Much to my joy I discovered the first portion of a class run by Axel Mumm on Oliver Jansep’s Youtube channel–here is the link:
https://youtu.be/oC_C6gf7kXI?si=gTmFFat4PsdUvc2M
This is a very nice introduction, and I am eager to see what Axel does in the remaining portions!
I can’t figure out how to share it to my “Visual Barbasetti” list in Youtube, so figured I would share it here.
Though it is coming together by fits and starts, I’m doing my best to make good on a promise to create a series of videos that provide help in reading and using Luigi Barbasetti’s _The Art of the Sabre_ (1899). It builds on the excellent work of my friend and colleague, Maestro Michael Kňažko, Barbasetti Military Sabre (since 1895), Prague, Czechia, who so beautifully covered the introductory material, from guard, to parries, the molinelli, etc.
There is more to come, and I will do my best to order everything so that it mirrors the progression of the treatise. There are a few videos up now that are from sections later in the work, the result of questions I’ve received, but in the end the hope is to have each chapter covered well enough to assist someone brand new to the method.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMMzUA30gYjiof8X1OApZK1o3A-slwF8G&si=AcNXkfTaZUYJCbLN
K. u. k. Military Fencing Tournament, Prague 2026, is an annual event dedicated to fencing with weapons taught at the K. u. k. Theresian Military Academy in Wiener Neustadt – foil, sabre, bayonet rifle.
This event continues the tradition of the K. u. k. Armee Fechtturnier, a series of eleven successive Austro-Hungarian Army fencing tournaments held alternately in Vienna and Budapest between 1898 and 1914. The inaugural 1898 tournament was held as part of the jubilee celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of Emperor and King Franz Josef I’s accession to the throne.
The K. u. k. Military Fencing Tournament, Prague 2026, is open to practitioners of all styles and skill levels interested in military fencing from the 1895–1914 period.
DETAILS:
Official program:
Saturday April 18
9:30-10:00 registration
10:00 Opening ceremony
10:15-11:00 Foil fencing workshop with Maestro Michael Kňažko
11:00-12:30 Foil fencing tournament preliminary rounds and eliminations (max. 12 fencers in the pools).
13:00-14:00 lunch in the restaurant Na Urale
14:15-15:00 Bayonet fencing workshop – Maestro Leonid Křížek
15:00-16:30 Bayonet rifle fencing tournament preliminary rounds and eliminations (max. 12 fencers in the pools).
16:30 Bayonet rifle x sabre
17:00 Bayonet rifle x field shovel
Bayonet rifle charge
Target shooting
Test cutting
Pistol duelling
20:00 – 23:00 official dinner – restaurant U Topolu, Prague 6, Jugoslávských partyzánů 943/32, 160 00 Praha 6-Bubeneč
Sunday April 19
10:00-10:45 Sabre fencing workshop – Maestro Michael Kňažko
11:00-12:30 Sabre fencing tournament preliminary rounds and eliminations (max. 24 fencers in the pools)
13:00-14:00 lunch Na Urale
14:15 Pistol duelling workshop
15:00 target shooting & test cutting workshop
Closing ceremony
Tournament weapons:
Czechoslovak spring bayonet rifle – provided by the organizers
Classical French or Italian foil – own weapon required
Barbasetti Sabre 1895, model 2 – provided by the organizers
Tournament requirements:
– own complete protective foil/sabre/bayonet fencing gear (mask, jacket, gloves, protectors)
– own French or Italian foil
– bayonets rifles and sabres will be provided by the organizers
Host:
Barbasetti Military Sabre (since 1895), Prague, Czech Republic
Ars Dimicatoria School of Historical Fencing, Prague, Czech Republic
Place:
Main gym of the Primary School Emy Destinnové, náměstí Svobody 930/3, 160 00 Prague 6 Bubeneč 160 00, Czech Republic
Price: EUR 120
Official T-shirt: EUR 20
To reserve your place contact Michael Knazko
via fb messenger or e-mail: a.dimicatoria@gmail.com
Please note: The organizers reserve the right to make changes to the event program. The organizers also reserve the right to cancel the event wholly should unforeseen circumstances or/and risks to public health arise.
An old friend and fencing comrade, the excellent Jon Brammer, pointed out that I had mentioned but not followed up upon the master of arm’s examination I took in Prague. Apologies.
While happy to write about fencing, I find it difficult to write about myself, so I’ll be brief and say that I passed and share some photos.
My friends in Canada shared an excellent article with me today, one by Paul Becker with the Historical Fencing Academy, Nordhausen, Germany [https://www.hema-academy.com/home]. Entitled “Military Fencing & Military Sabre?” Mr. Becker explores, through detailed examples from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, what constitutes “military” fencing in his view. Do please read his article–it is well-done and covers a lot of ground that too often is left untilled. Readers will find not only his coverage of texts, but his examination of period weapons useful.
The link is here: https://www.hema-academy.com/blog/militaerfechten-militrsaebel?fbclid=IwY2xjawNLfuhleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFNWFhBeEROeVJiOVJtR2gwAR4f6JSN3yJQ-8Lx-JSo9nfDbVAMm34vfEm6-ObW6zQ2xp0spOmIVtM2ea1J4Q_aem_KNNZWoEg5WhCCc_VVMw0dw
If you’ve read much I’ve written, then you will know how much I tend to detest the separation of sabre into “dueling” and “military” in popular “HEMA.” These labels, while in some degree useful, obscure an important fact, namely that the very people using sabres for duels were normally military officers. To quote my good friend Alex Spreier, somewhat out of context, “sabre is sabre.” The problem is that we often feel we need or at least wish to differentiate what we study from related topics–sabre encompasses a vast, truly global tool, and so is perhaps especially prone to fall into categorizing nightmares.
As I’ve too often stated, in “HEMA” the use of “military sabre” is normally meant to separate out what the user is doing from the sport. There is some sense in this, though it is over-emphasized given the vast amount of common ground shared by those examining historical systems and the modern sport. It is, historically speaking, redundant in that sabre was by and large a military weapon. It’s like calling a howitzer a “military howitzer.” The use of national terms, e.g. “Italian sabre” or “Hungarian” or “Spanish sabre” makes a bit more sense, as it refers–one assumes–to texts from those cultures and often in their respective languages. How different these systems are from one another, and how much they overlap, is a separate issue.
There were, as Mr. Becker rightly points out, differences even in the period many of us study: there was sabre intended for war; sabre intended for duels; there was sabre for fun and which employed competitive rule-sets. The weapons were often different too. For reasons I’ll leave aside for now, not that I know all of them, “HEMA” has taken a fancy to the heaviest sabres it can find, sabres that are rubbish to fence with–this doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be useful when mounted or as sharp clubs, but even there for a weapon to be effective and not exhaust the user too quickly some compromise was generally found. No one should be fencing with a 1.81 kg or 4lb sabre. One can, but why?
If one takes the time to examine the sources, and we have a ton of them, for sabre between say 1850 and 1950, they will readily see just how varied the tools were. There is the example of Lt. Col. Eduard Wagner, a Czech army officer, who not only worked with the common 600-700g training sabre, but also the heavier cavalry tool (this was about 1 kg). For a second example, one might recall the scene that Leon Bertrand shares in his odd book Cut and Thrust: The Subtlety of the Sabre (1927) where an Italian master, Giuseppe Magrini, crosses blades with an unnamed English soldier, the former armed with lighter sabre, the latter with a blunted cavalry weapon. The Englishman was also armored cap-a-pie “in heavy canvas, shin guards and cage-like mask.” [1]
In terms of the abuse of adjectives, Mr. Becker specifically calls out Barbasetti Military Sabre, and as a member of that school, and moreover as one who spent the last few months doing all I could to learn its history, I feel compelled to offer an alternative view. Allow me first to say that in most respects I agree with my esteemed colleague–but, there may be context he doesn’t have for Barbasetti Military Sabre, Prague, and if that is so then perhaps I can fill in that missing piece for him.
Barbasetti, the Military, and Fencing in Czechia
Barbasetti visited Prague in 1895. While there was sabre in the Czech Lands, it didn’t appear on the map until after the master’s visit. The influence of Barbasetti on the Austro-Hungarian army was profound. Prior to the establishment of the independent Czech state in 1918, Czech officers serving the Empire were trained, like their colleagues, in Barbasetti’s method alongside their comrades in Austria. Some, like František Dvořák and Robert Tvarúžek, attended the school at the Theresianische Militärakademie Wiener Neustadt and became masters themselves. Important to note, it was K.u.k. Fencing Master Robert Tvarúžek who wrote Šerm Šavlí, the first sabre text in Czech. Tvarúžek presented Barbasetti’s method only in the Czech language. [2]
Moreover, when the Czech army set up its own program for sword instruction, they also chose Barbasetti. From 1918, through the 1920s and 1930s, Barbasetti‘s formed the fencing curriculum in the Czech Republic. One well-known master at Vyšší vojenská reálka v Hranicích (the Military Academy, Hranice) was staff captain Karel Sekanina. He was posted to Hranice in January of 1920, and is important to the current program in Prague because he was the master who taught Master Leonid Křížek’s teacher, Lt. Col. Eduard Wagner (d. 1984). Sekanina worked with Wagner three times a week from 1923 to 1925. [3]
For Barbasetti Military Sabre itself, as a club, the use of “military” distinguishes the school’s approach from that of its colleagues in Prague. There is a close association, for example, between Barbasetti Military Sabre and Český šermířský klub Riegel–their histories are intertwined. Even today, many of the masters who teach at BMS also teach or have taught and/or fence at ČSK Riegel, including Maestro Josef Šolc and his son Maestro Michael Šolc. [4]
In addition, the terms “Barbasetti Military Sabre” also speak directly to the school’s lineage. Maestro Leonid Křížek, a key instructor and scholar with the school, was taught by Lt. Col. Eduard Wagner, in the 1960s–the method that Wagner learned, and importantly taught thereafter, was Barbasetti’s system. Maestro Křížek taught Master Michael Kňažko, and both have been important mentors to me.
The use of the term “military” is not one anybody at BMS takes at face value or wishes to project under false notions. None of us are active duty military, so some titles that we might apply would be borrowed glory and in bad form to assume. For example, the K.u.k. Armee Fechtturnier, was for military personnel. To call the event that our club puts on the “Imperial Army Fencing Tournament” is too specific–we are, again, not in the army, nor are we members of a now defunct empire. However, “military” is appropriate because the modern event celebrates these important tournaments, and, uses the same weapons and format. “Military,” here, is an appropriate and descriptive adjective. To call it K.u.k. Militär Fecht-Turnier is descriptive and avoids any confusion were we to use Armee.
SO, What do We Call Sabre?
That’s up to you. For me, I prefer “Historical Fencing” and “Historical Sabre” as it’s general enough to cover most things and yet specific enough so that students don’t show up expecting me to make them Olympic champions. I’m not the guy for that. Interested parties will ask “what kind of historical sabre?” and then I can explain the specifics of what I research and teach. My club name here, one chosen by students, is “Capitale Escrime” because most live in the state capital, Salem, OR, and we fence. We put it in French because, well, it sounds better, but also because the vast majority of students study French smallsword. My sabre students, when they meet again, will do so as a North American satellite of Barbasetti Military Sabre headquartered in Prague.
NOTES:
[1] Leon Bertrand, Cut and Thrust: The Subtlety of the Sabre, London, UK: Athletic House Publications, 1927, 74-76.
[2] K.u.k. is an abbreviation of German Kaiserlich und königlich, or, “Imperial and Royal.” See for example https://www.visitingvienna.com/culture/k-k/
[3] For a full history of Barbasetti’s impact in Czechia, see https://www.ars-dimicatoria.cz/en/barbasetti-military-sabre-since-1895-2/
When I left Olympic fencing competition, the first source I found, and have used ever since, was my uni’s copy of Luigi Barbasetti’s The Art of the Sabre and Epee. I still use the photocopy I made as my working copy for lesson planning, study, etc., and save the original English (1936), German (1899), and French (1931) for checking translation matters and enjoyment. Though I’ve not been asked often, there’s a question in the mind of many of my compatriots implicit in most any discussion about Barbasetti—why him? It’s a question I’d be happy to answer, and since I’m busy preparing for exams, this seems as good a time as any to share it.
The first reason is that Barbasetti presents a clear, well-organized, and well-explained manual. Not all fencing works are well-written, but his is, and it makes a difference—there is less to puzzle out and thus to question. Moreover, in writing The Art of the Sabre and Epee he makes his purpose explicit in the front matter, and it tells the reader more I think than they might realize. Barbasetti explains that his book is intended to aid three chief populations: prepare new masters, assist those instructors whose training may have been incomplete, and to help those fencers who wish to know more about particular aspects of the Art.[1] In short, it’s a book mostly geared towards coaches, and thus provides explanation in addition to listing techniques, actions, and drills. To be fair, most fencing manuals explain things in part, but not all explain them well or effectively.
Second, my own training in sabre was remarkably close to what I see in Barbasetti. Al Couturier, the master whom I spent the most time with, was a student of a Hungarian army officer (Joseph Vince) trained in Budapest when both Borsody and Santelli were transforming sabre.[2] Of note, Borsody was a student at Wiener Neustadt in 1898-1899, and thus attended the program when Barbasetti was its head.[3] I’ll not lie, in addition to feeling familiar, I found solace in reading Barbasetti in the mid-1990s, because it validated arguments I was making about sabre at a time when very few people saw the problems in the modern game and even fewer cared.
Third, and perhaps most germane here, Barbasetti—for me—represents the ideal expression of Radaellian sabre on foot. Let me reiterate—on foot. In no way do I wish to disparage the excellent works of Del Frate, Rossi, Masiello, or others, but what Barbasetti presents is a thoroughly Radaellian core with allowances made for the unique context of one-on-one fencing to cover any situation. This is one way in which he is a bridge: in Barbasetti’s time we had, for the last time perhaps, all three major roles of fencing in play at the same time: military, competitive, and fencing for the duel.
He taught at military schools, because fencing was a normal aspect of training until the middle of the Second World War. It was only then clear that the sword and mounted troops were obsolete. At the same time, Barbasetti taught competitors, most military, but still competitors and often those who competed in non-military contexts such as the Olympics.[4] Lastly, the duel was still a reality in both Italy and France, particularly within the military, and so the training had to work. In sum, Barbasetti’s approach to sabre retained the seriousness of the weapon’s use in earnest while at the same time helping shape the modern sport.
The importance of this for us, people living at a time when only competition and theater really have any claim to need fencing (if need is even the correct word), is that Barbasetti presents an approach that, Rosetta Stone-like, allows us to examine any of the then-extant expressions of the Art through a single filter. More than that, when one reads Barbasetti next to his fellow Radaellians, the connection is absolutely clear—he was not “less” Radaellian. His belief that the molinelli form the fundamental exercise for all good sabre fencing alone should indicate this, but the fact that he retained the elbow as the axis of rotation makes it all the more clear. His preference for the guard of second in the assault and duels, the importance of the thrust as both attack and preparatory action, and the body of technique and tactics he shares all demonstrate his training in the tradition.
However, his text is different, reads differently, and I think it’s because of the fact his approach is not limited to military instruction alone. Masiello’s Sabre Fencing on Horseback (1891), for example, is purely a military text. It’s a great example of late period cavalry technique, and thus a must-read for any student of the changes in mounted combat around the turn of the century, but for most fencers its less useful in their practical education. Del Frate, Rossi, and Masiello’s giant tome are far more so, and given their overall thoroughness, particularly with regard to Rossi and Masiello, even just one of their books can provide a fencer with a lifetime of material to learn and practice. Unlike Barbasetti, however, these three—and rightly—had in mind the needs of both soldier and regimental sword-master. As I have often pointed out, the needs of such fencers are not the same as those who compete or indeed ourselves today.
For a variety of reasons, “HEMA” has formed and embraced an insipid division of sabre into “military” and “dueling” sabre. This is yet another dead horse I need not beat here, yet again…, but briefly the mistake HEMA makes is in believing these are separate categories, even weapons, when sabre is, quite simply, sabre, and had multiple applications. If any additional term is needed, it would be “military,” but this is, honestly, redundant: all sabre was military or existed within a military context.
Barbasetti is one of many proofs that expose this error. Barbasetti was training men, some at least, who might need his skill and tutelage in all three scenarios. He didn’t write books for each, but one book. THIS is why his text is so good—it meets all the needs a sabreur of the time might have. It’s also one reason that Sabre Fencing is so valuable a text for us in historical fencing. It’s a bridge between applications of sabre, but also, a bridge between sabre of the earlier 19th century and sabre of the early 20th century.
NOTES:
[1] Barbasetti, The Art of the Sabre and Epee, 1936, xvii.
[2] For more on Vince, see https://westcoastfencingarchive.com/project/joseph-vince/
[3] See (https://szablyavivas.hu/borsody-laszlo/
[4] Among these competitions were events such as the K.u.k. Armee Fechtturnier, K.u.k. Military Fencing Tournament. The school where I am a student, Barbasetti Military Sabre (since 1895), holds an annual event dedicated to these tournaments and featuring the same classical weapons taught at the K.u.k. Theresian Military Academy in Wiener Neustadt: foil, sabre, and bayonet. It was held alternatively in Wien and Budapest in the years 1898 – 1914. For more information on Barbasetti Military Sabre, see https://www.ars-dimicatoria.cz/en/barbasetti-military-sabre-since-1895-2/
from Maestro Michael Knazko:
Dear fellow fencers,
here is a description and the main purpose of RandomSlash Tournament, a brand-new sabre fencing tourney format developed in 2025 by Master of Arms Michael Knazko from Barbasetti Military Sabre (since 1895) Prague, Czech Republic specifically for SabreSlash 2025.
RandomSlash is a fencing event where fencers continuously fence against different opponents at random, without any specific winner or elimination rounds. The focus is on the act of fencing itself and the enjoyment of the sport, rather than competitive placement.
RandomSlash is a fencing tournament where there are no winners or losers, only fencers who continuously engage in bouts with different randomly selected opponents. This format emphasizes the continuous nature of the event rather than a competitive outcome.
The name “RandomSlash” reflects the random pairing of fencers for each bout. This means that throughout the event, participants will face a variety of opponents, and the matches will not be predetermined or structured around a traditional tournament bracket. The focus is on the experience of fencing itself and the interactions between different fencers, rather than on determining who is “best.”
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:
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.”
Social media may herald in the end of the world as effectively as it has poisoned politics, but it’s fantastic where fencing is concerned. A recent post on smallsword garnered questions about what it is, exactly, that I do–am I a foilist? A sabreur? Both? Something else?
The simple answer is “yes,” all of the above, but we focus on different things at different times. There can be many reasons for this. To the person’s first question, yes, I am still a sabre fencer, though more coach than anything else at this point. My main source is Luigi Barbasetti’s _The Art of the Sabre and Epee_ (1899/1936), not only because it is the text I’ve come back to time and again since the 1990s, but also and especially because his work formed the foundation for the school in which I am a student, Barbasetti Military Sabre since 1985, headquartered in Prague, Czechia.
Between some injury maintenance and a brutal schedule in my day job, Barbasetti’s approach has, as ever, proved solid and rewarding. Nearly all my students use s2000 Olympic blades, though several use historical trainers (two have Swordsmithy’s, two those by other makes, but all hovering around 650-700g). The system is such I could use sticks.
I am not taking new students for sabre, that is true, but mostly due to time constraints–I am unable to teach as often as I was and the larger the class, the less effective the instruction. I make exceptions for visitors and for the few people who seek me out from out of town, but otherwise my focus has been on related projects, teaching, and working on some international efforts to improve both coaching and fencing.
As ever, I’m happy to answer questions, so please feel free to do so–as I did here, I’ll do my best to answer promptly and succinctly.
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.
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.
Capitale Escrime Historical Fencing 