fencing manuals – Page 2 – Capitale Escrime Historical Fencing

Review: Alessando Senese, _The True Use of the Sword_ 1660

[21 Feb. 2025]

Senese, Alessando. The True Use of the Sword. Bologna, IT: Herede di Vittorio Benacci, 1660. Translated by Christoper A. Holzman, 2025, Lulu Press.

Though a fencing text long-dismissed as poorer than most (Iacopo Gelli referred to it as “a work of limited fencing value”), Senese’s True Use of the Sword, despite its flaws, nonetheless contains considerable value. Not only does it contain some useful insights into the Art, but it also contains contemporary concerns that resonate today within the historical fencing community. Beyond this, while the True Use of the Sword will frustrate readers keen for detailed explanations of individual techniques or actions, it is surprisingly insightful with regard to combat psychology and preparedness, as well as some of the deeper truths that arise after long study of the Art.

I had the pleasure to assist Christopher Holzman with the Latin portions of this translation, and came to understand his doubts about it in the process. [n] Most of the works that Chris has translated into English, to date, have been stand-out treatments in one way or another. Marcelli, Rosaroll & Grisetti, and Del Frate are major works within the Italian fencing tradition; even less significant works, such as Terracusa e Ventua’s True Neapolitan Fencing is important for what it reveals about the survival of the Neapolitan system, and, as one of the only Italian works on fencing from the 18^th century.

Senese’s text, in contrast, is a curious book. As with his previous work, Chris does his best to stay as close as one can to the original phrasing and vocabulary, a particularly daunting task when the original author was not, to put it mildly, a great writer. If anything, Chris has improved the readability of the original, an impressive feat given the sometimes-convoluted modes of expression Senese favored. Footnotes, courtesy of Chris, will help explain some of the terms and clarify some of the denser explanations the author offered.

Organization

The book is organized around Senese’s chief tenets for fencing. There is considerable front-matter, mostly dedicatory, and much of it in Latin. Senese informs the reader in a short epilogue that a friend provided the florid Latin encomia to Charles Ferdinand, Archduke of Further Austria (d. 1662) and the Latin summary in the last part of the book. The initial dedication appears in Latin and Italian, but is followed by an ode, an epigram, and a distichon, all in Latin.

For students of history and early modern literature, the inclusion of the seven liberal arts to frame the ode will be unsurprising, but the ways in which Senese (or his friend) link each one to aspects of fencing is perhaps novel. The epigram is rich in classical imagery and in a way echoes the use of the liberal arts in the ode, though here the author enumerates his specific concepts of fencing and their value.

A note to the reader follows and in it Senese explains his position:

The art of using the sword for the defense of one’s body is the true art; not that which is commonly practiced in the schools and taught by the professors, let alone those particular blows that I read from the writers; but for that which the most famous swords of my country already practiced, and for those precepts that I offer to you to read in this present work.

The true art is that which offers a determined end to be infallibly obtained with the exact observance of its precepts.

The letter to the reader informs what follows in his rules; it is the why to his how, as it were, and beyond that gives at least one master’s view of his contemporaries. Fencing treatises were often resumes of a sort, and naturally Senese ‘s poor opinion of the efforts of all other masters was meant to push himself forward, but at the same time some of what he says was also true. This is not to say that one could make oneself unbeatable or invincible, nice as that would be, but that there were issues within many schools that led their students to losses, even death, when it mattered. Senese was hardly alone in such complaints.

The first few chapters define terms and provide key explanations of his ideas. Chapter 2, for example, explores what Senese calls “the long game,” what we would today call working from critical distance versus fighting in distance. The next chapter takes up “weight,” what we would call “guard” or the guard position today. Like many 17^th, even 18^th century works, Senese wanted the weight on the rear leg (cf. Besnard, Marcelli, Girard, etc.). Measure and its navigation, motion and movement, line, perspective, finding the sword, and what he calls “the indivisible tempo” follow.

His chapters on the “true wound” and “true parries” reveal a far more conservative approach to defense than that of many of his contemporaries. It is not that other masters failed to take this perspective, but that they less consciously call out the issues and problems around them. This perspective is one of the chief attractions to The True Use of the Sword: it is less a book on fencing than it is a book on how to approach actual fighting with a sword.

Chapter 11, on the feints, is likely to excite the simple-minded and kindle useless debate and discussion in some circles of historical fencing, but nothing he says there is untoward. Readers who stop at the first line, however, will miss the point. The feint, to be effective, must appear to be a credible threat and not, as he remarks, motions that are basically probing actions. A proper feint forces the opponent to parry. Cuts, the subject of Chapter 12, will read a bit differently from some masters, too. In Senese’s view, cuts are used in two instances: as a riposte or as an attack. An obvious point, but one he makes as a way to attack those who use cuts poorly. The example he gives, a feint to the face to draw the parry, and then a cut to the torso or leg, illustrates his meaning. Here, as in most places, Senese reminds us that measure, timing, etc. must be correct as well.

Of particular interest is his chapter (Chapter 13) on the use of the sword alone against someone using sword and dagger. Much of what Senese says here provides a window into the thinking that typifies “transitional rapier” and ultimately, smallsword. For Senese, if one relies on a dagger for defense, one is handicapped. In this he is not wrong, but he was not alone in stating this either. Marcelli, among others, covered the sword alone first for a reason. In Senese what we see is a 17^th century master attacking common problems of the day—this is important, because we have a tendency to think fencers were “better” in the past, that masters were as effective at fighting as they were in teaching, and in putting forth their own views it can be easy to miss the reality. Then as now some were better teachers, more effective fighters, than others.

Chapter 14 provides a brief summary of his key tenets; chapter 15 the key faults in poor fencers.

The remaining portions of the book, the first on “the necessary and infallible rules of the proper handling of the sword” and the second on “a figure explaining the theory of a would to the opponent’s left,” were written in Latin. The rules, via fourteen individual sections, repeat, again, the principles by which Senese teaches the Art. The explanation of the figure is rough reading, but will prove useful for the patient reader who takes the time to explore it in space.

Significance

Unlike most works of the time, Senese does not include detailed descriptions of technique or list a multitude of various actions. He states, then repeats, a set of guidelines that should inform how one uses the repertoire of fencing. By analogy, Senese is more akin to Zbigniew Czajkowski’s Understanding Fencing than he is Gaugler’s Science of Fencing. For example, Senese states that anyone who wishes to teach the sword professionally must be able to “operate respectively in four cases:” in courteous bouts for amusement and as exhibition; effectively in bouts where they demonstrate their superior skill against strangers; in actual fights where harm or death are possible; and in those cases where the teacher is out in the world in difficult terrain. The reason is that

In each of these four cases, the person must have meditated and prepared what he must do, because he has to operate differently in each of the aforementioned ways, since it takes more than knowing how to put oneself in beautiful perspective on guard and performing a pretty thrust to the target, however, the perceived opinion of the common people against the professors is now wonder.

The True Use of the Sword contains many such asides that highlight different cultural attitudes. For another example, Senese is quick to call out those untutored but nonetheless teaching, a problem that resonates all the more now:

they remain blind and learn all that can be learned in six months, which has nothing to do with the perfect science that is learned with effort and not in months but in years. So, sparing the effort, they also spare the science…

Therefore, take it as the most certain vanity every time that someone will be persuaded to want to teach this profession in a short time, or rather, some particular blows, because he will really teach being killed by some hasty, bestial ignoramus.

In like vein, Senese laments the common incidence of the incontro, or double, in bouts and duels of his time. Today’s historical fencers—for sometimes different reasons—wrestle with the same problem. One explanation as valid then as now is that

many fencers with a singular and artful game who, having arrived so that they are at a certain mark, stop themselves there as if no more remains for them to learn and in the occasions they remain either confused or doubtful and they always have questions to ask according to the diversity of encounters, a sign that they lack the true rule that resolves all the questions and hinders all the vanity.

Tourney-“HEMA,” for example, is rife with fencers rushing to measure and doubling; some even game doubling just as their Olympic cousins do. All of this is to say that Senese demonstrates that nothing is new and that the problems we see now are merely the same issues in different costume.

This text, however, is not without practical advice for given situations. Sense, wisely, recommends that the “most secure” wound is one that follows a parry. He reminds us that in seeking another’s blade we should only do so when it is out straight before us. Read together with other fencing treatises of the time is perhaps the best way to read Senese. At the very least, having read him, a fencer will read Giganti, Pallavicini, and Marcelli with a better grasp of the larger picture informing their respective approaches.

Do not read Senese for technique—this will be a disappointment. Read Senese first for the view it gives one of 17^th century fencing culture. Second, read Senese for the sound tactical advice he shares, advice that in this reviewer’s opinion would do much to improve historical fencing today. His defensive mindset, his abhorrence of the double, and his wisdom in advocating that one does best who fences as if the swords where “white” (i.e. sharp) rather than “black” (practice weapons) is as sound now as it was in 1660.

[n] My close friend and colleague, Dr. Antone Minard (Simon Fraser University & UBC), and I had the pleasure to manage the Latin portions.

Wait, I thought you were a Sabreur?

Social media may herald in the end of the world as effectively as it has poisoned politics, but it’s fantastic where fencing is concerned. A recent post on smallsword garnered questions about what it is, exactly, that I do–am I a foilist? A sabreur? Both? Something else?

The simple answer is “yes,” all of the above, but we focus on different things at different times. There can be many reasons for this. To the person’s first question, yes, I am still a sabre fencer, though more coach than anything else at this point. My main source is Luigi Barbasetti’s _The Art of the Sabre and Epee_ (1899/1936), not only because it is the text I’ve come back to time and again since the 1990s, but also and especially because his work formed the foundation for the school in which I am a student, Barbasetti Military Sabre since 1985, headquartered in Prague, Czechia.

Between some injury maintenance and a brutal schedule in my day job, Barbasetti’s approach has, as ever, proved solid and rewarding. Nearly all my students use s2000 Olympic blades, though several use historical trainers (two have Swordsmithy’s, two those by other makes, but all hovering around 650-700g). The system is such I could use sticks.

I am not taking new students for sabre, that is true, but mostly due to time constraints–I am unable to teach as often as I was and the larger the class, the less effective the instruction. I make exceptions for visitors and for the few people who seek me out from out of town, but otherwise my focus has been on related projects, teaching, and working on some international efforts to improve both coaching and fencing.

As ever, I’m happy to answer questions, so please feel free to do so–as I did here, I’ll do my best to answer promptly and succinctly.

Early & Later Smallsword Treatises: A Note

[originally posted 30 July 2023 on the old CEHF site]

It’s customary to discuss particular weapons in somewhat monolithic terms. We speak of “foil,” “smallsword,” “sabre,” or “longsword,” to name a few, as if these constitute a tidy, discrete facet of sword-types. In some ways, this is true: sabre is different from spear, longsword from smallsword. However, as convenient as compartmentalization is, despite how necessary it is to organize a topic as gigantic as swordplay, we can easily forget that within each division there exists both variety and change over time.

For smallsword, a cursory glance at earlier and later texts will reveal some critical differences. There is overlap to be sure, but the differences are important. Even among texts of the same general time one should compare them. De La Touche’s seminal work from 1670, Les vrays principes de l’espée/The True Principles of the Sword, for example, reads differently from de Liancour’s Le Maistre d’armes/The Fencing Master (1686), but both read very differently from Sir William Hope’s The Scots Fencing Master (1687) and A New Short and Easy Method of Fencing (1707).

The works of Sir William Hope, Zachary Wylde, and Donald McBane tend to read as primitive, unsophisticated works to many fencers with more traditional training. It’s easy to see why. These works contain fewer actions, seemingly odd things like weapon-seizures and guards other than tierce/sixth, and are often less well-written. Compared to the succinct descriptions in Le Sieur P.J.F. Girard’s Traité des armes (1740) or Domenico Angelo’s L’École des armes/The School of Fencing (1763/1787) one might conclude–erroneously–that these later works are “better” than those which preceded them.

The answer is context. The earlier works reflect a different set of concerns. These are largely works of self-defense first and foremost. While Girard and Angelo also offer solid advice for the duelist, they also reflect a different culture, one in which smallsword was already transforming into the game of foil (originally a training tool for smallsword), that is, a polite game where beautiful execution and grace were often as or more important than actual combat effectiveness.

It behooves any student to study earlier and later works, because together they provide a far more complete examination of how smallswords were used. This is easier to do without bias: to apply the filter of late 19th/early 20th foil to 17th and 18th century foil jaundices our view and can lead us to the wrong conclusions.

New Year, New Approach

For some time now I’ve tried to “go with the flow” rather than attempt to establish some ideal approach to the club. This tends to help me to help those who want or need it, and, introduces me to a wide variety of opportunities I might not have had otherwise as well new people I might not have met.

A new day-job has forced me to make some significant changes, and has restricted my availability far more than I anticipated. I’m not happy about that, but rather than whine about it the more useful thing to do is adapt, so, I’m adapting.

What Changes?

First, the name–henceforth I’ll be using the name an affiliate program has used to date, Capital Escrime Historical Fencing, because my adult program will be shifting more toward this group in Salem than the meets-sometimes-group in Newberg. For the Newberg folks, you are not only welcome, but encouraged to join us in Salem (it’s a 30min. drive).

Second, while I will continue to teach sabre, I will not be taking any new sabre students at this time. Instead, I will focus on smallsword and “transitional” rapier as presented by Charles Besnard (1653). To my friends in the Italian tradition, please do not take this as a snub, because my love for Marcelli, Radaelli, and others is still strong, but for sabre in particular I need a break so a few injuries will heal.

Third, the Newberg group will meet, but every other week; I will meet the Salem group in the weeks between. See “For Current Students” for more details.

Salem Location
An old friend and fellow fencer, Moses Jones, has kindly invited us to share his space at his school, Seize the Vor [https://www.seizethevor.com/]. His school meets out of Iron Phoenix Athletics, and is just off of I-5 in Salem. Moses and I have a LOT of plans, and while the change-over might be a bit rough, there are good things to come.

For Those Upset by the Changes
I know that this will not work for everyone, and I’ll be sorry to see anyone go, but if possible I should like to help those for whom the new schedule/location doesn’t work find a good spot. There are a few decent options for historical fencing in the greater PDX area, and a lot of solid Olympic schools. Please chat with me and we can work something out for you or you child.

Technique Leak: Overcoming Issues in Cross-Weapon Fencing

I started the day off in a rapier lesson with one of the students with whom I’ve worked longest. I have often said that teaching is a two-way street, that both instructor and student—ideally—learn, grow, and improve as they work together. During one drill, my friend stopped, said “question,” and we stopped to chat. “Is there a reason you’re taking such a big second?” It was an easy observation, but one I had not made—was I? Was I taking too large a parry? He then asked “what else are you working on right now?” and then it hit me. What followed was a lovely chat about the ways in which different weapon tracks can “leak” into one another, something that can be a benefit, but in good cosmic equilibrium, can also work against us.

In this case, it was the latter, and I was grateful for his observation and said so. Focused as I was on the lesson plan, and on making purposeful mistakes, I didn’t notice an unintentional one, another insight Ken shared with me. There are many instances in which the instructor makes mistakes on purpose—it’s critical for teaching a fencer what to look for, how to take advantage of such issues, and it’s all valuable, but it’s sometimes a difficult thing to switch off, which is to say that a lot of us find ourselves struggling not to be in teacher mode when we’re bouting to bout.

The Drill

Here, the danger was not only my own overblown parry of second, but also undermining an otherwise valuable drill. At Ken’s level, we work on a lot of tactical set-ups, on second intention, traps, and ways to conserve energy. For me to drop the ball in any one section breaks the drill, and, potentially—were Ken not so aware—upsets the student’s learning. The drill in question started with a classic, workaday action:

Student: feint thrust to hand from 2^nd or 3^rd
Instructor: parries 4^th
Student: disengages to strike outside of the hand or arm

Next, we added a second exchange:

Student: feint thrust to hand from 2^nd or 3^rd
Instructor: parries 4^th
Student: disengages to strike outside of the hand or arm
Instructor: takes a half-step back, parries 2^nd, thrusts with opposition
Student: transitions from 2^nd to 3^rd to block, ripostes over the instructor’s weapon

In taking my parry of 2^nd so vertically, I made it a lot easier to hit me, something someone on their game would be less likely to do. After Ken’s correction, my parry reverted back to what it should be in this case, shallower, point closer to him, and danger way more real should he not cover.

Whither yon Leak?

It didn’t take me long to figure out what was happening. What I was doing in the instant was not so much taking 2^nd as it was dropping into what broadsword sources refer to as an “outside half-hanging” parry, that is, a block defending the same area as 2^nd, but which has the blade hanging more vertically. The “outside hanging” parry defends the upper half well in the same way.

For some time now I’ve been spending more time on “Old Style” broadsword. Thomas Page is the major source I am using, and the nature of that style of fight, never mind the change in heft and balance with a baskethilt, enables one to drop the blade more to parry in an outside half-hanger because the axis of rotation is the wrist, and, it’s thus quick for a riposte.

In rapier, such a deep parry is to invite a counter-attack or fail to cover a line, and so while there are similarities between them, they work differently. With Ken’s help, I now can start to work on better compartmentalizing these weapons.

Stopping the Leak

Awareness is the first step. Thanks to Ken, I am aware of that issue, and best of all, will double-check everything else I am doing.

Next, I drill both weapons with specific attention to the techniques unique to them. It always comes down to drill, more and more drill. I will also be far more mindful now, which is never bad, and with work not only will I fix some of these issues, but better serve my students.

As a coach of other fencers, and thus responsible for raising them up, challenging them, helping them reach the next goal, correct technique, just like proper timing, distance, everything, is a must. As a coach to other coaches, there is also benefit—each pitfall I encounter is another lesson for my colleagues, especially those starting out and yet unaware of problem X or issue Y. We are never finished learning, and, so long as we retain a “beginner’s mind,” we will continue to grow and be better able to make corrections as we discover places that require them.

More on Invitations

Invitation in 4th–Barbasetti (1899/1936)

In my sabre lesson this morning my student and I explored some options from the invitations in 3^rd and in 4^th. Like a feint, these actions (hopefully) encourage an opponent to attack where we want them to. Baseline, what we’re setting up is a parry-riposte. Against a newer, less experienced fencer, this might be enough, but a more advanced fencer will see the trap and have some idea where one might go with it. There are, happy to say, more options from this simple set-up than meet the eye.

Student’s Invitation in 4th

After the basic parry-riposte set up, a solid next step is an indirect riposte—this requires us to hold the parry before making the riposte. It is best used when our opponent is too quick to parry. For example, if we have made a few cuts to the head, even probing, or better yet from this same set up but slightly out of distance, an opponent might expect us to cut head and so they assume parry 5. If we see them do that once or twice, we can invite, parry, wait a sec, then as they preemptively parry head we strike in an open line. One of the safest strikes is to the lead arm, thrust or cut, as this keeps us back a bit and puts more steel between us and the opponent. One can, though, attack almost anywhere so long as one covers on recovering from the lunge.

Another option is a compound parry-riposte. This is closely related to the indirect riposte as it assumes similar conditions. Where the latter hesitates, the former feints. Following the example above, if one invites in 4^th and parries 3^rd as the opponent takes the bait, one then might feint head to cut arm, flank, or chest. The feint might be made to any line, but works best against a known proclivity. Here, again, some probing actions or false attacks can sometimes tell us which parries an opponent is quick to take.

These are all defensive responses set up via second intention. However, one question today was can one make a counter-attack from this set-up. Yes, and, no. At its root, invitations set up defensive responses, but this said there are ways to include a counter-offensive action given certain conditions. This part is critical. It is possible to make oppositions cuts into the attack from an invitation. These are similar to what we call “bearing” in Insular broadsword. Using the same example, from 4^th, should your opponent attack a little out of distance or with a poorly extended arm—either one provides a bit more tempo to act—then from 4^th one would but cut in such a way that one simultaneously closes the line as one lands. [1] From 3^rd, one would cut across closing the inside line and landing at the same time (often this means striking the arm). It is not easy to set up as it requires the opponent to make specific mistakes, but if they do, this is a fun conclusion to the invitation.

Student Initiated Attack–Shutting Down the Trap

When we switched roles and I adopted the invitation, my student had a chance to explore ways to shut down the trap. Timing, speed, and choice of action all meet in a tight place when we succeed. Using the false-edge, for example, I did not expect, and it succeeded beautifully. Many fencers will be unprepared for that. It can made from farther away, again limiting the danger faced by the attacker.

The simplest option in springing the trap is to attack knowing they will parry-riposte, and then making one’s own counter parry-riposte. I didn’t want to complicate things, but in that counter parry-riposte one can do much the same as the person inviting: one can use an indirect riposte, compound parry-riposte, even an opposition parry and cut if conditions allow it. Naturally, one’s feet are critical in success. If, for example, my student lunged her attack, then I would take a step back to parry. If she recovered quickly, I would have to lunge to riposte; if not, I might do it from standing. Regardless, we need enough room–and thus time–to act.

Invitation in 3rd–Barbasetti (1899/1936)

We also discussed the difference between an obvious invitation, e.g. taking 4^th, and an invitation disguised to look like either incompetence or inattention to the line. For the latter, one might invite in 4^th barely exposing the outside line of the sword-arm. This can appear like a lazy or untutored guard. One can feign being tired and thus sell the lazy guard too. All about selling it, a major aspect of tradecraft. [2]

If we want to invite in similar fashion in 3^rd, we might hold that guard a bit too far out exposing the inside of the wrist. Many of the same options we covered with an obvious invitation apply here too, but this style is more likely to work against a fencer farther along in their training.

When we switched roles, one effective and less risky attack she made was to thrust to the inside wrist when I adopted a lazy 3^rd, allow me to parry, and then thrust with opposition (usually with an advance-lunge or redoublement). If I adopted a lazy 4^th, she could feint to the outside, and when I parried in 3^rd cut around and cut with opposition to the arm or chest, or, make a bandolier cut and step a little back and to the right. Getting good extension on the cut—which keeps one safer—means having enough distance to extend, thus moving more back and right versus in and right.

Tactical Application

This lesson was a mix of types–we covered technique, options, and tactics. Not every lesson need do this, and in fact many should not. Today I was working with an extremely gifted fencer, one with a deep foil background, and with whom I’ve been working sabre for several years. Even today, though, in the last drill she realized she was pulling her chest cut, so we stopped and spent the last ten minutes of our time just working on getting proper extension on her cuts.

The tactical considerations for using invitations should derive from whatever intel we’ve been able to gather about our opponent. Sometimes we have next to no time–we meet someone new in the ring or on the strip and have to triage our choices via testing, probing, and false attacks. Sometimes we have had a chance to watch them fence and see what they typically do, how they respond, and larger picture considerations–are they calm? Nervous? Excited? More defensive? Offensive?

Considerations of another fencer’s proclivities is vital, because no matter how sound or expertly an action might be, it might be the wrong one to use against that opponent or at that time. For example, if my favorite action were to invite in 4th, but my opponent is likewise a defensive fighter, then we’re as likely to run out the clock as anything else. Boring. If, however, I’ve made some assessments, have some idea of how they play, then I can pick actions which might work better. If they’re more defensive, then I’ll start with the more offensive options in the tool box.

This may seem obvious, and it is, but it’s easy to focus on something to our detriment. I know that more than once coming up I had learned a new, cool maneuver and couldn’t wait to try it out, but in my zeal tried it when there was next to no chance it would work. I have been extremely lucky to work with awesome coaches, and they would ask me, post bout, why I had tried it. They knew I was working on it, but had to remind me that not every action will work in every instance.

In terms of large, obvious invitations, they can work super well, but if they’re not–don’t use them against that opponent. Today, for example, my student is far faster than I am. Even playing the invitee role I struggled to parry some of her cuts; I know how to compensate for that, but even so had our lesson been a bout I would have realized quickly that obvious invitations were a super bad idea in fighting her.

Use the right tool for the job.

NOTES:

[1] Opposition Cuts: I do not spend a lot of time on them, but they do exist, even for systems that seemingly don’t include them. Where bearing doesn’t work well with a curved guard, it works super well with a basket-hilt’s flatter guard top.

Within a Radaellian context, opposition cuts normally mean making one’s molinelli in such a way that they simultaneously strike and close the line.

[2] Tradecraft: a universal of fighting, tradecraft refers to all the intelligence gathering and mind-games we play with an opponent. In addition, it is a game we play with officials too.

The Value of Atypical Invitations

In addition to being one of my favorite works on sabre, Luigi Barbasetti’s The Art of the Sabre and the Épée (1899/1936) is a core text within the pedagogical system at Barbasetti Military Sabre (since 1895). Under the guidance of my friend and colleague, Maestro Michael Kňažko, I am steadily if slowly working towards further certification as a fencing instructor, and naturally much of the material we draw upon, and upon which I will be tested, consists of Barbasetti’s take on the Radaellian corpus. No matter how long I spend time with this text, I always find some new value in it, and/or come to understand something better than I did previously.

In another post I mentioned my long-standing dependence on Barbasetti, that it was the first book I read after leaving competition, and just how great the influence it has had in my approach to teaching. When I first started teaching on my own, which is to say without being ordered to by a master, I looked to Barbasetti and Del Frate for inspiration and lesson plans. My co-instructor at the time and I would sit down and pour over Barbasetti discussing lesson ideas, adaptation for new or more advanced students, and even now as I teach on my own this is a weekly practice.

In preparation for future examinations, but also because the book contains so much, I mine it weekly for drills, lesson plans, and exercises. This past week I decided to take my sabre students through a drill I had never had any of them do, a drill I have not used probably since 2016, namely, working from the invitation in 5^th.

There is some fuzziness between the guard, invitation, and parry of 5^th, and on first glance they may appear the same, but they are not. For the most part, 5^th does not constitute a guard, least not one anyone typically uses—held above and out from the head, to hold it long would be tiresome and limit one to certain actions. Second and third are vastly superior guards. As a parry 5^th is the stand-out, standard head parry, one of the first we learn. Though unusual, the invitation of 5^th is valuable, and while seemingly too open to be realistic, this is a false conclusion. Moreover, the benefits for working out of 5^th go beyond the tactical use of the invitation.

Here is, verbatim, the drill as Barbasetti laid it out:

In devising my sabre lesson this week this is the example with which I started. I changed a few things, added a few things, but this was the core of the drill. Post warm-up, the first thing I did was have the student invite in 5^th. This meant that the student more or less assumed the parry of 5th. [2] I would attack, first with a thrust, then a cut, and the student would drop from the invitation of 5^th to the parries of 2^nd or 1^st depending on where I was aiming. As two of the “first triangle” of parries, and working from the third, this is good foundational practice for covering those lines, and effecting good ripostes.

Next, we switched roles, so that the student made the attack. This portion of the drill was meant to help them work a simple feint. In 5^th, everything below is open, and so there are myriad feints one might make. I had them start with a feint thrust from 2^nd, and when I dropped to parry in second, the student made a molinello to the head. While this can be done from the lunge, I had them work this from advance-lunge range. This means that the preparatory action, the feint, was best made on the advance to force me to cover, and once I had, they could lunge with the actual attack. Since we spend so much time at this distance, it’s a good practice to put everything together in real time. From a stationary distance, we then moved back and forth and the student decided when to launch their attack, again, in an effort to resemble the conditions of a bout more closely.

The variation we added was a feint cut to the flank, which again I could cover in 2^nd, and which allowed them a chance to cut to the top-inside of the arm or head. A critical aspect of this version is coverage after the attack. Increasingly I have added in counter-measures to prevent being hit by suicidal fencers. The fetish for the “after-blow” and the practice of doubling when one is ahead in competition, while insipid nonetheless provide an opportunity to pay better attention to the dictum “don’t be hit.” Ever. In this case, a student might cut to the head, then cover in 4^th as they recover out of the lunge.

Next, the student feinted with a thrust or cut to the inside line to draw me into parrying in 1^st. This version allowed the student to work on cut-overs, either with a thrust in 2^nd and with opposition, or, a rising cut to the flank or bottom of the arm. To extricate themselves and avoid an after-blow, etc., a slight step left as they thrust with opposition or cut via molinello, moves them a bit offline, but also allows them a tempo to drop into 2^nd or 5^th depending on what response I give them.

Drills like this afford instructor and student a lot of options. They not only exercise fundamental actions, but also provide opportunities to work on getting to target and back out again safely. If a student is newer or struggling with the first action, one can stay there and work solely on that. If it is easy and they can perform the action with ease, one can build from there. Moreover, there are ways to make the lesson an exploration of tactical options, both offensively and defensively.

Often, and we see it in this case, the details provided in the drill are minimal, so the onus is on the instructor to know every aspect of each action, each idea, and how they can be combined and applied. As a final note, a drill such as this one provides a template for similar lessons, but in other weapons. My theme this week in smallsword was different—we worked almost exclusively on getting to target and back out safely—but looking over my notes I see that the actions I chose to drill all that were essentially the same actions I used in the sabre lessons, only with modification for the requirements of smallsword.

NOTES:

[1] Luigi Barbasetti, The Art of the Sabre and the Épée, New York, NY: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1936, 69. This is the fifth example in his section on feints with the cutting edge.

[2] In 3^rd, for example, the invitation could be just being in guard, or, taking a poor 3^rd, say leaving the inner or outer arm just barely exposed, the idea being to project a sense that one is careless and doesn’t know they’re open. One can merely take the parry position in 5^th.

Anticipation in Fencing Drills

Drills are cornerstone of fencing education, and rightly so, but are also prone to certain problems. If left unattended, these issues can undermine the benefits of the drill. Typically, drills are something that one does, not something one talks about—this is as true of coaches as it is fencing students. We do not dwell on them, analyze them, examine them objectively as we often should—we learn them in good faith, we usually benefit, and so assume it all goes to plan. For the most part, proper and effective corrections allowing, this is true. However, it is not automatic.

Some time ago I wrote a short piece on the problem of artificiality in drills and whether or not some standard drills are “realistic” in the don’t-get-hit sense [https://saladellatrespade.com/2019/06/05/fencing-drills-and-artificiality/]. Here, I should like to discuss the issue of anticipation, specifically how students, facing a known and repeated sequence, often act preemptively. Usually this means that they make their action too soon and nullify the point of the drill. An example will help illustrate this.

Drill: Circular Parries in 4^th

Coach: attacks with thrust to inside line
Student: takes 4^th to parry
Coach: makes a derobement to continue the attack
Student: circles around to retake 4^th, parries, and ripostes

In this setup, one we might use with many different weapons, the two most likely places a student might act too soon are with the initial parry and with the second, circular parry. Of the two, it is the second, the circular parry, where this tends to happen more.

Ideally, parries are responses to a specific, concrete stimulus, the attack. It is a reaction. When we know where a blow is coming, as we do in a drill, it is easy to act on what we know will happen instead of what we actually see. A good coach will see this and correct it, especially if the student is not brand new. With newer, beginning students, we often pick one egregious fault to focus on, and tackle other issues in time. We might point out that the front foot is not aligned, or that they’re not extending first before lunging, but we do not provide a litany of woes each lesson as it is not helpful, but demoralizing.

However, with a student ready to make circular parries, as in the example covered here, we would be right to correct any anticipatory, not-reactive action. How we do this is as important as doing it. The first step is noticing it, which any coach should straight away. The second step is pointing out to the student, plainly and kindly. Some students will recognize it themselves and correct, others will when corrected, and still others may not see it or be unable, for whatever reason, to correct.

For those students who struggle, there are things we can do to help them help themselves. The first, and easiest thing to do, is to expose the anticipatory action—in the example here, the coach would attack, but not disengage. To expose the preemptory second parry, all the coach need do is slow down the speed of the attack. If the student is making the circular action too early, they will bump into the incoming steel. This is a good moment to point out the issue as the student will see, in real time, why acting too early defeats the purpose.

The coach might also change the measure, perhaps step farther in on the initial attack—while not wise from a tactical point of view, from a teaching point of view it will first reveal if the student isn’t maintaining good distance, and second will likewise lead them to encounter the coach’s weapon if the student parries too soon. Here as before one would then point out the mistake, have the student reset, and try again. If the student begins to keep distance and wait for the disengage, then the coach should revert to more appropriate speed and measure. [1]

There are times that students rush because they’re uncomfortable and perhaps not ready to make an action. That is okay. It is not always easy to tell, so a good approach is to simplify the drill. Again following the example above, start by having them work only on the initial parry 4; changes in measure and speed will help the student perfect the action and test their ability to adapt. Once they’re comfortable with this simpler action, one can try the more advanced version again.

It may help to bridge the gap between simple parry and the addition of a circular parry by having them drill the circular movement in isolation too. One way to do this is by playing “keep away” with the weapon. Coach and student, or two partnered students, take turns chasing the other’s blade—one has an extended line, the attacker; the other a bent arm on defense. When the attacker attempts to make contact/engage the blade, the other disengages and/or circles around to avoid the engagement. Next, the defender attempts to engage the attacker’s blade in the same ways, and the attacker attempts to avoid in turn. Exercises like this help one learn and perfect the motor movements necessary to disengage and perform derobements, but also are predicated on reacting to real-time stimuli—one can only avoid if one avoids the steel at the right time.

In sum, if one finds a student preemptively acting in a drill, slow the stimulus down, change up the measure and speed if necessary, and should it prove useful stop and return to simpler material. There is nothing wrong with the basics—in the end, we use those most, and the best fencing is normally a result of simple actions executed at a high level of skill.

NOTES:

[1] In option lessons, this is normal, that is that the coach normally varies things in order to hone the student’s ability. We start with an action the student knows, and then introduce it in increasingly more difficult tactical set-ups.

Closer Ties–SdTS & Barbasetti Military Sabre (since 1895)

[16 May 2024]

I have the deep honor to announce that I have officially joined the ranks of our sister school, Barbasetti Military Sabre (since 1895), based in Prague, Czechia. Though already close to the school, and counting Maestro Michael Knazko a dear friend, I’ve been keen to strengthen ties and build bridges, and this seemed an important, logical next step.

Moreover, it is a fantastic way to continue learning, as the maestri there are talented, experienced, and excellent ambassadors of the Art.

Raising the Bar Ever Higher—The St. George’s Day Exhibition of Arms

[29 April 2024]

It was a pleasure not only to share more Radaellian sabre fun with people, but also to be a student again at this year’s St. George’s Day Exhibition of Arms at the gorgeous Chateau South in Atlanta, Texas. This event, created and orchestrated by one of my favorite people, the redoubtable Russ Mitchell, with help from the lovely people at Winged Sabre Historical Fencing (based in Dallas), is part class, part graduate seminar, and all brilliantly enjoyable. A little over a year ago I wrote up a short piece on this event in which I called this weekend of classes, discussion, and bouting a bar raiser. [1] It was, and, it is. In fact, in year two Russ and friends have placed that bar at least a few feet higher.

There are many tells beyond my high opinion of the event, and to be fair, they are likely better gauges than whatever I might think; after all, Russ is a researching fencer and thus I may be slightly biased in his favor. He is a wonderful human in addition to his vast knowledge of fencing, history, and how the two mix, but again, I acknowledge the potential bias. In light of that, I offer the growth of the Exhibition—we had more people this year; the variety of classes—we had everything from 18^th cen. Broadsword to Georgian sword and buckler to a deep dive into the various types of molinelli/moulinets one can make; and, the diversity of the crowd, already solid, expanded—to name one example, this was the first time—ever—I had a chance to cross swords with someone using Meyer’s system for single-handed cutting weapons. In sum, word of this special weekend clearly reached deep into corners of the historical fencing map this past year, and hopefully will continue to do so this year as word spreads.

The St. George’s Day Exhibition of Arms is one of the three events I point to for how we should be doing things. This is not to say that there are not other important events, only that of the many I have attended these three stick out. They are exemplars, models, paths to follow, with one caveat and a potentially contentious one—one must know what one is doing, or, know whom to invite in the case one does not. SabreSlash in Prague, The Exhibition, and Rose & Thorns all share common themes and ingredients. They are run by knowledgeable people, both in their own right and in whom they seek out to teach. Each of these events is run well and offers the attendee better cuisine than the average tournament of weekend seminar. The level of ability, of skill, not to mention knowledge, is high. Not above average—HIGH. This is true not only in terms of know-how, but in terms of execution. One test of this for me is how beginners are treated and what they take away from these events.

Come one, Come all

Among the new folks this year were also newer fencers. One of the things I watched closely was the degree to which beginners understood what the instructors were teaching and how more experienced fencers treated them. Full disclosure I was not worried much about this knowing what I know about Russ and his people, but all the same given the different backgrounds each had even the best designed event and intentions of the organizers can fail. One would have to ask those beginners, but from what I saw not only were newer people brought into the fold, but accommodated seemingly without effort. The first is less surprising—outside a few bad apples, most historical fencers are welcoming and just happy to find yet more sword nerds with whom to play. As Alex Spreier, who taught a fantastic course on the broadsword system of Zach Wylde said to one new person, who was a bit shocked at the open invitation to join us in the PNW (where we tend to house people to save them money), “Of course! You’re sword family!” This was beautiful and proper and makes me love Alex that much more, but more impressive were the ways in which Alex, Kat, Mike, and Russ arranged their classes to meet the needs of students of any level. This can be extremely difficult to do.

The Classes

Kat’s class on footwork, a topic easily made way too challenging, was disarmingly unintimidating. Her explanations were simple, but dead-on to what was most important, and everything we explored one did at one’s own pace. She was there to answer questions, and at each turn exuded a “you can do this” demeanor that just made one want to try harder. In like vein, Russ’ class on the molinelli/moulinets was a textbook model for how to cover a complex topic effectively and in ways useful to beginner and experienced fencer alike. Starting with the shoulder alone and working our way slowly to using wrist and fingers, Russ enabled everyone to see the variety of methods used in various systems, but also foreshadowed and for-armed everyone for what they would need for each subsequent class. Mike Cherba’s class on Georgian sword and buckler is one I have attended, even assisted with, numerous times, but hands down this was his best iteration of it. He made converts. It’s dynamic, different, interesting, and so damn fun it’s hard not to fall in love with khmali and pari. The standout heretic—to use his own words—was Alex Spreier’s presentation of Zachary Wylde’s broadsword system. This early 18^th century method tends to be snubbed by fencers better acquainted with salle fencing—Wylde’s English is not posh, and his system is bare-bones self-defense. It is also brutally effective (as it should be). Alex also made converts. I offered a close look at Radaellian molinelli and how one might use them via one tactical set up. This introduced a laboratory experiment taking that Radaellian version and seeing how it might apply, change, work, or not work in the Hussar system Russ teaches. [2]

Discussion at meals, over the oceans of coffee consumed, and in between classes was jovial, curious, and informative. It is often said that we learn more at these events after classes in small discussions, and that is likely true. Between the two there was a rich banquet of knowledge to digest. One of my favorite such moments was sitting by the atrium pool listening to Russ’ quick summary of the history of Hungarian fencing (yes, I took notes and yes some of these gems will find their way onto this page, guaranteed). Related to the last, several of Russ’ students were preparing to be examined as peers on the final day. Being the responsible man he is, Russ has avoided the pitfalls of ranking systems that often undermine the goal of such systems—to become a peer means demonstrating an ability to carry on the tradition should, as he put it, Russ been unable to do so himself. [3] Proof of stewardship is provided via an oral examination and in bouting, and if applicable, teaching. I am honored to announce that both Kat Laurange, whom I deeply respect, and Coleman Franchek, whom I just met but took an immediate liking to, both passed and are now instructors within the system.

OF NOTE: Russ, an expert in the Feldenkrais Method, once again and free of charge, helped me with a gimpy hip and the equally wonky wrist he helped me supinate when he was last in Portland–thank you Russ! If you’re in the DFW area, and need help with any movement challenges, see Russ [4]

Russ Feldenkraisening my wonky wrist; Coleman in mirror

FIGHT!

I have two favorite forms of public bouting. Accolade tournaments and exhibition bouts, and to be honest, of the two the latter appeals to me more and more. An “exhibition of arms,” as the name suggests, is a chance to highlight, to celebrate the particular approach to a weapon or system as a master or school envisioned it. The goal is not to win, though that’s nice, but to exemplify as best as possible what makes that tradition unique, distinct from others. There are a number of reasons this is important and useful, but it’s also just plain fun to watch. It says a lot that we kept score mainly just to ensure everyone had a turn to bout everyone else, and it perhaps says that much more than many of us had trouble even doing that. Russ at one point asked his student Jake, currently bouting with me, what the score was and neither of us had remembered to! So, we said “two to two” and kept playing.

We started with bouts between the instructors, one of my favorite things to do, and then each instructor did their best to fight everyone. I mean everyone. It can be exhausting, especially if like me one hasn’t been bouting qua bouting so much as engaging in teaching bouts, but it’s worth the exhaustion. It was a pleasure to cross swords with Russ who is as skilled as he is gracious; these traits are also shared by his students, old and new, and they are seriously challenging opponents. I won’t lie—they are among my favorite people to fight because it is always difficult and always super fun. Last year, Kat trounced me beautifully, and she did so again this year only differently—never saw that long, deep thrust coming since I was so concerned about my wrists lol. Kat is one of those fencers you should fence as often as you can and at any opportunity—she will make you a better fencer. Fighting Russ, Kat, Kevin, Jake, Jacob, Austin 1 and Austin 2, all of the Hussar fencers, was one of the reasons I made the trip. Quentin Armstrong, whom I just met, came to the event from Louisiana and offered me my first bout against someone who really understands Joachim Meyer’s sword in one hand. I am seriously hoping to do that again soon. I didn’t have a chance to fight everyone, so owe the first dance to Ellie and then next to Trevor, but I look forward to that eagerly,

Gratitude

I would like to thank Russ and the fine folk of Winged Sabre Historical Fencing, including not only his students but wonderful partner in life, Anna, for the invite and for taking such good care of us. Kat Laurange waited patiently for me at the airport despite a serious delay, and then graciously gave me a place to stay until we left the next morning (thanks Kat and Scott!). Russ and Anna gave me a lift to the venue and arranged for instructor rooms at the Chateau. Thank you Raoul for such generous use of this beautiful site (https://www.chateau-south.com/)!

Thank you to all the fencers who attended my class, chatted, and worked with me this weekend. I was and remain honored to have taught at The Exhibition and in such good company.

As a final note, before I left for Texas a friend of mine, a life-long martial artist, asked me if this was a paying gig. Having run a do-jang for years he knows how things work. Not being involved in historical fencing, I had to explain to him that for the most part renumeration is not standard, partly because we all do this because we love it, and partly because few programs can afford to cover travel, room and board, and food—most clubs are struggling to acquire the most basic, economically sourced gear that won’t break or fail. Then I told him, that in the case of The Exhibition, this is the sort of event one happily pays to attend. It’s the kind of event one saves money all year to attend. So dedicated are some attendees that they camp on site in tents, despite humidity, bugs, and new this year—tornado warnings! This is important and worth consideration.

NOTES:

[1] cf. https://saladellatrespade.com/2023/04/24/a-bar-raiser/

[2] https://www.ticketleap.events/tickets/chateau-south/exhibition-of-arms

[3] As a note on this, Storica Defensa’s ranking system is not a “belt system” either, but a way a) to categorize competitors by skill level, and b) a way to classify levels of coaching.

[4] https://www.irvingfeldenkrais.com/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2-2VE3_CN6p80i8mZhdsIW58HjErNPRoi1nyA9v-MeD1k2vtlKoNYLlEg_aem_ATY4HDbQ3EnxTDZyQwTDElgc_-24Xn7IU4t1OwHQlXaewpWQ3ajV9WKEwuYYOvE4hYlqL9vhlAVRWOQUOSFPxTVC