Tag: hema research

Ft. Ligonier French Fencing Weekend

I’ve been meaning to write something up since I returned late Tuesday, but between work and an unexpected veterinarian adventure, I’ve not had time to do this event justice. It was, in a word, amazing, and so much so that I truly hope it becomes a regular event. Patrick Bratton and team put on one hell of a seminar–it was not just the classes, though those were great, but that the setting was apropos and unique, we had behind-the-scenes access to some of the museum, and ample chances to eat, laugh, and get to know one another. Yes, we also fenced, or many did–it was all I could do not to break my doctor’s orders and jump in, but for once I was a grown-up about it (and appropriately as bitter as a toddler told “no”).

By most definitions, I don’t think people would consider me particularly “lucky,” but when it comes to finding myself at truly impressive, informative, and fun events, I’m as rich as Croesus. To the list of favorites–SabreSlash, The St. George’s Day Exhibition of Arms, Rose and Thorns Historical Fencing Symposium–I can now add a fourth, Patrick’s French Fencing weekend. One reason, beyond the obvious draw of all things hoplological or fencing-related, is that it combined three branches of the community: historical, Olympic, and reenactment. The benefits of such cross-over should be obvious, but may not be, so to illustrate this I cite the example of a fascinating chap, Matthew Schlicksup, an artisan of historical footwear currently working at Ft. Ticonderoga in New York.

Historical Artisans

Matthew makes historical footwear, among other period items, and is a master craftsman. Trained in Williamsburg, Virginia, he has made shoes, attended events, and conducted research that most of us might not think about, and, despite the fact we all wear shoes. We take them for granted. Ft. Ligonier, however, has the world’s largest collection of period shoes thanks to the accident of 18th century castoffs and the powers of anaerobic preservation. An archaeologist in initial training, Matthew brings science to his craft, and with impressive results.

This weekend he shared, and wore, his version of the fencing shoes or sandals depicted in de la Touche’s seminal treatise, Le vrays principes de l’espée seule (1670). So, here we are at an historical fencing seminar with a man who makes shoes from the period for that very purpose. This may not seem important, but it is. A few years ago I spent considerable time researching the development of the lunge and this included a look at footwear–would that I had known Matthew then! In discussion with him about de la Touche’s sandal, I learned so much more than I might have, not only about construction, but also about how such shoes function. Put simply, this was a window into period fencing via a single often unconsidered artifact.

Museum

Our host at Ft. Ligonier, Matthew Tristan, was accommodating, supportive, and generous with his time. It was he who gave us the behind-the-scenes tour. It says a lot that he and the foundation were open to having us there: a busy historical site and nuts with swords sounds like an insurance adjustor’s nightmare. With Patrick and others in period dress, and quick to chat with visitors, it went well and we hope added something to the experience. When trusted with the safety of the site and its guests, one wants to do all one can to make it go well, and under Patrick’s excellent leadership this was not even in question. With all the discussion of clubs losing insurance because of unsafe and/or stupid activities, with some unfortunate high-profile legal cases, a win like this is easy to dismiss. We shouldn’t–this was a success and a sign that things can be done correctly.

Classes

In terms of classes, I participated as much as I was able–stupid injury maintenance–but was super keen to see what Justin Aucoin did with the work of Charles Besnard, one of my favorite masters. Justin has long experience with fencing and the SCA, and runs a seriously fantastic class. People loved his classes. I loved his classes. He taught one on Besnard and a second on the bâton à deux bouts or French double-spear in Pascha. I had been looking forward to meeting Justin for some time–Patrick spoke highly of him, I liked what I saw in his videos, and he is a die-hard fan of Dumas and The Three Musketeers, that last fact which immediately endeared him to me.

Justin combines deep knowledge with obvious skill and a passion for his topic. It’s infectuous. Moreover, he works with a diverse student population–always a good sign–and so was quick to suggest work-arounds and ideas to make each thing he covered work for different folks. If he is teaching anything near you or you have the chance to travel to work with him, do.

Bridge-Building

I tend to gravitate towards and work with other folks interested in bridge-building. It’s not just the strengths that collaborative work brings, but the sort of people that go in for it. Among these, I have worked most often outside my immediate surroundings with Patrick. He is, quite honestly, a model coach and advocate for what we do. As a trained teacher (he’s a professor at a college in Pennsylvania), researcher, fencer, and man of eclectic and fascinating interests, from vintage fashion to hunting lore, Patrick perhaps more easily combines disparate strings together to make a viable tapestry.

The historical reenactment group he is involved in, a detachment of mid-18th century French marines, has worked at Ft. Lignonier, among others, before, and it was an ideal location for a look at several late 17th century fencing masters. Some students were in costume, some not, but the addition of period appearance added a lot. Having good relations with the museum staff meant not only a chance to hold the seminar on site, but also see parts of the museum most people do not see. The historian and former archaeologist in me was seriously thrilled about that, but I wasn’t alone.

The only other event that I have attended that combined all these elements so successfully was my mentor Master Michael Knazko and company’s SabreSlash–we had fencers from all walks, reenactors from Krakow (17th Polish hussars), and tours of various sites within Prague relating to fencing (among other historical subjects). In both cases the camaraderie was the finest.

A Model for Future Events

Until recently, until this latest trip actually, I had planned some invitational tournaments. Now, while there may be a tournament element, I am planning to put together something closer to what Patrick and Maestro Knazko have done. It’s a good mix–class for those who like it, some history and other activities (we ate well for example), and some fencing or lessons. It is my hope that Patrick makes this event a regular one–we’ll be lucky if he does.

Continuous Education is for Everyone

Invitation in Fifth

I have had less time to post thanks to a demanding day-job, but with the return of one of my advanced sabre students I had the joy to teach an individual lesson this morning. As so often happens when we have an hour, we drilled but also had time to explore the whys and hows of aspects of the drill in great detail. This student is a quick study–she is extremely intelligent, athletic, and possesses a solid background in foil, all of which mean she has questions. I like questions.

Coming up, no master I’ve studied under brooked questions during the lesson, but most of these lessons were short, 15 to 20 minutes, 30 depending on how many of us were in attendance. Questions were for after the lesson. My student this morning drives in from the city and we meet half-way–given the distance and the fact we only meet once a week the lessons are longer, usually an hour, and so there is time for discussion. I want to make it worth her while and provide her enough material to practice on her own.

We covered some difficult material this morning, Barbasetti’s counter-prime and counter-quinte (pp. 45-46), and since I am deep into study for my master’s exam, I have had more occasion to think about these in detail. The description of them is brief as they assume the reader either has a working knowledge of them, is studying to become a master, or is working with a coach as well as reading the text. [1]

To dive straight into these useful but rarely covered techniques, even for an advanced student, is unwise. It is better to lead up to them, to show one’s math as it were, and so our warm-up consisted of exploring simple parry-ripostes in each line. Next, we examined two of the circular parries, “counter-parries” in Barbasetti, namely counters of tierce and quarte. We had not covered these for a while, so it was good drill. Once we added movement, things changed, and this afforded me a chance to introduce counter-quinte and counter-prime.

The Master’s words explain them better than I can:

Counter-Prime and Counter-Quinte

The key aspects to note at the start are first that one employs these measures at close distance, often while while still in the lunge. Second, they work best advancing, which means a recovery forward into guard as one executes the counter. As I explained to my student, these two measures are sort of in between static, simple parries, and parries via molinello. They are, however, “active” parries, more cuts into the riposte than blocks.

My student asked me why we would use circular parries or these two counters. Excellent questions. Again, the master has an answer, but one I might expand upon a bit. Barbasetti wrote

But why not employ simple parries, since the counter-parries offer so many difficulties?

The object of these two parries is to put you in an advantageous position for the defense by means of unexpected movements.

The regular study of these parries trains your mechanism to such an extent that all complicated movements afterward seem easy to perform. [p. 46]

These are important considerations. Maestro Couturier made a similar point, as did his assistant Brian Peña, when I asked about some seriously complicated drills they had us do, ones with multiple feints, change beats, everything. It was, as I now say too, “medicine for the hand,” meaning that drilling complicated actions helps sharpen simpler ones. When I asked Brian when I would use this set of actions, he said “Oh, you wouldn’t; that isn’t why we do this type of drill.” Looking back on it, that was a key moment for me in my development as a fencer, one of those times were I realized just how much more to fencing there is than technique or actions.

It is the same here. Barbasetti also remarks that these counter parries improve our simple ones. He adds, however, that they can be “unexpected movements,” which is to say options when simple parries aren’t working and/or tactical choices. For example, if my opponent feints to my inside line and I parry quarte initiating their disengage, the simplest response is to return to tierce. Let’s say I do that twice during a bout. My opponent, if I’m lucky, believes that this is my response–if I have made that action on purpose to set them up (a species of second intention), I will surprise them when the third time I used the counter-parry of quarte.

It was a good lesson, one that generated considerable discussion about the actions themselves, but also and significantly putting them to work in real time. One of our primary goals is not to be hit at all versus considerations of right-of-way, so exploring how to make counter-parry-ripostes and use counter-prime or quinte and avoid being hit made for specific choices in terms of both the line the riposte would take as well as considerations of footwork. Though we do not read about it much in the Radaellian corpus, traverse steps, off-line footwork is implicit in the system. Sure, the intagliata and inquartata were and are standard subjects in Italian fencing, but there are options akin to them we can employ too. [2]

Much of what we covered today is material I’ve taught countless times at this point, but what stood out to me, and the reason for writing this post, is how much better the lesson went today because of my current study. At least as early as Fiore dei Liberi (fl. 1400) masters have advocated adding the study of treatises in one’s training, and today reminded me of the value in doing so. Because I teach historical fencing, I most often work from texts, but my study of Barbasetti is, in many ways, closer because I have to be able to answer, best I can, anything my masters in Prague ask me. [3]

Continuing education, study, is not just for exams. It’s something we should do all the time, forever, as long as we fence and teach. One of today’s lessons, for me, was to take this same granularity of study and apply it each week. This means spending more time pondering, examining, and experimenting with the ideas, techniques, and actions in all that I am teaching, from sabre to smallsword, from rapier to bayonet. Doing this, taking it all apart and examining it before putting it back together, increases understanding and lends depth to our approach. It will make us better coaches, and, better fencers.

NOTES:

[1] Barbasetti, The Art of the Sabre and Epee, 1936, xvii explains that his book is a guide for preparing masters, for masters whose training may have been incomplete, and for fencers who wish to understand better what they’re learning.

[2] Often-line footwork, such as traverse steps, is a commonplace in works on Insular broadsword, but I’d argue that the same footwork is useful for sabre. In the video series I am putting together on Master Barbasetti’s sabre methodology, I will explore examples.

[3] We have not yet set a date, by my mentor at Barbasetti Military Sabre (since 1895), Maestro Michael Kňažko, as well as his colleagues Masters Leonid Křížek, Michal Kostka, and Josef Šolc possess deep knowledge and decades upon decades of experience, and the nature of a master’s exam, both the written or oral exam as well as the practical one, are open to anything they should choose. It is a daunting, and at times I’ll admit it terrifying, experience, but one I look forward to. Pass or fail it will be valuable and I shall learn a lot and become a better coach. Should I pass (there are no guarantees with such exams), in truth the journey really only begins. I look at it the same way my elder son’s TKD master put it to him when he passed his black belt exam–“Now you’re ready to start learning.”

Historical Fencing Coaches Clinic–Post-Event Thoughts

I had the great pleasure to visit old friends and make new ones a few weekends ago in Winnipeg, Canada, at the Historical Fencing Coaches Clinic sponsored by Storica Defensa. I’ve been to a fair number of coaching clinics, many Olympic, far fewer historical, but this one stood out, and no, not just because I am a Storica Defensa coach. This two-day event showed what is possible, and, perhaps a better path than typical in historical fencing.

In part, it was the mix of coaches, both in terms of experience and position, and in terms of background and focus. We had two masters from the excellent Sonoma Military Masters’ Program, David Coblentz and Eric Myers; we had Prevot Tim Guerinot from Texas; and we had two of our SD coaches, Xian Niles and myself, representing our organization. If I had any complaint it was that time demanded we have two classes run at once–I really wanted to take each one, start to finish. Even recovering from RSV and nursing a damaged Achilles’ tendon, which meant I wasn’t fencing, didn’t allow me enough time to devote to each class as they were running.

It’s all in the Details

Granularity. This was the leitmotif of the event. With many attempts in historical circles to improve fencing, from judging to technique, what’s missing is granularity, the specifics, all the step-by-step movement and thought behind all that we do. Much as it pains me to say it, this is often due to the fact that those teaching possess only a surface understanding of what it is they’re trying to teach. To the untrained eye, for example, a cut-1 in broadsword or a disengage in smallsword look simple enough, but to make either well and with consistent effectiveness demands deeper understanding, at least if one is facing an opponent better than oneself who will take one apart for the slightest mistake.

Despite the triumph of ignorance now prevailing in my nation (what sensible nation keen for equality dismantles the very agency designed to oversee that?), education and learning are difficult. The moronic maxim “those who can’t, teach,” underscores just how poorly people understand how difficult teaching is.

A lot of people can: but few can teach.

There is also great merit in incorporating different teaching and learning styles. Not everyone learns the same way, not everyone teaches a topic the same way. To have classically trained masters as well as people more on the coaching side only strengthens the approach, especially if well-organized.

Coach Xian Niles on “Strategos”

The Classes

Space and reader patience doesn’t allow for a full description of the classes, but here are the topics:

SAT
9am
Maestro Eric Myers: “Better Fencing through using and Exploiting Fundamental Concepts of Fencing, Part 1.”

Coach Xian Niles: Strategos

11am
Maestro David Coblentz, “Setting up Students for Success”

Prevot Tim Guerinot, “Intention, Provocation, and Second Intention”

2pm
Coach Jim Emmons, “Text & Technique–From Description to Practice”

SUN
9am
Maestro Eric Myers: “Better Fencing through using and Exploiting Fundamental Concepts of Fencing, Part 2”

Prevot Tim Guerinot, “Intention, Provocation, and Second Intention, Part 2”

11am
Maestro David Coblentz, “Helping Students make Good Decisions”

Coach Xian Niles, “Am I still Doing the Thing?”

2pm
Coach Jim Emmons, “Concluding Remarks” [1]

The success of this year’s event has encouraged us to make this happen again, and if possible, often. We haven’t settled on a yearly or biannual schedule, but one way or another, the value of this type of meet-up was obvious in the marked-improvement in the attendees even over two days.

Maestro Myers Prevot Guerinot Maestro Coblentz

Why this Matters

Historical fencing is not so much a community as it is a collection of micro-communities, and so when it comes to any future forecasting there must be some qualification. I cannot speak to 99% of the community–I work with a small fraction of it. This said, for that sliver of the pie, I have some ideas for where it looks like we are headed.

SD, because it doesn’t seek ownership or control, will continue to reach out to recognized authorities for help in improving coaching and fencing. Many of these people may hold a master of arms, many will not. Expertise comes in different forms, and the ability to recognize that, and harness it, is what makes an organization like Storica Defensa both flexible and strong. Moreover, some fencers respond better to certain teaching styles, and since our goal is student and coach success, this means including any skilled fencer with sufficient depth and knowledge to assist us.

Not everyone cares about qualifications. Worse, many ascribe the wrong set of rubrics to what they call qualifications. Again, this is not just my sorrow and frustration over the anti-expert and anti-intellectualism so pervasive in the United States–it is painful and terrifying watching how this anti-expertise idiocy is helping destroy the nation we were and might yet have been to create a plutocrat’s playground.

It is also a known fact within “HEMA” that many favor things like “HEMA Ratings” or the over-confidence of play-acting scholars. They can do whatever they like, but few such people will get an invite to help us, because failure to understand the relative nature of tourney success and aping actual scholars only takes one so far, and, not as far as we wish to go.

This said, there is a LOT of talent in the wider community, but few truly effective means of harnessing it. Different foci, geographical distance, jealousy, arrogance, and even the innocent failure to understand that there is more to all this than one sees do much to prevent not only better unity, but also the sort of improvement we see in better developed branches of fencing, Olympic most of all. THIS is why my comrades to the north created Storica Defensa–we need it.

As a final word, but an important one, it is vital to note that SD is not a vanity project, certificate factory, or attempt to overthrow any other viable and worthy program. Over time, as people see the events we put on, as they see how we run tournaments, how we approach teaching; as they see how their coaching improves, how their students improve; as they see the caliber of fencer we ask for help, as they see the maestri and other experts we have asked to oversee and guide SD; all of these things will be the proof of that. [2]

There has been, sadly, considerable suspicion around what we are trying to do, and I’m happy to say none of it has any foundation. We’re literally doing what we say we are doing. It says a lot, and little of it positive, that such suspicion so naturally arose around an honest effort to make things better. In some cases, personal beef with one or more organizers, fear, and concern for turf explains these concerns, but I suspect a lot of it too is just curiosity poorly expressed.

I know I speak for all of SD’s organizers and coaches when I say this, but let me assure you that

  • we are not trying to overturn your program or replace it
  • we are not granting ourselves titles, authority, or certification
  • we will not tell you how to run your club, curriculum, or what events to attend

We are, though, doing the following:

  • working to improve coaching in historical fencing
  • working to improve fencing in historical fencing
  • working to create a viable, varied, and robust program to train coaches irrespective of any other program with which they may be involved
  • working to build bridges internationally and within North America

NOTES:

[1] I had a class prepared for the afternoon slot on Sunday, but one part of teaching is reading a room. People were fried. At least one person, no kidding, was on a knee, head on their hand, looking like they needed a nap. There was also nothing in what I had planned to do that had not already been covered in depth by the other coaches.

So, I opted to scrap my class and sum up–this included a very brief reminder of how we can approach a given technique, in this case a beat attack, and build not only possibilities from it technique-wise, but also tactically. I could tell from peoples’ faces that they were a little confused that I had scrapped my class, but I lack sufficient vanity to put tired, mentally exhausted people through another in-depth class when what they really want to do is relax, free bout, or hit up our guest coaches for lessons. And, it turned out, that Javier, one of our attendees from Calgary, was celebrating his birthday that Sunday and wanted birthday bouts.

I never really know how well or poorly a class goes–few people offer a lot of feedback–but I stand by the decision.

[2] SD has approached and enlisted the help of several well-respected, certified experts to assist us as we grow. We have the honor to have the experience, knowledge, and guidance of:

Maestro Michael Knazko, Ars Dimicatoria/Barbasetti Military Sabre since 1895, Prague, Czechia, EU [Chief Advisor to SD]

Maestro Francesco Loda, PhD (x2), Cinecittà-RFA-UniTeramo, Rome, Italy, EU [Advisor]

Maitre Steve Symons, former President and CEO of the Canadian Fencing Federation (2004-2012), Winnipeg, Canada [Advisor]

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

[21 Feb. 2025]

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

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

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

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

Organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early & Later Smallsword Treatises: A Note

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

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

Hope’s earlier guard position

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

from Hope’s New Method

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

from McBane

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

from Angelo

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

New Year, New Approach

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

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

What Changes?

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

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

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

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

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

Technique Leak: Overcoming Issues in Cross-Weapon Fencing

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

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

The Drill

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

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

Next, we added a second exchange:

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

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

Whither yon Leak?

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

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

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

Stopping the Leak

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

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

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

More on Invitations

Invitation in 4th–Barbasetti (1899/1936)

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

Student’s Invitation in 4th

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

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

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

Student Initiated Attack–Shutting Down the Trap

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

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

Invitation in 3rd–Barbasetti (1899/1936)

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

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

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

Tactical Application

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

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

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

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

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

Use the right tool for the job.

NOTES:

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

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

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

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

[16 May 2024]

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

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

Of Ranks and Cults

Today my friend and colleage, Jay, shared a video response to a concern several fencers aired on a fb page, namely, the problem with cultish programs. This is a real fear and justifiable given the fact that we do see groups who take advantage of members. It’s a shame, but it does happen. That could take many forms–perhaps students are charged for every little thing or to advance; perhaps they are expected to show absolute loyalty to some charismatic leader; perhaps they’re told not to fence with others because everyone but their own club is dangerous, or unskilled, or what have you. These are all red flags.

It’s important to me, and to Jay, because we work within an organization, Storica Defensa, that has already spooked a few people. There are, largely, personal reasons and/or prejudices that explain that, but some of those voices are loud and so we have done our best, all of us, to be as transparent as possible. There is no hidden knowledge we promise to “initiates,” there is no fee to advance, and each of the coaches is not only willing, but eager to demonstrate to potential SD fencers their qualifications. It’s only right we do so.

Moreover, we have been quick to state what we are not. None of us claim to be masters. We are not claiming any lineage, training, or certification we have not earned and/or which we cannot prove. We want everyone to know what they’re getting, and, why Xian and Jay created SD in the first place. Jay says it better than I can (see link below), but SD’s ranks do two things:

  • provide a set of goals, by skill-set, for students to help them improve [this also helps place them with people of similar skill level in events]
  • provide coaches with tools to teach more effectively

That’s it. As I often remind my own students, I didn’t invent any of the things I teach, but transmit what I learned to them. Sure, there are things I’ve added, tweaks here or there or suggestions, but these I always call out as such. None of us will be claiming to have invented the lunge… The why? is easily explained: historical fencing lacks these two things and desperately needs them.