on these dubious actions were loath to condemn them; to do so would be to condemn themselves, to call into question their own position. 

Ego drove much of this, and, ego drives the anti-passing step side now. Combined with misunderstanding of the problem the anti-passing step faction has taken the suggestion that a move like the fleche is viable as a personal affront. Ironically, they decry the action despite the evidence from the very sources they claim to use. Ego is the first barrier: an inflated sense of self and one’s importance tends to blind one to reason. The second barrier is mistaking issues with a particular action for the action itself. Memories of fleche after fleche in the late 1990s and all the daft measures the FIE took have made any attack like it, never mind the fleche itself, anathema.

Of note, the pro-fleche camp, for lack of a better term, has not argued that the passing attack in Vadi or L’Abat is exactly the same as the flying leap sabreurs so took advantage of in the 1990s. Contexts are different, the weapons different. This said, the idea of a rapid, surprise attack made by throwing the weapon forward and passing the rear leg past the lead one is present in our sources. Whether one chooses to use it or not is another question. Whether one makes the attack well is another matter. Whether a master advocated it or merely included it is an additional consideration. Some masters specified that they didn’t care for an action, or, that it was dangerous outside the salle, but often we don’t know where they stood on its effectiveness or safety for actual fighting. [1] There is ample precedent for fleche-like actions on the record, so to poo poo the use of an effective passing attack in modern historical competitions, which we do for fun, is about turf and ego, not the sources.

Why the one faction should stubbornly argue against the evidence of the sources should make one pause. For smallsword works alone, the inclusion of the passing-step attack is common. It should be little wonder as to why. Given the place of cross-steps forward and back in earlier works (de Liancour, 1686, is a good example), adding speed to the same method of advancing follows logically. The same attack, however, appears earlier in the sources, from Vadi to many rapier treatises. What separates historical fencing from other branches is, supposedly, reliance on the sources, so to ignore the basis for interpretation, particularly when we can trace this action over time and across masters, is odd. If the source tradition isn’t their basis for support, then what is?

The Problem of Authority

One of the bugbears within “HEMA” is a blind appeal to assumed authority. In this case, a number of early researchers and their fan-base appeal to the early success and acclaim these luminaries enjoyed in the belief that it’s as valid now as it was in the early 2000s. That is, sadly, not often the case. Research has not stopped since their time, yet many of these same people stick to outdated theories and flawed interpretations.[2] Their argument, thus, is not made from evidence and analysis, but from ego, from fear of losing the status they depend upon from their acolytes. They fear being eclipsed. The last has already happened as this latest fracas, one skirmish of many in the past twenty to thirty years, demonstrates.

Time-in is another supposed source of authority. It can lend one credibility, but depends on other factors. On its own time-in means absolutely nothing. If one has been in “HEMA” for thirty years and has not only been working from poor theories, but also continues to argue that they were correct despite the evidence, then time-in means very little. This happens a lot–I’ve met many people who have wasted years with charlatans or in glorified fight-clubs or working from once key interpretations that have been superseded.

Complicating the stagnation is an often surprising lack of understanding of fundamental actions and concepts. For example, a well-known fencer recently quoted de Bazancourt with respect to rushing in, which not only demonstrates a failure to understand the intended use of the action, but also serves to corroborate the fact they are basing their view on misuse of the action. Preparation is everything in fencing, and attacks like the passing step and even its much abused 1990s version (ideally…) relied on setting an opponent up for it. The sabreurs who flung themselves stupidly at “allez!” and who never varied the game are a different animal. In the footage I’ve seen from a recent Canadian event, the fencer employing the “fleche” used it wisely, and, as intended: as a surprise against an unprepared opponent. I am a fan of much of de Bazancourt’s wisdom, but the quotation supplied is misapplied. Used at the appropriate time and in the right setting, the passing step or fleche is no more dangerous than a lunge. Both put one at risk. Every form of attack potentially does.

Another issue plaguing “HEMA” is the echo-chamber effect. Adherents to this idea or that group focus increasingly only on what those within their section of the community teach, believe, and use. Their views become myopic, limited, and prone to precisely the ego-driven arguing we see in this current example, because for them the debate is less about sources than it is their reputations as “authorities.” They view the shadows cast on the wall by the tiny flame in their hands or in those of their heroes and take those shadows for reality. It seems real and legitimate to them because they refuse to consider any other well-made argument. In like vein, if any light is cast from someone they don’t know or who fails to pass the anemic view of authority they employ, they ignore it, or, call them heretics.

Proof is in the Teaching

Perhaps it is the Hollywood notion of 18th century manners, of high style, and the romance around the waning influence and power of European aristocracy, but many of the interpretations from the anti-passing-step camp are wooden, slow, and lacking in vigor. They present more like demonstrations or dance than a fight. It’s form over function. For all the formality and etiquette that people of the past attempted to apply to personal conflict, in the end it was a sword fight. The intent was bodily harm or semi-acceptable ritual murder, and no evidence we possess suggests that two people, potentially angry and emotional, fighting fear, and terrified of public opinion, were more likely to square off and fight as if dancing. All evidence is to the contrary. Surviving footage of late period duels is no exception, and many of those were first-blood affairs, not to the death. For all the blather about “realism” few in “HEMA” spend much time if any pondering what that means, or, what it should mean in our context. [3]

The flaccid yet florid approach these fighters take to fencing reveals too much concern for aping the elegant plates within the treatises rather than what those treatises were meant to help teach: fighting. I am not the only one cautioning fencers about over-reliance on images, but time and again many in the community gravitate to the images because they don’t understand the text. [4] While language and diction are often challenging, the deeper issue is that these same fencers lack sufficient understanding to read the text. The one place they might go for help, a solid Olympic or traditional fencing program, is anathema among them, and so, they do their best to adopt what they see in the illustrations and produce pretty bouts largely devoid of any intent.

In the footage of their bouts, in their instructional videos, and especially in their attempts to shout down opponents, the shallowness of their understanding and skill emerge vividly. The inability to fence beyond a snail’s pace, the poor use of measure, and the more choreographed timing are red flags. No one fought in slow motion. It’s hard not to conclude that this is one reason that the clubs and cliques against passing step attacks avoid bouting anyone outside their little world. Against fencers with legitimate training and armed with sufficient knowledge they come up short. Such defeats should suggest to these fencers that maybe there is more to learn or better ways to learn it. In fairness to the newer students among them, hearing from their clubs that these defeats don’t count because others are wrong or too dangerous etc. is easier to accept within their echo chamber, when the only voices they hear are all part of the same program. [5]

Make the Bold Move

It takes courage to accept new ideas, even when well-presented and argued, but it remains the right choice if one wishes to retain any respectability. Lacking any official organization to manage these things, we are left only with each faction’s arguments and how to evaluate them. The best approach is to evaluate the respective arguments in light of the evidence, and, against what the purpose of fencing used to be. The masters who wrote these works, many of them anyway, meant for their books to help teach students how to fight. Sure, some, especially later, were more concerned with salle play than with duels, but for those clearly self-defense oriented, like many mentioned in the debate over the passing attack, the goal was effectiveness first and foremost. There was ample attention to deportment and conducting oneself with grace in many works, but this was, outside a fencing hall, a secondary goal. No master stayed employed long if their students died or were maimed for life. [6]

Those quick to condemn historical fencers using the passing step attack should take their example from other members of the older guard, people like Paul Wagner, Stephen Hand, and Dave Rawlings, all of whom have continued to learn, adapt, and alter their thinking based on new and better information. Though well-known, they have remained humble and thus open to learning, and between these factors and being gracious opponents, they have stayed relevant. They have not been eclipsed. 

When it comes to past fight systems, no one has a monopoly on the truth. Every interpretation must be tested and compared against the sources, and when new and better ideas make sense, when they follow from the sources, then they’re worth consideration however much that may disappoint one. At such times, hard as it is, once those shadows on the cave wall have been revealed for what they are, it’s time to do the hard thing and turn around. When one does, one sees better and grows, and often, one finds that those they have perceived as enemies turn out to be staunch allies.

Notes:

[1] De Liancour, for example, believed counter-attacks better suited for salle play than affairs on the ground (Le maitre d’armes/The Master of Arms, 1692, 13 in the pdf, 29; in Lynch’s translation, 36); Capt. John Godfrey, in his A Treatise upon the Useful Science of Defense, 1747, 12-13, expresses his dislike of the flanconade.

[2] A prime example is the demi-pointe lunge. See my papers related to this topic in the “Research” section found at the bottom of the Instructor page.

[3] I’ve spent a lot time on this in previous points, so here I’ll only add that while we strive to be historically accurate and as “realistic” as possible, the fact remains that we do this for fun, wear protective gear, and have no real need for this skillset in our own time and cultures.

[4] See my pieces on using and misusing images in historical fencing under “Research” in the Instructors section.

[5] Most fencing schools, most of the better martial arts programs, include working with and/or competing against those outside one’s own school. It’s critical for growth. It is never a good sign when instructors fear this or actively preach against it.

[6] Even in self-proclaimed self-defense works we see concern for deportment. In James Underwood, The Art of Fencing, Dublin, 1798, p. 7, he explains that he doesn’t like the off-hand arm forward because “I think the beauty of the figure is strangely disfigured by it, and that all fencers will allow that they cannot help being pleased with a symmetrical posture.”

Alex Spreier on Grappling & the False Dichotomy between “Ancient” and “Modern”

This might seem an odd inclusion, especially if you know me and my aversion to grappling (I have a weapon, why should I touch you? Hey, not everyone washes their kit… just saying…), but personal preference aside wrestling is a foundational martial art, one of the oldest, and as such worthy of attention even by those of us who would rather hit someone from a short distance. Alex is one of the people I go to for questions about wrestling, grappling, etc., and makes some excellent points in this short piece.

Without wishing to steal his thunder, much of what he says about wrestling here applies to fencing as well. Some students of Fiore dei Liberi’s armizare may gasp in horror, but the difference between the first master of longsword (largo) and a coupé is type of weapon, how it’s held, and the context in which it was used. It is, however, essentially the same action. This is why, as Alex notes (see his footnote 4), those with a solid grasp of fencing theory and movement, of technique and tactics, tend to do better than those without it in historical fencing and “HEMA” (issues with judging notwithstanding).

Grappling with Rule Sets

Congratulations to Maestro Michael Kňažko!

I am very pleased to share good news from my esteemed colleague Michael Kňažko–he has passed his master of arms exam!

Blahopřeji!/Congratulations!!!

Photo/fb post courtesy of Mike Cherba

Michael is one of the masters at our sister school, Barbasetti Military Sabre (since 1895) in Prague, Czechia, and a dear friend. See the link in “Our Sister School and Affiliates” for more information.

Curricula, Completeness, & Choice

The Noviciate of a Macaroni. Ranelagh. 1772. Colonial Williamsburg Museum

One of the best things about fencing are the interesting people one meets along the way. Say what one will about “nerds” and niche interests, rarely are they boring, and in some cases it’s precisely their eccentricity that bridges the gap between niche-folk and those just other side the creative wall. For example, a few years ago a writer contacted me with questions about sabre for a project he had in hand. Over the course of our many conversations, we became friends. In a discussion this morning, he asked me for my take on the issue of true teachers versus the McDojo sort who just out to make a buck.

One point I made was that there is often, sadly, a gulf between what we can actually use in martial arts, should we need it, and what a school or teacher makes their focus. For example, in one ruleset for competitive Tae Kwon Do, one can kick at the head, but not punch. [1] If one is studying at a school adhering to this ruleset, they may be doing themselves a disservice if the goal is training to keep themselves and others safe. This is not to say that competitively focused schools are inherently bad, they can be fun and build one’s confidence, etc., but one should not mistake them for what they’re not, either.

As we continued to chat, I brought in a few examples from historical fencing, and this raised a related set of questions. Do we try to share all aspects of a particular treatise? Should we? What if an action is dangerous? What if it’s safe to do in our context, but would be dangerous were the blades real? My short answer is “it depends.” There are sometimes reasons to teach dangerous maneuvers, but any time one does considerations of safety must come first.

Not all Masters Agreed; Not all were Equal

One of the most “medieval” aspects of historical martial arts, and “HEMA” in particular, is an almost blind faith in written words of the past. Textual authority, given that it is 90% of our evidence, makes sense, but reason must still be applied. Modern doctors do not rely on ancient Greek medicine for guidance in obstetrics, and it would be both unethical and criminal if they did. [2] Not everything written in the past was good.

An Englishman and his Fencing Master, British Museum

It can be difficult to assess the worth of an old fight manual. Our distance in time, methods of conducting violence, notion of law, everything is different. This said, there are times when we get help from within the texts themselves. For example, in de Liancour’s Le maitre d’armes/The Master of Arms, 1692, he says of the counter attack that

C’est une chose si difficile à prendre que les Temps, l’Epée à la main, que je ne conseille personne de s’y trop hasarder. J’estime mieux une bonne parade, ou un bon battement sec & tiré droit le long de l’Epée ennemie, sans oster la sienne de devant soy…

Je m’étendrois beaucoup sur ce Chapitre, mais comme j’ay résolu de ne parler que des choses essentielles, je dirary seulement que c’est in jeu de Salle, où ces coups se pratiquent allez souvent, mais fort rarement l’Epée à la main.

It is such a difficult thing to take on the Times, sword in hand, that I do not recommend anyone to risk it too much. I consider a good parry better, or a good dry/sharp beat & thrust along the enemy’s sword without removing his from your own.

I would dwell long on this Chapter, but as I have resolved to speak only of essential things, I will only say that it is a Salle game, where these blows are often practiced, not often sword in hand. [13 in the pdf of 1692; Lynch, 36] [3]

Here is a master pointing out the inherent danger in choosing a counter-attack over a solid defense. It’s an important point, and one I am quick to mention when I cover counter-attacks, but I still teach it. For one, though we aspire towards realism, the fact is we do this for fun and no one is in danger of actual injury. Second, and more importantly, though I advise students not to select a counter-attack save under specific circumstances, they need to know how to recognize them and practice defeating counter-attacks when this action is used against themselves.

For another example, Capt. John Godfrey, in his A Treatise upon the Useful Science of Defense, 1747, rails against an action common to most small sword works, the flanconade:

That Thrust called the Flanconade, I pronounce an Anathema upon, as being easily proved to be the most lewd and vile Debaucher of the Art, the Dignity of which consists chiefly in its generous Allowance of a proportionable Chance to the weak man. The other Thrusts depend upon a timely Swiftness mostly: Though to say, that equal Knowledge with more Strength has not the Advantage, would be preposterous, as certainly the greater the Velocity is, the greater the giving Strength must be… [12ff]

Godfrey’s argument is that a weaker person will be less likely to pull off the flanconade than a strong person. He was correct. His pro-English and anti-French bias, given his background, are not surprising but likely informed his position as well. He published, after all, during the War of the Austrian Succession (1744-1748), where the two nations were in conflict over territory in North America (among other theaters). One example should suffice:

The Art we had from the French; no Flaconade was thought of for some Time; but upon finding us very apt Scholars, and being willing to be our distinguished Masters, they brought the Flanconade and many tawdry Embroideries, which they are as famous for inventing, as, I am sorry to say, we are degenerate enough to imitate, and even mimick. Pity! that we should be so fond of imitating a Nation, who have always been deceiving us. Rouse then, though noble British Spirit! (for sure no Time more calling than the present) lift up they brave fronted Head above these dandling Actions, and become thy wonted self! Love thy King, love the Country; stay they Heart his these, and thou art safe.

            Thus I take my hearty farwel[sic] of the Flanconade. [13] [4]

The Flanconade, Domenico Angelo, The School of Fencing, 1763/1787

Tin-foil tri-corn hats aside… the flanconade is a relatively difficult action to learn at first, but easier with practice. It does require, as Godfrey points out too, that the off-hand must come into play to stay the opposing blade after parrying in order that one doesn’t double as they go to target. [5] I teach this action too, and as with counter-attacks, because while difficult one must still know how to defend against it.

For a last example, this time in re position, James Underwood’s The Art of Fencing or the Use of the Small Sword, 1798, is instructive. In many, maybe most treatises the author advises one to be back-weighted while on guard. Underwood, however, disagreed:

I am of opinion, that the distribution of the duty laid upon each leg ought to be equal, and the more equally they share in the weight, I will venture to say the body will be so much more supported. But let us examine into the consequential practice, by the disadvantage of laying a greater stress upon one leg than the other, or the advantage to be expected from the strength accruing from the proper weight given to both. If too great a stress lie upon the left leg, your retreat must be obviously the more unsteady, and weaker; if upon the right, you are crimped and checked in your advancing. If the greater share of weight lie upon the right, the left leg must take that share off, before you can advance, and so, vice versa, the right must act for the left in the retreat. But then this is the loss of your time, upon which every thing depends; whereas by equilibrial weight upon the legs, that time is saved. Here your body will be equally supported, therefore stronger and steadier; but by recovering and shifting in the other way, the motion of the body must be so much greater, that your arm is more likely to be thrown out of line. [4-5]

Many fencers are taught this way today, that is, instructed to distribute their weight equally. It works fine. However, the rear-weighted stance was common and works equally well provided one distributes one’s weight properly. I had doubts about it myself, but in discussion with Russ Mitchell, and especially after his how-to-lunge class, I finally understood how it is supposed to work. [6] I teach students both. First, I show them what a majority of the texts advocate and why—our en garde position, and the lunge especially, are compromises between proximity to target and removal of our own target. Next, I show them the equi-weighted stance. Purists may balk, but I focus on the goal of our stances, not the letter of the law—bodies are different and so supplied with a few principles, I advise students to find a position that is comfortable and yet still meets the critical aspects. The front foot should be straight ahead, their bodies turned about 3/4, and fist and weapon just outside the body if on guard in tierce. If the rear heel is not precisely on the line of direction and in line with the front, no matter—are they stable, balanced, and can they move in any direction required? That’s what’s important.

Selective Reading & Teaching

When using a fencing treatise, I read it all and more than once, but I do not necessarily include all I read in class. I am selective in what I use—not in what I read. I read page to page, because I need to see the author’s approach in toto, and, compare it to other, related works—but not everything is equally important. I rely on Girard’s Traité des arms/Treatise on Arms, 1740, for much of my small sword curriculum, but I have no plan to include his short section on defense against grain flails. I use Domenico Angelo’s L’École des armes/School of Fencing, 1763/1787, as well, but spend very little time if any on weapon seizures outside demonstrations. They are, again to quote dance master Les Kendall in “Strictly Ballroom,” largely “flashy, crowd pleasing steps,” and less secure than a firm grounding in parry-riposte and thrusts made in opposition.

There are things I include for reasons of completeness or because it explains or aids core material. For example, there is good reason to believe that prime in small sword derives from broadsword practice. Angelo says as much, and this guard and parry are redolent of the hanging species of guard often used in sabre and broadsword, but I share that fact, if I do, because someone asked or because of some similar prompt. Girard covers the use of multiple feints, actions like the 1-2-3, but rarely does one need to resort to three feints in an actual bout. Complicated maneuvers like this are what we call “medicine for the hand:” we drill a triple feint because it will, we hope, make our single feint that much sharper and crisp. Have I seen anyone use a triple feint in a bout? Yes, among high level foilists thirty years ago, but in historical fencing circles? No. We still have to contend with people who believe feints are not “martial” enough (despite how often they pop up in the military sources…).

My goal is two-fold in most lessons and classes. First, I want to present and teach as accurately as I can either the tradition I was taught, or, those from the past I have studied. For the latter I always provide the caveat that we can never recreate these extinct fight systems perfectly, but we can, hopefully, get a good idea of how they might have worked. Second, I want what students learn to be both reflective of its sources and useful—I see no reason to teach anyone actions that are more likely to get them hit than not, so when I teach counter-attacks, when I teach the flanconade, I do so at the appropriate time and with the necessary warnings.

Curriculum building is selective, personal, and should be subject to revision as new insights, ideas, and flaws in the existing approach appear. Historical fencing is a research and experimental archaeology driven field. Unlike colleagues in the Olympic world, who are not uncovering hitherto unknown material or inventing new actions, our understanding changes with newly discovered texts and better interpretations. [7] If we are not open to new, better information, our programs become moribund and stagnate. Moreover, what we choose to teach and how is everything, but it depends on what our goals are. Unless we wish to produce graceful puppets, we should know not only what to teach, but why. What one selects is up to the individual instructor, but have a reason and be able to explain your choice.

NOTES:

[1] See for example https://olympics.com/en/news/know-your-sport-taekwondo-rules-scoring-equipment, “Scoring,” and “Penalties and Prohibited Acts.”

[2] To name only one example, the Hippocratic school concluded that most illness women faced was due to the uterus. From a very large sample, see Lesley Dean-Jones, Women’s Bodies in Classical Greek Science, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994; Rebecca Flemming, “Women, Writing, and Medicine in the Classical World,” In The Classical Quarterly 57: 1 (2007): 257–79; Helen King, Hippocrates’ Woman: Reading the Female Body in Ancient Greece, New York, NY: Routledge, 1998; Vivan Nutton, Ancient Medicine, New York, NY: Routledge, 2005; Soranus, 1927.Gynecology. Edited by Ioannes Ilberg, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum/Latinorum, Berlin, DE: Teubner, 1927. [what, historians gonna history 😉 ]

[3] French speakers I ask your apologies for my loose translation. M.P. Lynch put out an edition in English (2021), which is useful, but which also has some translation choices that one might find less ideal, e.g. p. 110 where he uses “snafu;” for the original passage, see Ch. 17, p. 64:

Je répons que si l’on étoit affeuré que ce fùt un veritable coup tiré de droite ligne, sans feint, on pourroir y parer en opposant la main gauche, comme je l’ay fait voir dans mes autres Planches. Mais l’on peut étre trompé par des feintes, ou par des demy coups, & étant surprise, cette parade de cercle enveloppera tous ces coups qui pourroient vous étre poussez, & même fera perdre tous les desseins de vostre ennemy.  

[4] American sentiment, which has long baffled me given our long friendship with France, tends to back the English view on everything from the Hundred Years War to the colonial contests of the 18th and 19th centuries. Had it not been for French support, we may well have lost our rebellion against England. More recent history makes this all the odder given that England and France were allies, as were we with both nations, in the world wars. Just something to think about.

[5] The flanconade, often called a “high-low” attack in modern epee, is effected by parrying a thrust in the high line in fourth, then dropping the point to the outside over the opponent’s weapon. One then thrusts to the outside low line. Many earlier works advocate using the off-hand to secure the opposing steel after beginning the thrust to avoid a double. For a useful modern example, my go-to is professionescherma.org’s channel on Youtube: https://youtu.be/4G63pNHS90M

[6] See Russ Mitchell, Basic Body Mechanics for Martial Artists, 2018.

[7] One outcome of the unfortunate merger between the USFCA (the US Fencing Coaches Assoc.) and the USFA (US Fencing Association, the body that governs the sport; the US branch of the FIE), is that instructors are encouraged to “renew” their certifications yearly, much as someone say in a profession like pharmacy might with CEs (continuing education courses). While admirable that the organization(s) are interested in ensuring a higher degree of ability among instructors, there are issues with this decision. For one, this is expensive and assumes—as ever—full-time coaches with some manner of decent pay. That is not true for most coaches. Second, unlike pharmacy, no one is inventing new ideas or actions that we must learn to stay current. It’s difficult not to see this measure as a money-grab.

The Grip in Small Sword

One of the questions I’m asked frequently is how one should hold a smallsword. With a large corpus of treatises upon which to draw this is, lucky for me, a relatively easy question to answer, and, with some degree of certainty. There are differences among the masters, but most are subtle and have more to do with the positioning of the hand than in how the fingers grasp the weapon.

My approach, an amalgam based on the sources, is typical of “most” works:

  • The thumb extends along the grip towards the guard and stops 12mm/.5” from the shell
  • The forefinger rests just opposite the thumb so that thumb and forefinger are sort of pinching the guard
  • The three remaining fingers grasp the grip and help keep the pommel, while in guard, against the wrist
  • The fingers do not go through the Arms of the Hilt/annulets
Hand in Tierce
Hand in Quarte

Remember that in French fencing the numbers we use, prime, seconde, tierce, etc., refer to hand positions. There is not, for example, an ideal form of quarte–if the hand is in quarte, one is in quarte, whether parrying high, low, or midline. This is likely one reason, for example, that some masters referred to “quarte over the arm” (modern sixte) when parrying in quarte (hand in quarte) on the tierce side. Here is a handy reference and visual representation of this:

Still looking for the source for this image

In the two bottom quadrants, the lower outside and lower inside lines respectively, the parries for the former are octave (supinated-ish) and seconde (pronated-ish), and for the later septime (supinated-ish; a.k.a. “half circle”) and prime (knuckles up). Quinte, 5th, is a bit different than the similar position for sabre:

NB: 5th as positioned here is not set in stone, but reflects how the hand is held–this can be raised or lowered.

What do the Sources Say?

Below are excerpts from a few sources, mid-17th century to just before 1800, that cover the grip. Where possible I’ve added the original language if it was written in one other than English. For those without a translation, or for which I do not have one, I’ve summarized the import of the passage rather than offer a translation of my own. I’ve added images from the works when possible too—these are taken from public domain copies, but vary in quality.

NB: going from MS Word to WordPress, never mind the evils of autocorrect, often means errors in transliteration. I do my best to proofread, but if you notice misspellings, wonky accent marks, etc., please let me know and I will correct the error.

Charles Besnard, The Free Master of Weapons, 1653, p. 7 in ENG ver. by Rob Runacres and Reinier van Noort

To properly place oneself in guard and posture in order to practice the single sword or foil, one must first place the sword or foil in hand so that the thumb is placed on the cross or flat of the sword, and the index finger under the flat of the same in a half circle, and right under the thumb. Then tighten the grip of the three other fingers…

Pour bien se mettre en garde et posture pour faire l’exercice de l’épée seule ou fleuret, il faut premièrement mettre l’épée ou fleuret à la main, que le pouce soit posé sur la croisée ou plat de l’épée, et le doigt index soit sous le plat de celui-ci en demi rond, et droit sous le pouce, et serrer fermement la poignée des trois autres doigts…
[p. 7 in the Fr. Transcription by same editors]

De la Touche, The True Principles of the Single Sword, 1670

Next, you must draw the sword, taking it by the grip with the right hand and holding the scabbard with the left hand so that it does not follow the sword, and then draw it. This you can do in several manners, but it is done the easiest and the quickest by always keeping the thumb in the same position as it has in the first figure, and advancing and raising the hand until the sword is out of the scabbard, with the point turned towards the enemy, the thumb on the outside, that is to say, on the right side, and the sword on the edge, as in the second plate. [31 in van Noort and Coudre]

Les Vrais Principes [Ch. 2, p. 7]

Apres cela il faut tirer l’Espée, en la pregnant par la Poignée avec la main droite, & tenant le sourreau de la main gauche de peur qu’il ne suive l’Espée, & ensuite la tirer, ce que l’on peut faire de plusieurs manieres, mais la plus simple & la plus courte se fait en tenant toûjours le poulce dans la mesme situation qu’il a dans la premerie Figure, & avançant & levant la main jusques à ce que l’Espée soit hors du sourreau, la pointe tournee vers l’ennemy, le poulce en dehors, c’est a dire, du costé droit, & l’Espée sur le trenchant, comme dans la deuxiéme Planche.

de la Touche, 1670

Sir William Hope, Scots Fencing Master, 1686

Ma. You must hold your Sword after this manner; hold your Thumb upon the broad side of the Handle with your Fingers quite round it, as in the second Figure of the first Plate marked F and not as some do, who put their foremost and middle Fingers through the two arms of the Hilt, thinking that by doing that, they hold their Sword firmer, some use onely to put their foremost Finger through, which the Spainards did of old, and many even to this day do it; but both ways are most ridiculous, and dangerous.

Sch. I think any Man of common sense may perceive that, for when a Man holdeth his Sword in that fashion, with his Finger through the arms of the Hilt, he is in danger of having his Fingers broken, if his Adversary should inclose with him, and offer to force the Sword out of his hand, for holding it that way he cannot so easily quit with it, as he should, and therefore will infallibly in my opinion be in hazard of losing his Fingers, if not his life in the cause.

Ma. Sir, You have found exactly the hazard that a Man is in, in holding his Sword after that manner, but when you hold it, as I have before told you, you must hold it fast and firm, and not gently, so that your Adversary with the least sudden beat or twist may force it out of your hand. [11-13]

Sir William Hope, 1686

di Liancour, The Master of Arms, 1686

Let the right hand be turned half to tierce with the fingernails facing the ground, such that in parrying we need only turn the hand to half fourth, parrying straight thrusts to the inside from fourth with the cutting edge of the sword. [Lynch, 19]

Que la main droite soit tournée demy-tierce, les ongles vers la terre; d’autant qu’en parant l’on n’a qu’à tourner la main demy-quarte, l’on parera les coups poussez tout droit de Quarte dans les Armes, du trenchant de son Epée. [p. 8, Ch. III]

de Liancour, 1686

Jean-François Labat, The Art of Fencing, 1696/1740

…the Hilt of the Sword a little above the Hip, turning towards half Quart, the Thumb extended, pressing the Middle of the Eye of the Hilt, keeping the Fingers pretty close to the Handle, especially the little one, in order to feel the Sword firmer and freer in the Hand. [5, McMahon, Lector House edition]

L’art en fait d’armes ou de l’épée seule, avec les attitudes

…que le poignet de l’épée soit un peu plus haut que la hanche, tournant un peu vers la demi-quarte, le pouce étendu & apyué sur le milieu du corps de la garde entre les deux tranchains, serrant suffisament les doigts, sur tout le petit, asin de sentir l’épée plus ferme & plus libre dans la main. [9-10, L’Abbat]

L’Abbat/Labat, 1696/1740

Zachary Wylde, The English Master of Defense, 1711

your Hand fast gript about the hand of your Foil or Rapier, then put your Thumb long ways or forward upon it, your Arm quite extended from the Center of your Body, the Point of the Weapon being directed in a true Line against your Opponent’s right Pap, sinking somewhat low with your Body, your right Knee bowing or bent over the Toes of your right Foot, (tho’ some Masters teaches a strait Knee,) your left Knee more bent, inclining towards the Toes of your left Foot; lying in this Order is the Posture, which I call, Stand your Line, the Medium Guard then is fixt [p. 6 in the pdf]

Donald McBane, The Expert Swords-man’s Companion, 1712, p. 3-4:

Let the Grip of your Sword or Fleuret be no bigger, than that you can close your little Finger round it, and touch the Palm of your Hand; and let all your Fingers be round the Grip, and the point of your Thumb close too or near the Shell, which Guards your Hand, much more than as some People hold it, with the Pummel in the Hand, and fore Finger stretch’d out toward the Shell, they then can not command the Sword so well, and all the Advantage of hold it so, is, that they have a greater length from the Point to the Body, than if they held it with the Thumb close to the Shell. If the Grip of their Sword or Fleuret be larger than as here mention’d, it will be easily be Beat out of your Hand by a Batter.

When you are to Offend, whether at the Wall, or on the Floor, keep your and Hand Breast high, and Point rather below your Hand, and if you are to Defend at the Wall, keep your Hand as low as your or Hipp, and your Point as high as your Forehead; but for Defence on the Floor keep the proper Quart Guard, and by turning your Hand, you may Parie all high Thrufts, or Thrufts made at the Level of your Hand, and above; for Thrufts below the Level of your Hand, the Low Quart, and Seconde will Parie them.

Donald McBane, 1712; here with broadsword

Alexander Doyle, Neu Alamodische Ritterliche Fecht und Schirm-Kunst, 1715

Die Erstere nun/ Prima genennat/ belangend/ ziehet selbige ihren Nahmen daher/ wann man den Degen aus der Scheiden ziehen will/ denselben mit verkehrster Faust aud der Seiten ergreisset/ und nach dessen Entblosung sienem Feinde die spize bietet; da dann mit dem kleinen Finger in der Höhe/ dem Daumen unten/ mit zugelegter Faust und ausgeisirechtem Urm gegen die Uchsel die Spize praesentirt wird: Und in solcher Positur wird die so genannte Prima formiret [p. 1]

[Summary: prima/first is named for the fact that this is the position one is in after drawing the sword; one grabs it with the fist inverted; in this position, the thumb faces down, the little finger up; NB in the image below the fencers are not in prima]

Doyle, 1715

Henry Blackwell, The English Fencing Master, 1730

Secondly, To hold a good Guard to defend your Body, your Right-Hand must be straight out with a little bend in your Arm, the Point against your Adversary’s Right-Breast, with your Four Fingers bent under one part of the Handle, and your Thumb over the upper part, with the Pummel close to your Wrist, as you shall see in the Posture, etc. [2]

Henry Blackwell,

Girard, Traité des armes, 1740

III. Que la poignée soit serrée près du pommeau avec le petit doigt, & le second doigt, & que la milieu du poulce soit apuyé à plat sur ladite poignée de l’Epée près de la sous-garde; laquelle poignée étant soutenuë du dedans la jointure du premier doigt, on aura la facilité de dégager & de tirer.

IV. Avoir le bras droit, & le poignet flexible & tourné demi quarte, de sorte que le demi trenchant de la lame regarde la terre, comme il est dit, & que le bout des ongles des trois derniers doigts de la main droite regarde le Ciel, & la plus grande partie de l’ongle du poulce, ainsi que le bout du premier doigt. [5-6]

Crawley, Philip T. The Art of the Smallsword, Featuring P.J.F. Girard’s Treatise of Arms. Wyvern Media, UK: 2014, 38.

3. That the handle is gripped near the pommel with the little finger & the second finger, & that the middle of the thumb is laid flat on the grip, near to the body of the hilt; of which is supported by the inside of the knuckle of the index finger, which will give greater ease in disengaging and thrusting.

4. The right arm & the wrist flexible & turned to demi-quarte, in such a way that the ridge of the blade is toward the ground, as stated, & that the fingertips and nails of the three last fingers point towards the sky, as the greater part of the thumbnail and the tip of the index finger.

Girard, 1740

Le Perche du Coudray [attrib.], L’exercise des armes ou le mainement du fleuret, 1676/1743

Voila de Toutes les Gardes

La Situation la plus naturelle, la plus gratieuse, et la moins dangereuse, Car toutes les autres sont Exposée, a tant de Contrecoups qu’il ny [ne?] faut pas penser, cest pourquou je Conseilleray toujours aux Amateurs de ce noble exercise de ne s’Escarter jamais des regles de cette garde, qui sont dabord de bien tenir son Epeé, ayant pour cette Effet la poulce sure le plat de la poigneé, la pointe a la Hauter de l’Epaule, que le pomeau de l’Epeé tombe en ligne directe sur la pointe du pied droit, qu’il soit a la hauteur de la hanche droite, il faut que le Corps soit droit sur les deux hances, et posé entierement sur la partie gauche, Cavant bien la hanche droit, et Effacant bien l’Epaule gauche, pliant le genoüil gauche et laissant beacoup de liberté dans le droit, asin de n’etre point Embarassé ny pour marcher, ny pour faire les Engagements d’Epeé; il faux que les deux pieds soient dans la même ligne et que les deux Talons se respondent l’un a lautre. Il faux être sendu Environ de deux semeles il faut que le bras gauche soit èlevé en faisant un de ny Cercle et que le creux de la main soit directment a la hauter de l’Oeil gauche, la tête droite le Corps bien effacé et observer tourjours une g. de liberté, le talon droite vis a vis l’Oeil du soulier gauche [1]

[Summary: thumb is flat on the handle, point shoulder high, pommel in direct line with tip of the right foot, at height of right hip]

Le Perche du Coudray [attrib.], 1676/1743

Juan Nicolás Perinat, Arte de esgrimir floret y sable/Art of Fencing, 1757/8 [from the transcription and translation by Tim Rivera, 2018]

It is necessary to be in guard in the mode that is seen in the figures of the first plate, both feet on the same line, both legs bent, the left more than the right, the hip supported on the left side, both arms half extended, the left higher and arched, the head erect, looking at the enemy, the hand turned between fingernails up and fingernails down, or in the regular posture, and the thumb over the plane of the sword, presenting the point to the enemy. [1]

Es menester ponerse en guardia del modo que se vé en las Figuras de la Lámina primera, ambos piés sobre una misma línea, las dos corvas dobladas, la izquierda mas que la derecha, la Cadera apoyada en la parte izquierda, ambos brazos médio tendidos, el izquierdo mas levantado y arqueado, la cabeza derecha, mirando al Enemigo, la mano vuelta entre uñas arriba y uñas abaxo o en postura regular, y el pulgár sobre el plano de la Espada, presentando la punta al Enemigo. [1]

Domenico Angelo, The School of Fencing, 1763/1783

You must observe that the gripe of the sword be put on quite centrical to the heel of the fort of the blade, which should have a little bend above the fingers, when in hand, and let the whole mounting be turned a little inward, which will incline your point in carte. This way of mounting your sword will facilitate your disengagements, and give you an easy manner of executing your thrusts. [2 in the 1787]

Il faut ausi que la garde de l’epée porte juste sur l’affiette du talon du lame, laquelle doit baisser un peu sur les doigts de la main, & le corps de la garde doit être tourné un peu en quarte. Cette maniere de monter uné epée donne de la facilité pour dégager & de la liberté pour tirer les coups d’armes. [p. 21 in the pdf from the BNF Gallica site]

D. Angelo, 1763/1787

Andrew Lonnergan, The Fencer’s Guide, 1771

In holding your Foil observe, that you must lay your thumb upon the flat of the handle, or grip, somewhat extended with your fore finger on the other flat behind, forming a square with the point of your thumb. Sometimes you will find a Foil, with a square handle, where no flat side can be distinguished; in such case, the flat of your Foil’s blade must guide you as before; but now the Foil blades are also square, therefore you must be guided by the kind of shell the Foil has; which shews you where the real flats of the handle and blade are, though still square. Now the whole hand should be at such a distance from the shell, so that the little finger should lock into the hollow part, or neck of the pummel; yet practice will allow you to shift your hand hereafter. Observe, when the handle or blade of your Foil is bent, or arched, you must always lay your thumb upon the round side; and the inside of your fingers ends on, or against, the hollow side, or part of the blade, griping the handle gently, and with as much freedom as if on a flute.

Some make a practice of holding the Foil between the fore and middle fingers, with the thumb propped against the fore-finger; yet this method, though successful enough to many by long practice, is not so recommendable to begin with as the former. [1-3]

J. Olivier, Fencing Familiarized/L’Art des armes simplifie, 1771

Ch. 2 How to hold the Sword

In order to hold a sword well, the hilt must be flat in your hand, your thumb stretched and at an inch distance from the shell, the pummet under your wrist.

Never keep the sword fast in your hand, but when you parry or thrust. For, if you hold it always with strength, the muscle of your thumb will soon grow stiff. [9]

Ch. 2 Maniere de tenir l’Epée

Pour bien tenir votre épée, il faut que la poignée se trouve à plat dans votre main, le pouce etendu à la distance de 12 lignes de la coquille, le pommeau sous le poignet.

Ne serez jamais l’épée en votre main, que lorsque vous parez ou tirez car, si vous la teniez toujours avec force, vous vous engourdiriez bientôt le muscle du pouce. [p. 10]

John MacArthur, The Army and Navy Gentleman’s Companion, 1780 [NB: fan of J. Olivier’s teaching and method]

Lesson 1: The Manner of Holding the Sword or Foil, etc.

In order to hold your sword well, the hilt must be flat in your hand; so that the two edges will be nearly horizontal when you throw yourself upon guard; your thumb stretched along the upper flat part of the hilt, within half an inch of the shell, and the pummet is to rest under your wrist. [p. 3]

MacArthur, 1780

Danet, L’Art des armes, Paris, FR: Chez Herissant, Fils, 1788

Manière de tenir l’Epée

Pour tenir avantageusement l’épée, il faut que la poignée se trouve entre le tenar & l’hypotenar, & le pommeau à la naissance de la main; que le pouce soit allonge jus-qu’à la distance d’environ douze lignes [*] de la coquille sur le plat de la poignée; qu’en même temps le milieu de l’index se place dessous la poignée près de la coquille; que la poignée soit étroitement embrassée par le doigt majeur, & encore serrée contre le tenar vers la pommeau, par l’annulaire & l’auricularie: mais il ne faut serrer la poignée que dans l’instant seulement que vous tirez, ou que vous parez; parceque les muscles due pouce, de l’index & du doigt majeur s’engourdissent promptement, au lieu qu’il n’en est pas de même de ceux qui sont agir le petit doigt & l’annulaire.

Il est des occasions où il convient de lâcher ces deux doigts pour faciliter l’exécution de cetain coups. J’aurai attention de vous en prevenir quand il le saudra. [3]

[Summary: the thumb is extended along the grip and a short distance from the shell; index is under the grip, opposite the thumb; of note, Danet reminds the fencer not to grip tightly save when thrusting or parrying; the three remaining fingers keep the weapon secure, pommel is against the wrist]

* The ligne, “line,” was a unit of measure in pre-Revolution France. This particular measure had an English parallel, of the same name, which varied in length between 1/10 and 1/40 of an inch. The French ligne corresponds to about 2.3mm. Incidentally, a pouce, or “thumb” [approx. 27mm] was also a measurement within this system, but that is not how the word is used here. For more on this, a useful summary is provided in William A. Smeaton, “The Foundation of the Metric System in France in the 1790s: The Importance of Etienne Lenoir’s Platinum Measuring Instruments,” in Platinum Metals Rev. 44:3 (2000), 125ff [https://technology.matthey.com/article/44/3/125-134/]; see also Suzanne Débarbat,”Fixation de la longueur définitive du mètre,” in Ministère de la culture et de la communication (1999): https://francearchives.gouv.fr/fr/pages_histoire/39436 ; of note, the ligne is still used by some milliners, cf. https://www.levinehat.com/blogs/levine-hat-blog-1/19189051-what-are-french-lignes