HEMA vs Modern Fencing.

[John H]

Smallsword is definitely not my forte but when fighting one I’ll still be quite happy to move off the line. Nasty things to fight smallswords are but the greater reach of the Rapier means I can hit more target when I expose more body with off the line footwork. Just look out for that beat....

What I consider interesting is some of the dueling sabre techniques. If you take an inside moulinetto from Italian dueling systems and just add a step to the right on your riposte part of the action, you turn it form something that has inherent danger after a parry to an action that is much safer during your riposte and It elongates the time and distance for him to defend your strike.

I'm a big fan of walking in circles even though it took a good two months solid to do it after years on a piste.

[Gordon L]

Now that some others have moved us onto the subject of the light sabre - I'd like to correct a widely communicated misconception about them.

Used with proper technique, they do not flick.

They only flick if you attack with the flat of the blade, which is patently not a useful cut.

With all due respect, I think this is a mixture of your misunderstanding what we mean and us badly communicating it. We/I do not mean whipping the blade with the flat, but rather the way that cuts are given in modern sport sabre with a sort of fly-fishing motion, which is is pretty easy to demonstrate does not really cut with a real sword (and is pretty difficult with a proper weight sabre). The way that cutting is taught in the British military sabre manuals is to make solid contact with the centre of percussion and then slice the remaining part of the blade across the object hit. This method of cutting works very well, but is not so advantageous in sport sabre, where you only really need to tag the person as quickly and from as far away as possible.

(Going to attempt to answer from my phone, so apologies in advance if it does awry)

The reason you are communicating it badly is, imo, because you're conflating several things:

The tendency towards flick-hitting In foil in the 1990s - (subsequently much-diminished now that the rules have been amended in order to get rid of it);
The lateral instability of the light sabre;
Cutting from the wrist with the light sabre
(and I suspect) a lack of appreciation for the importance of tip-cutting with both the spadroon and the duelling sabre
[Just for the record, I am aware of the importance of CoP-cutting for hewing - but Olympic-rules sabre is not military sabre, it's duelling sabre - a confusion that is giving rise to a great many misapprehensions]

(lost sight of the post I'm responding to, so I'll stop there)

[Gordon L]

Some modern fencers are only interested in learning to win fights on the box, but thats not the entirity of modern fencing.

Yes, some, not all. After all, every poster to this forum is a fencer, and we are all living in the modern age.

An earlier poster related his unsatisfying experience with a teacher obsessed with FIE-competition results.

I'm sorry that he had that experience, but the answer is to seek out other teachers, not claim that everyone in a club affiliated to Hutton's association is competition-obsessed, nor claim that every teacher of the sword under the National Training method is, either.

[Gordon L]

Originally, the only Olympic weapons were the fleuret and the sabre. The épée was added soon afterwards. Singlestick was an Olympic weapon briefly (iirc as a demonstration event - I'll confirm one way or the other if anyone wants). Rapier and dagger was also proposed as an Olympic event, but never formed part of the Olympics.

If you could confirm this about Olympic singlestick then I would be interested to hear the answer!

It only appeared the once, and medals were awarded.

So I'm guessing the whole rigmarole and angst of demonstration events - is it really part of the Olympics, is it not - belongs to a later age.

Competition Singlestick remained an inter Services event until the mid 1950s (1955 iirc). Again, I'm happy to hunt out the details if you're interested.

I've also got Culpe's (or Culfe's) Rules for Singlestick from 1934 knocking around somewhere. Scottish Fencing also published them in The Point, so they might be on-line already.

[Gordon L]

However if issues like aesthetics and ease of carrying/wearing play a part then that evolution, and the changes it dictates may well be a departure away from simple combat efficacy.

I'd say there's a world of difference between changes which may be a departure from simple combat efficiency, and changes which remove all "reality" and "even any attempt at reality".

Depends where on the path of evolution you are. At the beginning yes, 200 years later, possibly not.

I'm not sure I understand this last point - are you saying that, 200 years after a change is made, any reality that change had has somehow evaporated?

[Gordon L]

Oh, and one of my favourite factoids - on page two of "Cold Steel", Hutton recommends that you train with the light sabre - i.e. the things that I have heard variously derided as "those whippy car aerial things", or "Fairy sabres".

Sorry Gordon, but this is a misunderstanding on your part. Hutton is refering to the Italian style infantry officer's sabre. That is a proper sabre of just under 2lbs in weight - it is only light in comparison to a cavalry sabre. He bought them from Pillin and similar examples survive. It is a completely different beast to the modern fairy sabre.

And (one of) my teacher's teacher(s), Royal Marines sword instructor and the European Military Sabre champion of around 1950, seemed happy to train with it, too.

Unfortunately the British Armed Forces switched from military forms of fencing to sport fencing (ie. sport sabre replaced military sabre, singlestick and cutlass) in around 1920, thanks to the realities of WW1 with its aeroplanes and tanks.

Singlestick was not replaced until the 50s. As I've already pointed out, neither was military sabre.

Until the advent of WW2, about half the clubs affiliated to Hutton's fencing association were in the Services.

(I've just deleted a para starting a whole new thread - tomorrow I'll try to get to Matt's reason number 2)

[Cutlery Penguin]

However if issues like aesthetics and ease of carrying/wearing play a part then that evolution, and the changes it dictates may well be a departure away from simple combat efficacy.

I'd say there's a world of difference between changes which may be a departure from simple combat efficiency, and changes which remove all "reality" and "even any attempt at reality".

Depends where on the path of evolution you are. At the beginning yes, 200 years later, possibly not.

I'm not sure I understand this last point - are you saying that, 200 years after a change is made, any reality that change had has somehow evaporated?

No, absolutely not. In fact if only one change is made and then everything stays the same for 200 years then, despite the elapsed time, you are still only one small step away from the original. However that isn't the way evolution works. It certainly isn't the case with weaponry, after all foils are not smallswords, which aren't sideswords, which aren't flint axes.

The point is a simple one really. If you trace the line of modern fencing weapons back far enough you get weapons designed for killing. Over many hundreds of years those weapons changed in design, some changes for more efficient killing, some for aesthetics, some for fashion, some to accommodate personal preferences and in the case of modern fencing weapons some for safety, and some for ease of judging hits. That the original was "real" doesn't mean everything that followed it was also "real".

[admin]

And (one of) my teacher's teacher(s), Royal Marines sword instructor and the European Military Sabre champion of around 1950, seemed happy to train with it, too.

Unfortunately the British Armed Forces switched from military forms of fencing to sport fencing (ie. sport sabre replaced military sabre, singlestick and cutlass) in around 1920, thanks to the realities of WW1 with its aeroplanes and tanks.

Singlestick was not replaced until the 50s. As I've already pointed out, neither was military sabre.

Gordon, I'm sorry but you are diverging from the original point here. Your original assertion was that the modern sport sabre is appropriate for training military or duelling sabre. It is not and it was not used for that. The sword used by the British armed forces in the early-20thC for 'Military sabre' was the 1899, 1903/4, 1907 or 1912 pattern gymnaisum sabre. They did not make any more miltary sabre practice swords after that, because military sabre was basically abandoned and sport sabre adopted for fitness. If you have not played with one of these patterns of gymnasium sabre then I recommend it. Whilst they are quite a step away from the earlier gymnasium sabres (for example the beefy 1864 pattern) intended for real cut and thrust military swordplay, and were a step in the direction of the Italian duelling sabre in terms of form and balance (in fact they were based on the Italian duelling sabre of Masiello), they are all much heavier and bigger than a modern sport sabre. They are very different beasts and were used in quite a different way - see Masiello's 1895 infantry sword exercise manual for example.

[scholadays]

Could you direct us to some pics of these please?

Ta.

[Jonathan]

There are a few example here:

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showth ... sia-swords

[admin]

Thanks Jonathan, as readers will note, even the gymnasium sabres of c.1914 were much more substantial than modern 'fairy' sabres (see below).

Military gymnasium sabres tend to vary in weight from 700g to 900g, whereas the modern sport sabre is only between 400-500g (500g being the maximum allowed in modern fencing), a weight difference in many cases of around 80-100% (in percentage terms, in the hand, that is huge). In addition to the weight difference, the modern sport sabre tends to be balanced closer to the hand, as the weapon is not required to deliver an actual cut of course.

Generally speaking the military gymnasium sabres seem to have got lighter after c.1900. This was partly because swordsmanship was increasingly seen as a fitness regime rather than a martial art. In 1895 Masiello wrote the new sabre practice manual for British officers, which was catered to the new-ish 1892 type blade (designed primarily for thrusting). Hutton strongly opposed Masiello's method and continued to promote his own cut and thrust style, but by this time of course it was largely irrelevant to military activity. Meanwhile the sport sabre was developing and by the 1920's most branches of the British armed forces had abandoned old military fencing and focussed only on sport fencing competitions. Even bayonet fencing was more or less abandoned, being done more as a curiosity than anything else by the 30's.

I am fully aware that pockets of the old Victorian martial arts survived - for example some Scottish regiments kept singlesticking and the Royal Marines famously kepy bayonet fencing. The Royal Navy also kept cutlass drill until quite late. However in general the old military sabre method died - firstly eclipsed by Italian duelling sabre in the 1890's and early 1900's and then by what we would recognise as sport sabre in the 1910's and 20's.

Since that date it is my opinion that sport fencing has moved further and further away in mentality, equipment and practice, from the original Victorian roots. And so we arrive back at my original assertion, unchanged.

[KevinMurakoshi]

Gordon, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the sport fencing weapons have never had any martial applicability. I think what people are saying is that as they are practiced now they have lost much (if not all)of their martial applicability. As a result, what people are pointing out are issues with how the weapons are fenced now not they way they should be fenced, or were fenced 50 years ago.

To respond to a couple of your comments.

Now that some others have moved us onto the subject of the light sabre - I'd like to correct a widely communicated misconception about them.

Used with proper technique, they do not flick.

They only flick if you attack with the flat of the blade, which is patently not a useful cut. (And in the days prior to electric scoring of Olympic-rules sabre, the president and judges would simply have ignored it).

Yet, such a cut is rewarded in the current rules of sport saber. There is no provision in the rules of modern electric saber to ignore a touch indicated by the scoring apparatus, even if that touch is delivered with the flat of the blade. I know coaches coaching at the US national level that teach both the saber flick over, and cuts with the flat of the blade because they will score a touch.

The tendency towards flick-hitting In foil in the 1990s - (subsequently much-diminished now that the rules have been amended in order to get rid of it);

Yet the flick marching attack is still very present. It's clearly not as heinous as it was in the '90s, but it's still very much present in international competition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QspDxl8QsO8 about 2:30. (And this is the first high level foil bout I could find on youtube.


Also, to respond to your history of the epee. The epee as a fencing weapon was developed in the mid 19th century by the French because they believed that foil had drifted too far from its dueling roots. If people who were actually fighting duels 150 years ago felt that it was so far removed from reality that they needed a whole new weapon, then the argument that foil has remained a martial weapon based on the smallsword is called into question.
It should be noted that the Italians were late to adopt Epee. The Italian foil was traditionally taught very much with the duel in mind, and the epee was only really adopted for the Olympics. (Indeed Beppo Nadi forbid Aldo and Nedo from training or competing in it. They had to sneak out in order to do any epee fencing.

[admin]

Also, to respond to your history of the epee. The epee as a fencing weapon was developed in the mid 19th century by the French because they believed that foil had drifted too far from its dueling roots. If people who were actually fighting duels 150 years ago felt that it was so far removed from reality that they needed a whole new weapon, then the argument that foil has remained a martial weapon based on the smallsword is called into question.

Very good point!

The only caveat I would add is that the foil developed for 18thC duels which were often fatal and did not stop at first blood, whereas epee du combat duels were rarely fatal and usually resulted in nothing more than a bleeding arm.

But I maintain that modern epee has lost this martial context, as illustrated by the thrust in the toe a fraction of a second before getting thrust in the face example. In 1900 an epee fencer knew the context that although you could achieve a first hit by such a risky manouver, it would be highly silly to attempt to do so, as you would be risking a sword through the head and death merely to satisfy honour in a first-blood fight. That context, the one of preservation of life above scoring a risky hit, is now ignored in the name of sport.

Welcome to the forum, Kevin.

[Joeli]

As a slight side track, I went to find out if sport fencing and hema have something to learn from each other, and seeked the person who is coaching the national team in epee. I was in luck, since he was teaching a basic course. So, I joined in.

15 minutes into the class the coach let me take over to teach the rest of the class whatever footwork drills I could come up with.

Even weirder was that I got gently told off for attacking with opposition after my feint. In any case, interested to see how it holds up. The gaming of the system aside, the teaching certainly was superb.

[Chris Holzman]

In 1900 an epee fencer knew the context that although you could achieve a first hit by such a risky manouver, it would be highly silly to attempt to do so, as you would be risking a sword through the head and death merely to satisfy honour in a first-blood fight. That context, the one of preservation of life above scoring a risky hit, is now ignored in the name of sport.

In addition to that, Maestro Parise's 1904 Scherma da Terreno (Fencing on the Ground) deals with the concept of fencing outdoors, under conditions that simulate a duel. Despite Italian spada/foil play of the time being already dueling based foil play, which he contrasts with the necessity of the development of the epee in France, and the great difference between foil and epee fencers of the time. For the purpose of fencing on the ground, he wants fencing to be done with a blade like what is used in the duel. His text presents essentially an appendix to his 1884 book and focuses on when to make touches to the forearm and leg, and what techniques to prefer and to avoid, under the theory that one is preparing for a duel. He notes, over and over, that while a leg touch is possible in some given circumstance, that he recommends highly against it, because it very much exposes the head.

Regarding Italian military practice sabres from Radaelli/Parise's time period on, I'd say something more like 600g to 640g is probably where most examples lie. Masiello, in his 1887 book, wants a weapon weighing about 610g, Barbasetti (in his 1899 book, translated and republished in English in 1932) wants a weapon weighing no less than 17 ounces, but is photographed with a curved fencing/dueling practice sabre that is most likely in the 600 to 620 range... Parise, in his 1904 book, specifies that the sabre for fencing on the ground should be like the one used in the duel, and gives widths of 20mm at the base and 10mm at the point, (88cm was pretty well resolved as the typical length by then) Such a weapon, unless overly thick in the blade, is likely to be in the 600 to 620g range.

I don't doubt that some of the British Gymnasia sabres of that era weighed a bit more - they tend to have bolsters at the guard opening that are much thicker than the 19th c. German/Italian examples that I've seen, and some seem to be slightly broader in the blade. Over on the 'standard infantry sabre' thread, I posted all of the stats for the various parts of the sabre, as Masiello gave them. I do think they're a touch on the light side, but given his illustrations, its clear to me that he's recommending a slightly narrower blade and smaller hilt than some of the other authors of the time.

Best,

Chris

[Gordon L]

(I'm still only able to access by phone, so can't see a post as I reply)

I have, so far, made no argument about the foil, one way or another.
(Other than to point out that the flick-hit was deliberately targetted by changes in the rules designed to attempt to control its use, and eliminate it, if possible).

I'm happy to debate the foil - it has always been my intention to - but I'm trying to keep the 'tree' of this discussion focussed on as few items as possible at one time.

Again, I ask all your indulgences in this.

[Gordon L]

Gordon, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the sport fencing weapons have never had any martial applicability. I think what people are saying is that as they are practiced now they have lost much (if not all)of their martial applicability. As a result, what people are pointing out are issues with how the weapons are fenced now not they way they should be fenced, or were fenced 50 years ago.


To respond to a couple of your comments.

Now that some others have moved us onto the subject of the light sabre - I'd like to correct a widely communicated misconception about them.

Used with proper technique, they do not flick.

They only flick if you attack with the flat of the blade, which is patently not a useful cut. (And in the days prior to electric scoring of Olympic-rules sabre, the president and judges would simply have ignored it).

Yet, such a cut is rewarded in the current rules of sport saber. There is no provision in the rules of modern electric saber to ignore a touch indicated by the scoring apparatus, even if that touch is delivered with the flat of the blade. I know coaches coaching at the US national level that teach both the saber flick over, and cuts with the flat of the blade because they will score a touch.

When electric sabre first appeared, the sensing apparatus was different, and designed to differentiate between flicks with the flat, and true cuts.

This was abandoned, and the simplified apparatus adopted, due to issues of reliability, not out of a desire to introduce flicks with the flat.

As other rule changes demonstrate, such as the changes designed to much reduce the use of the flick in foil, the rules very much bear in mind the issues of reality - I.e. they try, even when they fail. Some failures come through unintended consequence, some through issues of practicality, such as the sabre sensor.

Yes, the flick with the flat is currently allowable (in sabre). However, even at the outset of electric sabre, this was an issue for the rule-makers, as the cut-sensors demonstrate.. It's yet to be resolved, rather than proof that FIE rule-makers don't even try to have any sort of reality. (Which was the very strong claim made).

The tendency towards flick-hitting In foil in the 1990s - (subsequently much-diminished now that the rules have been amended in order to get rid of it);

Yet the flick marching attack is still very present. It's clearly not as heinous as it was in the '90s, but it's still very much present in international competition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QspDxl8QsO8 about 2:30. (And this is the first high level foil bout I could find on youtube.


Also, to respond to your history of the epee. The epee as a fencing weapon was developed in the mid 19th century by the French because they believed that foil had drifted too far from its dueling roots.



If people who were actually fighting duels 150 years ago felt that it was so far removed from reality that they needed a whole new weapon, then the argument that foil has remained a martial weapon based on the smallsword is called into question.

It's important to note that no one is claiming that, least of all me.

The epée replaced the smallsword, for duelling. It also replaced the foil as a training weapon for the duel - or rather, it became a supplementary training weapon for the duel. And yes, precisely for the reason that foil's conventionality was seen as too far removed from actual duelling practice to be a complete and sufficient training device.

The foil never was a martial weapon - it was always a training device. A sort of waster, if you like. (Although a few duels were fought with fleurets, but that's another thread entirely)

It was a training device for duelling with the epée de cour. When it stopped being sufficient training on its own, people began training with epées de cour too. (and by this time, the epée de cour was developing a new, cheaper guard, and a slightly elongated handle, and the epée de cour, or epée de ville, started to become known as the epée de combat. The other reason for these changes in form and name was that the sword was no longer worn as part of dress, so no longer needed to be man-jewellery. The highly functional blade remained the same - the ornate and decorative parts were swapped for purely functional items. I suspect a further reason for the change from ornate expensive decoration, replaced every 10 or 15 years, to cheap pressed steel guard, was that when you start training with it, you want something that you don't mind getting scratched and dented, and which doesn't require a sword-cutler in order tighten any slop in the handle.

In English, the terms "small-sword" and "epée" are very different. This sometimes misleads us into thinking the swords themselves were very different. They weren't - it was a new, cheap, design of hilt, on a tradition duelling blade.

It should be noted that the Italians were late to adopt Epee. The Italian foil was traditionally taught very much with the duel in mind, and the epee was only really adopted for the Olympics. (Indeed Beppo Nadi forbid Aldo and Nedo from training or competing in it. They had to sneak out in order to do any epee fencing.

Beppo was only concerned with competition fencing. When Aldo duelled, he duelled with the epée.

I suspect - and this is purely a speculative intuition - Beppo was so strict in this because he wanted his boys kept on the safe path of training and competition, and not to get drawn off into duelling culture.

[swahili]

to point out that the flick-hit was deliberately targetted by changes in the rules designed to attempt to control its use, and eliminate it, if possible

I don't want to seem to be having a go at you Gordon, but I just wanted to offer a counter-view. The flick, from what I can see, is very much alive. It may have diminished slightly, but there are plenty of fencers out there who consider it an essential skill:
How to do it
Blades specifically for it
Current thread on best blades for flicking, with not a dissenting comment

For anyone who's interested and doesn't know the details, a couple of older posts might help:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050306134320/http://www.fencing101.com/content/view/142/35/
http://www.fencing.net/456/best-effort-bad-result/

[John H]

In Gordon’s defense on this, there is still a divide on the sport side between those who only wish to win tournaments/the Olympics and those who wish to keep to the true spirit of fencing. Sound Familiar?

The fact is a flick will set the light off, the simplistic goal is to set the light off, so I can hit my opponent on the bottom of their guard with my flat and the blade will bend up and set off a light. To counter this, my action also gives him right of way (hitting the guard is counted as a parry and right of way changes,) so he can theoretically just lunge for everything and hit me, but try to catch me when I’m already doing a reverse lunge while I flick the underside of your cage. In practicality it works, but we all agree it is bad form and the rules get adjusted occasionally to ‘fix’ bad behavior. The fact that it exists doesn’t mean Gordon is wrong in his assessment, just that the rules didn’t correct the problem. One rule may correct one problem but it creates two, that sound familiar as well?

Interestingly when seeing me do this my old coach only told me to recover to St George's guard in case he does catch me. Good advice but for the wrong reason.

[Ulrich von L...n]

Regarding Italian military practice sabres from Radaelli/Parise's time period on, I'd say something more like 600g to 640g is probably where most examples lie... Parise ... specifies that the sabre for fencing on the ground should be like the one used in the duel

In 1902 Gustav Arlow (follower of Barbasetti) wrote in his Hungarian book that the weight of duelling sabres should not exceed 750g and the usual weight was between 400 and 600g, with 12-16mm wide blade.

In our local museum I saw a Pattern 1904 cavalry officer sabre presumably used for training (a lot of dents along the blade, removed sharp tip, flexible blade around the tip) with the following parameters: shortened blade 720mm (normal blade: 750-770mm), 728g, 5mm thick.