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).
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.”
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.
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.
[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.
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
[This is a continuation of the post “How to Tournament” posted yesterday (19 June 2023)–much of what I say here has been said before, including by me, but since it is on theme, here it is anyway]
In part one of “How to Tournament,” I focused mostly on intelligence gathering and assessing the competition. Here, I’d like to discuss mental preparation, a topic covered earlier in part by the “The All-Important Place of Calm” [15 May 2023, https://saladellatrespade.com/2023/06/19/how-to-tournament/]. The approach to managing emotion is key here too, because nerves, excited or fearful or nervous, can derail us no matter how well-trained we are or ready we are to compete and succeed. One way to think of it is akin to drill. We tend to fight as we drill, because we condition ourselves to respond to certain actions and situations and reinforce this via repetition. We can do the same thing mentally—without meaning to sound like Moonbeam the Hippy or some faux guru on tele, cultivating calm and simultaneously picturing ourselves in an event, start to finish, and in specific instances of action, can do much to help us the day of the event. What is familiar is less likely to unsteady us, so from physical training to mental training, we can make even competition just another day sword in hand.
Calm, Revisited
Not to repeat the earlier post, but calm is something we can choose and practice like anything else. In this instance, this means consciously focusing on one’s place in the event and when necessary supplanting negative emotions (nerves, anxiety, fear, whatever) with concrete thought. For the first, visualizing our performance, from the moment we enter the event to specific actions, beforehand can do a lot to prime us. It’s not magic (sorry Moonbeam). Whatever other benefits visualization may have, the process of making something familiar helps remove uncertainty. The more we know something, the more comfortable we are with it, and thus, the less likely nerves take over. [1] [yes, I did just repeat this… see? repetition!]
Duel between an unfortunate braggart and Kyuzo, “Seven Samurai,” 1954
When nerves pop up, and they sometimes will, we’re better prepped to manage them having already envisioned the situation, but we can apply active replacement too. This requires noticing, consciously, that we feel nervous, and then pausing to distance ourselves long enough to set that emotion aside and replace it with something more useful. For example, Fencer X has just completed the first pools, and is nervous about the second. The competitors here are strong and Fencer X begins to doubt. Noticing this, Fencer X stops, takes a deep breath, and says to themselves “No. Focus on what you know. You’ve seen these people fight; you know how to counter them. Relax and have fun.” Conscious thought, that focus, can—with practice—remove some degree if not all of the negative emotion that undermines us in a fight.
Constructive Visualization
In no way is this a nod to crystal-thumping charlatans; I draw upon a few sources for this, but maybe the most important being well-attested memorization protocols. [2] Self-help books from the 1980s aside, all this is really is a form of meditation, just very focused meditation. Simply put, one focuses on imagining oneself at the event. If one can visit the venue first, that helps—gives a face to things. It might help to visualize oneself entering the facility, full of calm, and warming up. Next, one might visualize a specific action one’s been working on lately and successfully executing it in a bout. Perhaps an entire bout, maybe even against a specific opponent, is worth contemplating.
None of this determines the outcome, but what it does do is prime the mind for action and reduce potential nerves. Ideally, one gets on the strip or steps up to the ring and is utterly calm or maybe just in state of happy excitement. One can tell, by the way, when this happens. It shows. I have found in competition, as well as in at least two actual fights (fists, not swords), that steady calm can utterly unnerve some opponents. Calm suggests confidence, and with that, skill. This can affect what judges see too (remember: competition is a game, as psychological as physical if not more the former). [3]
Pre-Tourney Practice
In conjunction with mental preparation, one normally trains physically before an event too. This exercise may take place during regular practices or within individual lessons if one is taking those, but people often add additional drill in the mix too. Much of this may be one’s normal cardio and/or weight etc. training—all ideal times by the way to visualize things the day of.
?
For those practices focused on fencing, emulating the warm-up or pre-competition lesson tends to work best. This style of lesson is similar to a technical lesson, but the goal is to build confidence in the fencer, not to impart new skills. Keep things simple and focus on those actions a fencer does best—drill so as to make these actions as crisp, tight, and well-timed as they can be. Warm-up lessons are also typically short, maybe 10 minutes, tops 15. My approach in the past has been to include some of these types of lesson a few times in the weeks leading up to an event. The week of, we focus hard on these things, and, anything that the fencer may have had trouble with in the past. [4] The day of the event, I would have them warm up, then put them through the same short, 10 minute warm-up. Like contemplating success, this style of lesson has them work things they do well, all of which build confidence and ready them for the pools.
Intent, Expectations, and Take Aways
As in so many things, we get out of them what we put into them, but added to this much comes down to how we do this, what it is exactly that we invest. I tell my students and any colleague I prep for an event, to set goals. What do they want out of this event? How does it fit into their growth and experienced as a fencer? Laying all that out helps set expectations for an event, and thus, helps prevent the common distractions that come up when things don’t go as planned.
Versatility is a vital skill for any fighter—if weapons break, does one have a backup? If one’s tactics are failing, can one notice, adapt, and continue the fight? How does one handle victory in a bout? How does one handle defeat? The culture we create in a club or school goes a long way in shaping and cultivating this skill.
Be gracious, be courteous, and show largesse win or lose. I’m a strong advocate for managing both victory and defeat with a becoming grace and humility. Today it went one’s way—great; tomorrow it might not. No one with any aspiration to sanity dislikes a generous, gracious fighter. In fact, people will want to fight with that person because their heads are screwed on right and they make it fun. Fencers like that make the bout about the bout; they think in terms of a shared, dare I say it intimate experience and not just what these tiny victories might do for their self-worth. Officials like them too, because they don’t whine when they lose a point, even if unfairly, and use proper channels to protest something they find illegitimate or untoward.
After the Event
Conducting a post mortem after the tournament is important. With any fencer I have prepped, I like to follow up with them and see what they thought went well, what not so well, and how the experience might guide future training. This helps me, as their instructor, but it helps them too. It’s a chance to see that what they’ve learning is working as well as those areas that might benefit from additional practice.
Lastly, I always asked them if they had fun. Fencing tournaments, of any kind, are not famous for making any participant rich. We don’t have pay-per-view prize fights with purses to match. In the U.S. one never sees fencing on tele unless it’s the Summer Games and we have high level fencers in the run for medals.
We fight in tournaments, for the most part, because they’re fun. I have written a lot about tournaments and bouting as learning tools, and they are, but they should be enjoyable as well. Looked at in this way, a good tournament (emphasis on good events…), can push our skills forward and be a blast at the same time, and there are not many areas in our lives to day to day where we can often say that.
NOTES:
[1] We are resilient creatures. One of the best, if more extreme examples of this, emerges powerfully from combat and the process by which many military folks become accustomed to the extremes of life-threatening horror. I leave it to those military personnel and veterans willing to talk about it to explain this as they can do so better than I can.
[2] I mean no offense to modern spiritualists etc., just those trying to make a buck off of people. There was a spate of new-agey self-help books in the 1980s that mixed decent advice with a lot of b.s. Check the shelves of most any bookstore and these scams are still on the shelves. There has been a lot of work on how we can use, even improve memory, and condition ourselves. One of the more influential books for me, odd though it may sound, is M. T. Clanchy’s From Memory to Written Record, England 1066-1307, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. I also recommend, for a broader look, Fances A. Yates, The Art of Memory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
[3] I remain convinced that I will never acquit myself better in a fight than I did in the last one I had, or didn’t have rather, in college. A sub-letter got nasty with my girlfriend at the time about rent, and I told him to knock it off. He decided to take it outside, and once outside, kicked off his shoes and danced about posturing. I stood across from him, ready, and waited. At one point he started to approach, so I started to raise my hands and smiled. He stopped, and a few second later walked over with his hand outstretched. Having had excellent masters, I didn’t trust this gesture and made it clear that if it was a ploy it wasn’t going to work. He was, happily, sincere. So, we walked away from the small crowd that had gathered and talked it all out. I was just looking after my girlfriend, and he was trying to save face, both understandable places to land, and since I had no ill will toward him, nor he toward me so far as I know, it was easy to fix.
[4] I didn’t invent this style of lesson. They’re well-known in Olympic circles. For a solid explanation of warm-up lessons, among other types, see Maitre Robert Handelman and Maitre Connie Louie, Fencing Foil: A Practical Training Guide for Coaches, Parents, and Young Athletes, San Francisco, CA: Pattinando Publishing, 2014, 324-325.
17 May-12 Aug 1928: Oreste Puliti (left) of Italy and Gyula Glykais (right) of Hungary fencing during a bout in the Team Sabre event at the 1928 Olympic Games in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The Hungarian Team won the gold and the ItalianTeam the silver medals in this event. Mandatory Credit: IOC Olympic Museum /Allsport
It seems only fair, given how often I have complained about the issues plaguing tournaments, that I should say something about the positive side of these events, and, offer some advice for those who compete in them. I’m not anti-tournament or competition, but I have high standards for them and for several reasons. First, they should be well-run and officiated. Second, they should be safe and the chance of injury reduced as much as possible. Lastly, however important medaling is, however much fun fighting is, tournaments are also learning tools, a chance to see what is working, what needs additional drill, and to test our strategies, tactics, and skill against other fencers.
With few exceptions, my competitive days are behind me, and no, I’m not happy about it. It’s less age than mileage—we pay for the fun of our teens, twenties, and thirties beginning in our forties (if we’re lucky it doesn’t start before then). It’s downhill from there. It’s not just stupid things we did when younger, though that is definitely in the mix, but decades of repetitive motion and too often not healing before starting up again. In one college event, for example, I rolled my ankle the night before, but wanted to compete so just wrapped the affected spot and fought anyway. Sometimes we’re just unlucky—I was in a serious car-accident in 2001 and not only injured my right arm, but in doing so unlocked all the existing trauma that was lying dormant. In an effort to prevent the crash I kept my hands on the wheel, which stretched out my supraspinatus tendon when we rolled, tore the rotator cuff, and released some lovely tennis elbow, the last a result of over-compensating when fencing and playing racquet sports thanks to a poor bone set. We can do a lot for a long time until something happens and we can’t.
PDX Winter Open, 2015, Steel Accolade. Here Will Petillo (in foreground) and I (in white jacket) fence a little sabre.
If time, injuries, and finances allowed, I would still be competing. I enjoyed it until sabre went electric and the flick took over foil. One of my attractions to what would become “HEMA” was the prospect of being able to compete again, but as things have turned out HEMA added new problems to the age-old issues so common in many tournaments. This is not to say that there are not well-run events, because there are—Sabre Slash, held in October each year in Prague, Czechia, and run by my friend Michael Kňažko, is an excellent example. [1] Likewise, I have heard that the Smallsword Symposium is worth attending, though I have yet to make that event. [2] By and large, however, most tournaments are poorly run collections of single-tempo doubles and abysmal officiating.
Until things change, if they do, one can still get something out of tournaments. It’s important to know what one is getting into, but with that caveat, there are several steps one can take not only to have fun at them, but also learn something.
Intelligence Gathering
Obtaining intel about other fighters is far easier to do now thanks to the internet and the tons of footage people share of their bouts on sites like Youtube. Pre-internet the typical way to check out other fighters was to show up at events and watch bouts when one wasn’t fighting. If one was super lucky, maybe there was a VHS tape around with footage, but that could be fishy—was this something the coach saved from a previous event? Hopefully. Or, was it some footage someone shot during another person or team’s training? Far less savory. Today, though, people share their bouts willingly and literally on platforms open to most of the world. Why not use it?
PDX Longsword Summer Tournament, June 2016
The value in studying other fencers is not just to see what they do, but how they do it. While super helpful when we fight them, watching better fencers and/or successful tournament fighters (not always the same thing), can helps us improve our own game. One doesn’t have to engage in intel gathering, but it’s a tried and true part of the game. Yes, game. There is a persistent, but false, notion that tournaments are somehow a “real” test of skill. They are, but not in the way most people think. There are rules, and where there are rules, there are ways to bend or break them, or, manipulate those who are there to enforce them. Thus, familiarizing yourself not only with the rules, but the officials, and players only helps.
The closest affinities between a tournament bout and an actual duel are in psychology and the role of chance. It is a lot easier to be calm, to think clearly, and use what we know when the situation we’re in is known, predictable, and subject to analysis that isn’t spur of the moment. In a sudden fistfight, in contrast, we gather intel as the fight progresses or once it’s over. If we’re smart, we size up a bar, theater, shopping center, etc. and assess potential threats, but that could be my natural bias as an American [3]. Put another way, tournaments provide us an opportunity to gather the same information without pressure and with ample time.
What to Look For: Intangible and Tangible
What should we examine? Start with general aspects. The easy things to assess are physical, such as height and thus reach. We can assess speed, the length of weapon, and the general composure of a fighter under pressure. Are they calm? Are they nervous? Do they rush right in at “allez!” or are they more calculating? If losing, do they lose composure and become wilder? Do they seem able to change tactics? Even knowing what club they’re from will tell you a lot—the fight-club style home to bruisers tend to fight a certain way, as do those from technique-driven schools, those with an Olympic background, etc.
Next, one can examine a fencer’s game and tactics. This is more successful if one knows what one’s seeing. Even sans a deep background and experience, one should be able to tell if a fencer tends to favor feints or actions on the blade or if they just wade in swinging. Does the fencer favor certain attacks? Guards? How well do they use the space in the ring or on the piste? Do they know when to attack or do they just attack whenever they feel like it? [4] Are they open in any line? Is their guard position correct and sufficient to protect them? Do they make a mistake consistently that one might exploit?
Tournaments as Pedagogical Tool
Tournaments should be fun. Ideally, they’re a chance to square off with opponents new and old, and test one’s game. Even in poorly run, shoddy events it’s possible to get something out of it, even if that means only adding another event to the list of those to avoid. Let’s assume the tournament is well-run and large enough to include a range of skillsets. Perhaps one makes it to the finals, perhaps not, but regardless each bout in the event is a learning opportunity. We often talk about competition as the crucible or pressure-cooker for what we’ve been learning, and in large part that is thanks to both the fact we tend to face new opponents and have the added pressure of rules, a clock, and ranking. Much fun as bouting with our weekly foes is, we get comfortable, complacent, and in the worse cases, cocky. Just because our favorite attack always works at home doesn’t mean it will work against unfamiliar opponents.
Competitive fencing, of any kind, can make or break people, and much of it comes down to how they view competitions. If the only goal is to win, and one isn’t winning, then it’s a lot easier to become discouraged. The top fencer at Podunk Sword Club is often shocked by a poor showing at Prominent Sword Club’s major event. Some quit after that, convinced they will never get better or that they are just not “naturals.” Others, however, seek out low-level competitions and sweep them; they like winning and it feds their self-worth needs—this may be the equivalent of an adult beating up a toddler, but somehow they see past that. A better path is to seek out better competitors, because they will push you and force you to grow; this requires, though, an awareness that initially at least one is going to lose a lot. A LOT. Be okay with that and learn from each bout, each fencer. In turn, as one advances, it helps everyone if we do our part to raise others up. Maybe you offer to be a ring-coach for a new fencer; maybe you experience the horrid martyrdom of officiating to help newer fencers see how things should be done; maybe you just offer advice to someone between pools. How we do this is everything—people can get on the ear fast when anyone suggests that they might need help, so be kind, open, and most of all only offer help if you can actually give it.
Over time, with patience, practice, and persistence, we improve, and our tournament experiences change. We’re grateful for the harder, more challenging opponents, and we realize we can never, ever underestimate anyone. Least we shouldn’t. [5] Each opponent is a teacher, each bout a chance to improve or see what needs shoring up, and if we’re really lucky, we have fun at the same time.
[2] My friend and colleague, Dr. Patrick Bratton, has attended this event for several years and has had good things to say about it. Smallsword, far as I can tell, tends to attract people for whom technical ability holds merit, and so while one can—and people have—won by buffaloing their way through the pools, the fencers who stand out are those who are skilled win or lose. Remember, competition = rules = ways to game the system.
[3] I jest, but also, well, depending on where one is this is an important skill. We shoot people at schools and theaters here, so…
[4] For example, there are ideal and less ideal time to attack. Some modern masters refer to looking for moments when the opponent is in “negative balance,” that is, as they just begin an action (especially if just out of distance), if they’re taking a step, or if they’ve just attacked and fallen short, since upon recovery from the lunge they’re less capable of covering themselves. [5] One of the axioms I teach is that we should never underestimate anyone. The best fencer can have a bad day, the worst a great day. History has plenty of examples where underestimating an opponent had dire consequences. Remember Signore Cavalotti, https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/66694588
“Discord is the great ill of mankind; and tolerance is the only remedy for it.” ― Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary
[Warning: rant ensues]
The choice of quotation is not an accident. Thanks to a toxic mix of politics and poor life choices I left most social media a few years ago, and, with one exception (barring messenger/email apps), have next to nothing to do with it. Research articles on the effects of social media continue to support my belief that this was a good decision. It’s not just that people can’t watch or read anything longer than a tiktok video or tweet, but that the supposed anonymity fails to prevent, and maybe even encourages them to be nastier than they would be, in most cases, to one’s face. How does this related to fencing? I promise to connect A and B if you keep reading.
It gets worse. Swimming in such a shallow pool feels safe, because everything is on the surface, but this ignores that fact that one can still be sunburned, even drown in an inch of water. It changes people.
The faux familiarity, the apparent openness, and the need for connection that social media seeks to create but which it actually undermines, all produce an illusory culture of contented seemingly intimate pals. Test it. Say something vaguely controversial and see how people react—the ability to differentiate between confirmed belief and a joke is all but nonexistent; lacking facial cues, changes in intonation, etc., this is hardly surprising. It is not an accident, however, that this diminished capacity for communication and an equally strong inability to separate criticism and censorship have grown in parallel.
Gate-keeping online is the new Inquisition, not only for the social auto de fe that so often follows in its wake, but also for the fact that the basis for it is confused.
There are a lot of ways people define “gate-keeping,” but I find that the Urban Dictionary, while typically an amalgam of denotations, taken in toto provides a fair sense of what contemporary terms and movements mean. Here are a few from the first two pages of definitions:
Gatekeeping is to make your interests exclusive in order to protect them from becoming “mainstream”
When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.
A word used to describe when someone sets a standard/limit on what someone must do to call themselves a ‘true fan’ of something/someone.
When someone uses a hobby or interest as a means of elevating themselves above others to give oneself a sense of being superior transforming their passion or knowledge about a particular subject into an ugly tool of self-inflation
When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who has access to something
When people discriminate against others who want to enjoy the same things as them, and usually gatekeepers use the dumbest reasons as excuses [1]
For a slightly more august definition, the Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “the activity of trying to control who gets particular resources, power, or opportunities, and who does not. [2]
More than once I’ve been accused of gatekeeping, but according to these definitions I have not, in fact, been gate-keeping. No, I have criticized poorly constructed theories, ineffective training regimens, inexpert translations and interpretations, and bigots. This is important, because what I have NOT done is:
make my interests exclusive in order to protect them from becoming “mainstream”
set a standard/limit on what someone must do to call themselves a ‘true fan’ of something/someone
used a hobby or interest as a means of elevating myself above others to give myself a sense of being superior or transformed my passion or knowledge about a particular subject into an ugly tool of self-inflation
decided who has access to something
discriminated against others who want to enjoy the same things as me, and for the dumbest reasons
I would love for well-researched, well-coached, and inclusive historical fencing to take off and become mainstream. I have no business telling people what they can or should like—people like what they like. This hobby, well, um, it does not elevate one socially at all and those who, sadly, think it does I feel pity and compassion for—fencing is not going to help you find a date, fame, or money. Historical fencing should be for all—the only people I will not teach or interact with are people who are known bigots. [3] Finally, I have trouble understanding why anyone would discriminate against people who share the same interests—hell, I’d all but kill for more people interested in the things I am!
Here is what I do and will continue to do:
I will continue to support good research, and, attempt to improve bad research
I will continue to do my part, as an educator, researcher, and fencer to support, make, and improve interpretations of historical fencing
I will continue to do my part to create an inclusive culture (bigots either get wise or fuck off)
I will endeavor, as I have to date, to do all of this with compassion and understanding, because historical research and interpretation is, by its nature, extremely difficult to do and even harder to do well
Lastly, I issue a challenge. The next time you think someone is gate-keeping, take the time to consider a) what gate-keeping is and b) if what you find unpleasant conforms to those rubrics or not. IF, as so often happens, you’re simply reading something that you don’t like, or which you somehow think is about you, or which makes you feel attacked, pause and consider the likelihood of that. As I’ve said, most things are not about us. It’s probably not about you, and you know, if someone my age can figure out how to mute a channel or thread, then you can too. Like it or not you’re responsible for your feelings and how you react, not me. I take care of my garden, you take care of yours. That’s what wearing grown-up pants is all about kids.
In our context, if you’re upset that a cherished theory has been challenged or that some old, obscure upstart has dared accuse some HEMALand darling you admire of poor work, reflect upon what that says about you.
I am not interested in making enemies; I’m interested in good research and fulfilling my duty as a trained researcher to steer people right about research. It comes with the sheepskin. This said, if calling out charlatans and would-be experts creates enemies of them, or you, fine. IF I’ve taken the time to call them out, there is a reason, and it has nothing to do with self-aggrandizement, attacking others, or just being an asshole. It’s not like anyone thanks me for it—getting attaboys is not the purpose: improving research is. I don’t need or want thanks or anything of the sort, just better research.
If I’ve called someone out about their work [key word, their work, not they themselves], it’s because I know they lack the skill, experience, and/or knowledge to make the claims they are or have made a grave error and are fooling people about it. Most people, wisely, don’t pursue research as a career-path, and so there is a responsibility on those of us who do to do right by all. Theories and interpretations are things we can evaluate, that are demonstrable, and either someone has those skills or doesn’t; either they’ve proceeded responsibly with their research, or they haven’t. The only time this gets “mean” is in HOW we call these things into question. It is never my intention to be mean—life is cruel enough and hardships a plenty without my adding to it.
Please note: my goal in throwing myself up for a beat-down when I offer criticism (that is, critiques to help someone improve or fix a position they are sharing) is intended to help them, not blast them. I spent over a decade learning to conduct research and another decade honing and teaching others to reason and analyze information. I want people to do better work. Too many academics could care less, and most wouldn’t bother trying to help non-academics improve. There’s a direct correlation between depth of snootiness and lack of resources that explains that; put another way, many academics are small people and sad. For me, the so-called Ivory Tower is bloody useless if its treasures are hoarded away only to be enjoyed by the three people in that field (see gatekeeping defintions 1, 2, 4-6 above…). I won’t be party to that, and so, I do what I can to share those treasures with everyone, and for reasons of time, interest, and experience, I do that mostly in historical fencing.
[3] By kn0wn-bigots I mean those who wear all the symbols and spout the trash that bigots do. If they don’t say these things in class, and attack no one, then I don’t know about and they fly under the radar. Locally, at least, people know from the main page on this site that bigots are not welcome.
Following on the heels of the last post (about the place of calm in our study of the Art), the following may feel like overkill, but it’s related and as important. Among the deceased equines to which I regularly apply a cat o’ nine tails is the problem of ego. Ego gets in our way; it impedes growth. Over concern with how we will be perceived affects calm; it takes us out of the moment. With our own path to self-improvement, just as in most any larger venture, we tend to succeed best when we don’t get in the way.
Why harp on so much about ego and arrogance? It goes beyond my own study and experience with the martial arts or life-experience, though the combination has done nothing to shake my belief that arrogance and misplaced confidence are bad for us and everyone else. Great confidence can read, sadly, like competence—that’s how unfit businessmen become president for example—but they’re different, and there are consequences to a misguided and overblown sense of self, just as there is in placing our faith in someone else’s inflated sense of self.
The Font of Awesomeness-ness
James Earl Jones as Thulsa Doom in 1982’s “Conan the Barbarian”
Arrogance has a variety of sources, but at the root is low self-esteem. I’m not a psychologist, so I say that as an observer and fellow human who wrestles with ego like anyone else, but I think it holds. In some, arrogance is a mask, a persona they adopt to navigate social environments in which they’re uncomfortable (or maybe all environments). For others, too high an opinion of themselves derives from life-long coddling and commensurate insulation that never put any of the wonderful things they heard growing up to the test. Still others truly believe in their own greatness. Whatever the reason, the egotistical person is generally less inclined to listen, to consider other opinions, or play well with others. They always know better.
Miles Gloriosus
Arrogance is common in fencing as indeed it is in most combat sports. In part, it’s theater—Mariel Zagunis, for example, in the gold medal bout in Athens 2004, more convincingly ripped her mask off and screamed than did her opponent, Xue Tan (China), and went onto win. On the other hand, there are people who for one reason or another think they are the Chevalier St. Georges or La Maupin reborn.
Basis for this is emotional, not rational. On the one hand, typical big fish/little pond dynamics often weigh into things, especially with regard to individual clubs and in tournaments. On the other hand, it’s easy for some to convert an activity they enjoy into a sense of identity; the more narrow that identity is, the easier it is to take criticism poorly. It becomes a personal slight rather than a comment on the acquisition of a difficult skillset (learning to fence is not easy for anyone).
Big Fish & Identity
One compounding problem that clouds the fact that emotion drives so much of this is the place of the false-positives people take away from events and practices that on the surface appear neutral. More often perhaps than anyone should I’ve mentioned the iffy waters of the tournament scene as the litmus test for skill. It’s not. There are a host of considerations about competition that undercut the lesson so many take away from these events.
Those without serious competitive experience tend to fall prey to the lie more than others. Those who do have that experience and claim it counts for more than it does generally have benefited personally and thus have a vested interest. No one who’s made a name for themselves is quick to question the legitimacy of how that name was made. Zagunis, for example, is very good at the game that sabre has devolved into, but would likely take it badly should someone point out issues with edge alignment, the place of doubles, etc. in her fencing. It’s human nature.
Leaving aside issues with rulesets and officiating, it’s the collective level of ability that defines what first place means. This is important. Too often each tournament is approached as if neutral, as if medaling by definition reveals the superior fighter. It “can,” but it’s not automatic, and superior… how? In relation to whom? Only to who showed up and who had less of a good day than the winner. First place at Event X really only provides data for that one day and that group of fencers. The outcome form the same pools next week could look very different.
An important caveat is that this is not always the case—proper training and knowledge of tactics (both on the strip/in the ring and as far as playing to the director go) will normally out. The mistake is assuming that this particular skilled fencer is the same as the attribute fencer. The former, through skill, can win through the application of skill; the latter relies mostly on reach, speed, or strength. They’re not the same. The more actual, high-level fencers (which can be evaluated) at an event, the more likely that victory in that event means something.
“HEMA” in particular suffers from this—many events, even large ones, might collect a lot of attendees, but the actual skill level is generally quite low. [1] To win at one of these events speaks to stamina, no doubt, but so much of it is a roll of the dice. Attribute fencers do extremely well, as most rulesets don’t and in many ways can’t adjust for physical advantage. A rapier fencer over 6’ with a 42” weapon is going to have an edge over the 5’4” fencer with a 40” blade. Even when that taller fencer makes some daft action, something suicidal, their reach will often win out. The trog that blasts through any guard because he can isn’t better, just less concerned for his opponent’s safety. After all, what’s a double if it helps one “win,” right? No one was hurt, at least hurt too badly, so what’s it matter? Stupid, yes, but evident in most tournament footage. How these same fighters reconcile being hit so often, especially with doubles, and the purported concern for realism in so-called historical martial arts, isn’t a mystery—there sense of self demands it. It must be “good” fencing because they won. Their sense of self, their self-worth, requires that they be the best and be recognized as such. However untrue that might actually be, it feels true, and in large degree too many people believe that what feels true is true. Extreme political stances, be it qanon idiocy or the belief that vaccinations cause autism, are prime examples outside of fencing. Effective self-reflection is a lot harder to do when those around one help feed the fires of fandom. Too few fencers examine their need for victory, but they should.
To compound matters, those who can afford to attend many events and do well, gather a data set of victories, and with it a subsequent belief in their own ability based on false premises. On the face of it, multiple victories appear meaningful, and in some degree it is for that individual’s own progress, maybe, but what does it mean beyond that? It depends on many factors. Are all tournaments equal? Was the level of skill that high at each and every one of them? What ruleset was in use? How did they game the ruleset? How good were the officials? Much of HEMA is judged by the other competitors, most as green as their colleagues, so how accurately they understand let alone see what is happening is an open question more often than not.
To reiterate: I’m not against tournaments. I’m not against competition when approached correctly. [2] Every competitor, every instructor involved in training them, must understand the nature of tournament fighting and adjust for it (a topic for another time).
The Would-be Maisters
Arrogance can be infuriating in a student or opponent, but it can be a recipe for disaster with a coach. This said, in many endeavors, and fencing perhaps first among them outside ballet, coaches are often extremely full of themselves. When that same proud instructor gets results, people tend to look the other way. This is a lot easier to get away with in the Olympic world. There are three weapons, and there are three-weapon masters; to achieve that one must have at least a solid grasp of each one. In “HEMA,” however, there is no such oversight program or board for an instructor’s competence, and even sadder, a fair degree of active hostility toward those from closely related certification programs who might, conceivably, bring up the teaching level. There are a lot of people teaching, but not all have ample background to do so well.
Tim Roth as the smug Macaroni, Cunningham, in “Rob Roy” (1995)
Thus, a second problem with ego is that extends beyond misjudging our own ability or knowledge—it reaches into misjudging and assessing that of others too. To use another contemporary example, a half-wit pundit may appear on tele utterly convinced of a position, but nothing about that confidence or the smug delivery says a single thing about the accuracy of the message. People see the delivery and take it for the thing itself.
In the martial arts, and specifically in this case in historical fencing, there are those who put great weight on people who for lack of a better term are “celebrities.” They are known, and for that reason alone some have faith in them. To be fair, there are times when that faith is warranted, but that faith should be measured against demonstrable skill, knowledge, and importantly, suitability to a topic. If I may, I feel confident to speak on things Radaellian sabre, French smallsword, or late period rapier, but know I have no business teaching Brazilian Jiu Jitsu or Mair’s polearms. I know what they are, and I’ve read about them, and know people who actively study those branches of the Art, but I myself am not qualified and shouldn’t do anything more than point an interested party to those people. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
Cartoon of Egerton Castle (1905)
An inflated ego can blind us to the expertise around us. A big head more easily leads us to see what we want to see, not what is actually there. More times than I can count I’ve seen a HEMA player discount a person of experience, skill, and smarts in favor of some Youtube personality. In the best cases, that celebrity (again, small “c”) is good at something and/or has some serious training under their belts, but anyone can set up a Youtube channel and unless one knows what to look for it’s easy to be taken in and fall prey to these would-be experts. Few, luckily, fall into the same category as the fake martial arts masters who look at a room full of students and knock them down through a glance chockablock full o’ chi, but all the same, some get close. There is a prominent tourney goer, for example, that has fetishized his off-hand. Apparently, no one has told him that unless there is a weapon in that off-hand, such as a dagger or buckler, that no one should be looking at it. Ever. There’s no reason too. IF people are falling for this hand sans puppet or marotte, that doesn’t mean that the puppeteer has done anything other than select an event where the average skill is so low that competitors don’t know this. Given that a new foilist learns not to pay mind to the rear arm should illuminate just how sad this is.
As a last example, there are prominent figures who have skill, but misapply it. Were I to offer a class on poleaxe based on late French foil play I would be doing my students a disservice. The universals apply no matter what weapon, but how they apply, differs not only by shape, heft, and purpose, but context too. However, there are well-known personalities who do exactly this, who take a weapon they are proficient with and create a methodology they then attempt to apply to unrelated weapons. At best it confuses things, at worst students—should they continue—will realize one day that their time, effort, and significant financial investment… would have been better spent reading the actual manuscripts, wrestling with the difficult material, and talking to those who have done so before them. There is no royal road to skill. Get your ego out of the way and do the work.
“If You’ve got a Black-List, I Want be on It”
His antiquated and unfortunate politics aside, Billy Bragg’s line seems an appropriate one with which to close. [3] I know, should some read this post, that they will take it personally and call me names. That’s okay. Go nuts. Some may even recognize the unnamed examples I’ve provided and take affront. That too is okay. I stand by what I said—ego needs make for poor choices and big egos make for poor role models.
Age and experience offer little consolation to us, but two things they do offer are perspective and less need for recognition. I’ve spent considerable time taking myself out of the way; I think it helps, not only in my personal life, but as importantly in the larger projects in which I choose to participate. A desire for public validation tends to distract us and detract from what it is we wish to do, and what’s more important, the work (if it is important) or that people know we were involved? As a coach, what is more important, my experience during a lesson or the student’s? What matters more, how that lesson appears to others, or the content of that lesson and its effectiveness in conveying information? The correct answer is the student’s experience, because otherwise why is one coaching?
I don’t need my name in lights, and don’t want it to be for that matter. I don’t need widespread recognition, because just trying to do the best I can for students and colleagues is work enough. I’m content to be one way-station on what my prove a long path for my students. If I help them when they need it, and it moves them forward to wherever they’re going, then I’ve done my part, whether they or anyone else remembers that I did it. I don’t need lots of medals, a social media presence, or any of the other stuff that would take my focus from what I do well and care about.
Not everything is about me, and in fact, very few things are about me. It’s not usually about you either. When we know who we are and what we stand for, that fact tends to stand out pretty starkly. Our egos suggest to us that everything is about us, but few things are; the belief that it’s about us is no more true at 30 than it was at 3.
Get out of your way.
NOTES:
[1] The average skill level in HEMA is poor. Those inside HEMA are accustomed to what they see and scale within that, but the bar never having been high, there is only so “good” most people get. I’m talking average HEMA here, not everyone. I’ve mentioned a number of excellent students of the Art in these posts, and will do so again. The point is that much of what people see, if they knew better, would not impress them.
[2] What tourneys are for is debatable, but in addition to being good fun—ideally, they are also an additional method of learning. Yes, it’s nice to win, but bouting is to fencing what a pressure cooker is to the ingredients in a dish.
[3] Billy Bragg is proof of something my graduate advisor often said in re Communism—the only place it was alive and well post 1989 was in one or two offices at Oxford or Cambridge. Mr. Bragg, whom I believe has a good heart, championed the pie-eyed politics of Marx, something I suspect easier to do even in Thatcher’s England than in East Berlin or the gulags of the former U.S.S.R.
Having received some upsetting news and struggling with the mix of disappointment and rage that ensued, I got to thinking about the place of calm, not only in our lives, but also within the Art. We fight best when we are unemotional, calm, and receptive. Emotion clouds judgment. That is a lesson, a karmic burden, that I keep bumping into again and again, and in too many areas. Clearly, I have a long way to go. The question with regard to the Art is how do we cultivate that calm? Moreover, how do we teach it?
The Sword and the Mind
The heading is a nod to an excellent book, The Sword and the Mind, a collection of works on swordsmanship translated by Hiroaki Sato. In one section, Setsunintō (volume two in the book), the author wrote
listening to the sound of the wind and water means maintaining a calm surface and a fighting spirit within…just as a waterfowl afloat on the water maintains an outward calm while using its webbed feet busily below, so must the mind inside be kept on guard. And if you continue your training in this fashion, the mind inside and outside will melt into one, and the distinction between the two will disappear. To attain this state is the ultimate of the ultimate. [1]
This idea is something rarely if ever expressed in western European sources, least I’ve not encountered it in anything I remember reading. The attention to our state of mind, however, shows up a lot in East Asian works on the martial arts. In particular, the impact of Chan/Zen Buddhism on the fighting disciplines was profound. My early training was in East Asian martial arts and as I’ve remarked before my years studying those systems have influenced my approach to fencing. I see the Art not only as the pursuit of self-defense and combat skills, but more importantly as a means by which to grow, improve, and odd as it may sound, cultivate empathy and compassion. More so than any other portion of life, work, school, etc., it’s the Art that has given me the most. Thus, in my own training I’ve worked hard on the mental aspect. I’ve also tried to help my students toward this same quiet-mind.
In the west, the term we most often use for this state today is “flow,” a very modern concept in terminology and one perhaps popularized most by the work of Mihály Csíkszentmihályi and Jeanne Nakamura. The idea of “flow” has since been popularized in Csíkszentmihályi’s book Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience and in his TED talk, among many other, similar titles by other writers. [2] The basic premise is that in flow
Concentration is so intense that there is no attention left over to think about anything irrelevant, or to worry about problems. Self-consciousness disappears, and the sense of time becomes distorted. An activity that produces such experiences is so gratifying that people are willing to do it for its own sake, with little concern for what they will get out of it, even when it is difficult, or dangerous. [3]
This state is possible to reach via many methods, but for me I have encountered this state most often when fighting, and, typically when fighting a particularly skilled opponent. The thing is that entering a state of flow, and thus of calm in a sense, doesn’t happen automatically or without some degree of training, least in terms of the fighting arts. I fought empty-hand and with weapons for a long time before ever entering flow.
What I’ve come to realize, however, is that even if we aren’t in a state of flow, we can still cultivate the calm typically required for it to appear.
Cultivating Calm: Body and Mind
We tend to be more relaxed when we are confident. Some assurance that we know what we’re doing, that we can react appropriately, tends to make it easier to perform. For fencing, a key part of acquiring that confidence derives from the often monotonous practice of drill. There is no royal road to skill—one must put in the time. One of the things I advise in teaching students how to drill, especially on their own, is to remove the emotion they may have about it. I do the same thing with my own children when it comes to chores, homework, or anything unpleasant.
How? Well, we feel what we feel, right or wrong, appropriate or no, but how we feel doesn’t have to guide action. So, when a student says “Ugh, I hate drills… they’re so boring,” I reply “I know, but they’re important—take a minute and feel as strongly and passionately as you wish. When you feel ready, take those feeling and set them aside.” The analogy I give them is washing dishes—I work from home and do a lot of the housework. I don’t “like” housework. It’s not fun. So what? It must be done irrespective of how I feel, so, I simply apply no emotion to it. It just… is. This approach not only makes the task less unpleasant, but also makes it faster and less disruptive, particularly if I have other, more important or pleasant goals to meet during the day.
It takes practice to remove emotion. A LOT of practice. As a caveat, this does not mean one doesn’t feel things or that one shouldn’t; that is unhealthy. Feel. You’re human and feeling is part of our lot. The trick is to feel the emotion, whatever it is, acknowledge its legitimacy, and then consciously decide not to allow that feeling to drive thought or action.
Between the two, physical training with its repetition, correction, and perfecting, and, the mental aspect of setting aside emotion, we can more effectively reach a place of calm. When we work a this, and I do mean work at it, we find that one of the places where we are actually the most quiet, the most calm, is en garde. The conscious efforts we make toward that calm reap unconscious rewards. I’m not usually aware that I’m calm. It’s usually in retrospect or if I am actively thinking about my mental state when fencing.
Proof is in the Bouting
As a proof for the vital place of calm, if my own testimony is unconvincing, I offer the example of my friends at Winged Sabre Historical Fencing. One of my favorite fencers is Russ Mitchell—he’s a formidable and gracious opponent, and, one hell of a teacher. Rarely have I faced another school’s students and faced what I did in Texas a few weeks ago. From his senior student, Kat, to some of his newer students, what impressed me most was their calm, the lack of frenetic energy and motion that often accompanies not only new fencers, but some of the most seasoned (not all who bounce in modern epee do so tactically…).
One of the fencers I had the pleasure to fight was Kevin. He’s a bit older than me, and has only been at this for a few years, but I will be the first to tell you that between his being unflappable and the terrifying effectiveness of the Hussar system Russ teaches, I had my work cut out for me. To his credit, Kevin asked me after the bout what he did wrong so that he could work on things. I wasn’t sure how my answer would go over, but I led off with “well, let me tell you what you did right—everything.” He dominated that bout. I might have hit him once, but I know and am honest enough to admit he controlled the action and stymied my every attempt to get past that blasted middle-guard lol
Some of the Attendees late Saturday, 22 April 2023 (photo by Annamarie Kovacs); Kevin is, I believe, in the mask on the left
I mentioned that his calm, something I noticed in all of Russ’ students, was the key. It allowed them the space and level-headedness to use what they had learned. I was–and remain–extremely impressed with what I saw from Russ’ fencers at the St. George’s Day Exhibition of Arms. This speaks to a master’s command of material and pedagogy, and while Russ may not have the sheepskin with maestro written upon it, he is one of the few people I consider a master in historical fencing. I have yet to pick his brain for how he approaches the cultivation of calm, but it’s on my list of things to ask wiser heads than mine.
Drill and Presence
For those interested in this, reading Csikszentmihályi’s book might help, but so too will practicing both purposeful shelving of emotion and drill. In class, in the lesson, or on one’s own, getting out of our own way is the key to progress. Much as one can, acknowledge the emotion that arises, then set it aside and actively focus on the task. In time, with practice, this process becomes more and more automatic. If it helps, read up on both western ideas of “flow” and the more philosophical works on fencing—use what applies, leave the rest. [4] It is worth the effort and time to cultivate calm—it will not only help one improve, but also make fencing a lot more fun and rewarding.
NOTES:
[1]The Sword and the Mind, translated by Hiroaki Sato, Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press, 1986, p. 71.
[2] See especially Nakamura J, Csikszentmihályi M, “Flow Theory and Research,” in Handbook of Positive Psychology, Snyder CR, Lopez SJ (eds.), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 195–206. See also Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2008. For the TED Talk, cf. https://lateralaction.com/articles/mihaly-csikszentmihalyi/
[3] Csíkszentmihályi, Flow, 71.
[4] For a few places to start, consider Taisen Deshimaru, The Zen Way to the Martial Arts, New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1991; Joe Hyams, Zen in the Martial Arts, New York, NY: Penguin Putnam, 1979; Michael Maliszewski, Spiritual Dimensions of the Martial Arts, Tokyo, JP: Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc., 1996; also worth a read Pema Chodron’s When Things Fall Apart, Boston, MA: Shambhala, 1997. I suggest the following with caution as it’s very much a product of its environment, 18th century Samurai culture, and should be approached with an awareness that Hagakure by Yamamoto Tsunetomo reflects not only a disappointed warrior’s views of a changing world, but these ideas as recorded by another samurai, Tashiro Tsuramoto. The edition I have is Hagakure:The Book of the Samurai, translated by William Scott Wilson, New York, NY: Kodansha International, 1983.
Capitale Escrime Historical Fencing 