Burton

[Thearos]

Did a search on the forum on Burton-- who often appears in posts-- but did not find any substantial discussion of his 1876 "New Sword Exercise", where he criticizes the 1845 manual and the French 1875 "manuel de gymnastique" and says rude things about the hanging guard, etc.

Are there any views on e.g. his system of 12 cuts ?

[Ulrich von L...n]

Just to make the whole discussion a bit easier:

[Ulrich von L...n]

In his book Burton ridiculed the shape of the target: "I never yet saw a man absolutely circular". Naturally one could in turn ridicule his one-legged target, but that would be a rather cheap joke.

Burton's target is a good idea, it is rather unfortunate that a similar idea wasn't used in other fencing manuals. I would have made it more asymmetrical, which reflects the reality when you face a right-handed opponent in his guard position. In such a situation the execution of his 6th cut is quite challenging.

[Thearos]

I do note, thought, that even with this target Burton says that it's about the form of the cuts and not their placement on the body-- which patently doesn't work with this (but it does with the Taylor-Hutton 7 cuts round target).

[Ulrich von L...n]

If this target shows only the path of cuts and not their final locations on the opponent's body, then why do we need Cut 8 & 10? They are basically stomach cuts in modern sabre fencing terminology, naturally Hungarian terminology. Cut 10 is only mentioned in Gerevich's book (1979), but later on it isn't used in exercises.

[Ulrich von L...n]

Another thing: the strange path of Cut 5 and 6. Why Cut 2 (or 1) isn't enough? You can attack with this cut the head, the inside of his right shoulder (assuming a right-handed fencer), his chest, etc.

What I do like in Burton's system is that he advised to "sit on guard", with the weight of your body equally distributed between your legs. The length of the guard is about 20 inches (51cm), which is very close to the modern standard (1.5-2 lengths of your own foot). It is interesting to compare this with Waite: "advance the right foot about twice of its own length", 50%-50% weight distribution, or Hutton: approx. 2.46 x the length of Hutton's right shoe from the drawings (I haven't found a formal description of the guard length in Cold Steel).

[Thearos]

As opposed to some older, back weighted stances with hanging guards ?

[Ulrich von L...n]

Yes. Some older manuals, but even Hungarian manuals from 1880-1890 or even much later, in 1911 (the third edition of Samu Chappon's book) advised to shift the body's CoG toward the left foot, and even check this "correct" position with a so-called Appell (stamping with your right foot).

[Thearos]

What's the rationale for these back-weighted stances ?

[Ulrich von L...n]

From Burton:
"The reasons usually given are that in this position the person is not so much exposed; moreover, that the centre of gravity being thrown back adds spring and impetus to the lunge." p14

From the Infantry Sword Exercise (1845):
"... the body, which must generally be balanced, and rest upon the left leg, thereby giving greater flexibility to the right leg in moving forward to gain distance upon an adversary - or in retiring from his reach." p12

There are some another things to keep in mind: they were taught to start a bout by touching their swords a couple of inches from the tips (definitely a bad habit - you lose valuable distance), some fencing masters (for instance Hungarian Samu Chappon) suggested that it is cowardice to protect yourself with the distance: "You have a sword in your hand! Be brave and stay put! Protect yourself with your sword!" So this second tradition might have influenced the spread of back-weighted stance.

It is absolutely obvious that Burton was right: "... the farther you are from your opponent, the longer and slower will be your attack." And this guard is even more uncomfortable that the usual modern fencing guard stance.

[John H]

Target: the seven cuts are not just targets and Burton is using this little jab to try and knock it. That’s what he does, but it’s kind of a hollow jab. I see no reason to re-name a cut or a guard just because you moved it a few inches lower or higher. IMO this just adds unneeded complexity to the system, and you really should be guarding where the cut is coming no in a specific spot regardless of what you are presented with.

Cut 5, 6, 11, and 12 are the type of cuts that indicate to me a relatively light blade. When you get a heavier military weight blade in motion it is almost impossible to make such a trajectory change mid swing. Try this with a sports blade and it is quite easy a cavalry weighted blade will not allow this. Just on the personal side I prefer blades and systems that were geared more to a heavy blade rather than the lighter ones that were favored as blades were used less for military action and more for dueling.

Back weighted stance: The stance goes back to many thrusting weapons where attacks are all thrusts coming directly at your body, rather than cuts which are angles directed at you. It has many advantages that were removed by rules or traditions. First the distance you cover in a lunge is measured from your back leg. You will lunge to the same spot if your weight is back or centered. So lunging by starting with your weight back will essentially be a longer lunge when considering where your blade and body started.

Next by centering your weight you bring your body closer to your opponent, his blade and his ability to strike you. You remain in a safer position and keep his blade as the farthest point away from you while maintaining the same lunge distance you have with your weight centered.

Targeting the front leg. With the weight on the back leg you can easily slip the front leg if attacked and not have to use the blade to defend it. This means you just slip your front leg and make a single time attack as they attack you. By moving your weight forward you must shift your weight back if you wish slip the leg, which is too slow, thus you must use your blade to guard your leg as you see Hutton show. In modern fencing the legs are off target thus no incentive to defend them. I am not sure when that became tradition or not allowed as a target.

It’s more defensive: Yes your attack is further away, and will be longer or slower, but so will his. This is relevant to a first intention as when he attacks you he has brought himself into your distance. Your riposte is not hindered by this.

[admin]

In short, I find Burton's cutting target rather silly and impractical. As far as I am aware it was ignored, as was his treatise, which seems to me a rather ranting and lightweight attempt at self promotion. Several of his criticisms of Angelo's 1845 manual are at most petty IMHO. The only portion of real interest to people who have read Taylor, Angelo, Hutton and Waite's books is the section on the arm cuts.

The traditional circular target does not represent a human body of course - Burton was being silly in suggesting it was supposed to - it simply represents the directions that a cut could be made form, and as such I think it is a good simple tool. I find the old circular target and cut numbers to be very useful in teaching, whereas I find Burton's totally useless. The circular target can be traced back to Fiore of course, with two diagonal intersecting lines and one horizontal.

It's perhaps worth noting that Waite did not include any cutting target or even number the cuts in his manual. But I find numbering the cuts very useful in class.

[Ulrich von L...n]

In the current form Burton's cutting target is indeed impractical, but if you transform it into a complete silhouette of right-handed fencer in the guard position, then it could become a much better visualisation tool. Also you could add a transparent cut diagramm, which can be moved over the silhouette as a marksman sights to explain the concept: "It simply represents the directions that a cut could be made form".

Some of Burton's ideas are definitely good: suggesting that the weight should be equally distributed (at his time this stance was more an exception than a norm, BTW Waite said absolutely the same), suggesting that soldiers should be taught to use their sword with left hand, his description of different cut types is very instructive (probably only Waite mentioned cutting with CoP). Just to mention a few things, I haven't finished his book yet.

[Ulrich von L...n]

Cut 5, 6, 11, and 12 are the type of cuts that indicate to me a relatively light blade.

Yes, you can do those cuts with a sports blade, or perhaps even with a light duelling sabre, but the result will be a touch or light bruise on the opponent's shoulder due to the sudden change of the trajectory (and loss of energy). So definitely an overcomplicated system of cuts, some of which are patently not suitable for the army.

The modern sabre fencing stance, which is not terribly different from the guard suggested by Waite (length, weight distribution), Burton (length, weight distribution, too some extent even the position of arms), provides a better combination of defensive and offensive abilities, naturally coupled with the ability to maintain constantly the proper distance.

Targeting the front leg.

Attacking the front leg is one of the favourite attacks of some Hungarian reenactors (for instance Baranta sabreurs), usually you could quite easily to slip the front leg, even from the "modern" stance and ripost with a solid head cut (rewarded with 3 points) or shoulder cut (2 points).

[admin]

Don't get me wrong, I like to read Burton's book. But I do not think it really offers anything that others do not (other than the advanced arm-cuts), and it is not really a complete manual in the way that Hutton's Cold Steel is, for example. It spends too much time talking about what is wrong with other manuals and not enough time laying out lessons.

Burton's cut diagram is just plain silly. You can easily explain every type of cut with the conventional numbers 1-8 and naming the location, as Hutton and Angelo did. For example, a Cut 1 to the inside right forearm, or a Cut 5 at the inside right knee, or a Cut 4 to the outside right ribs.

Regarding the stance, yes Angelo's manual of 1845 showed a back-weighted stance. However, almost all manuals after that (from Europe - America was somewhat behind) show an equal weighted stance. Burton was not special. Remember that nearly all officers who learned sabre fencing had also previously learned foil fencing, and an equal-weighted stance was taught by many foil teachers (the back-weighted stance for foil/smallsword was popular in the early 1800's, just as in sabre).

As a sword collector I find Burton's discussion on the Italian sword hilt interesting, also the detail about wrapping the grip, which Waite also discusses.

[admin]

p.s. On the question of stance and weight location on the legs: I do not think of one as wrong and the other as right. They are just two different options. Clearly there were lots of expert fencers in c.1800, both in sabre and foil, who found that back-weighted stances were good. Just because later fencers tended to move more towards even weighting on the legs does not back it better... They have different strengths and weaknesses - someone who likes back-weighted stances could easily argue that they are more defensive and safer, whereas moving the weight forwards could be related to a 'sportification' of swordsmanship.

[Thearos]

C19th boxing stances were also backweighted, no ? In imitation of fencing stances ? Unless it was the other way round.

[John H]

On stance I was not trying to say back weighted is superior and middle weighted stinks, I was just pointing out some advantages of back weighted. I actually like middle weighted for Sabre as (when my opponent targets my body/head) it gives a quick and easy void by shifting my weight back, and then a quick shift of the weight forward can bring me back into range. Because the blades move in an arch instead of linearly at you, I don’t find it as important to have my weight back. The blades are also shorter than a Rapier thus an efficient leg snipe is also not as likely, but if I have my leg targeted I’d rather have my weight back. Once you are used to putting your weight back you can stand like a flamingo and fence that way, it is far more efficient to slip the leg with the weight back. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

Back weighted is the older of the recorded stances and is seen back to the 1600’s if not earlier. In application to a Rapier is it extremely efficient, just take the ‘targeting the knee.’ It removes the knee by about six inches. From my experience you only lose about three to four inches when targeting the knee vs the chest. Thus you can hit their knee while remaining about two inches out of distance of their blade. I use to have this regularly pointed out to me when I used a middle weighted stance. I put the weight back on Rapier because I have to at this point not because I thought it was ‘better’ in the first place.

The boxing stances relate to the rule set in line at that time, and not the boxing rules are completely different. Throws were allowed and the back weighted stance allowed ‘boxing’ to happen while keeping the body out of easy reach by your opponent, making it harder to throw. Modern boxing has no need of this as no throws are allowed but we’ve seen a few fighters start using the ‘old school guards’ in MMA, here’s a thread about that, and naturally someone studying Pulgism would have better answers for you - viewtopic.php?f=31&t=18557&p=301333#p301333

[Chris Holzman]

Regarding back weighted stances, Maestro Barbasetti weighs in in favor of them, in a manner of speaking. In his 1932 English language reprint/update of his 1899 German sabre book, he says:

"In order to enable the pupil to take the positon of the guard easily and correctly, it will be convenient to make him repeat the second movement [of coming on guard], specially stressing the fact that the weight of the body must not be supported by the right leg. Thus the right foot is left free to move forward in the advance or in the lunge(1). Your left knee should be perpendicularly over the point of the left foot, and our right knee perpendicularly over the right heel. The legs are bent at the knees at an angle of 120 degrees. The upper part of the body is inclined slightly forward, the small of the back is hollowed, and your shoulders are in a horizontal line with the sabre. The weight of the body rests rather on your left leg, so that the right leg may be free to move easily in the case of an advance or a lunge. The shoulders and stomach are drawn back, and your body is in profile.

(1) Most fencing manuals recommend an equal division of the weight of the body on both legs. We consider this injurious in practice, for when the right foot is moved forward the right leg should be hampered as little as possible. However, when the right leg has to carry a large portion of the body weight, it will be necessary to transfer that weight to the left let before starting the lunge. This movement involves a delay and also warns your opponent. Both factors are bound to reduce the chances of eventual success."

That said, I'm not sure I agree with him - since at least in general in the Italian school, the lunge is driven by the back leg, and in the French school which has long held to a rear weighted stance, one of the common complaints about students learning to lunge is that they're lunging up more than forward - little surprise when they're leaning back on the back leg and have the rear shoulder often behind the rear knee.

However, note that Barbasetti tilts the trunk forward a bit on guard, and so while weight is back on the back leg, the trunk weight is forward, which does help the lunge a bit given the position.

[Ulrich von L...n]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Burton fan. Nevertheless he should get the credit when he deserves.

Regarding the stance, yes Angelo's manual of 1845 showed a back-weighted stance. However, almost all manuals after that (from Europe - America was somewhat behind) show an equal weighted stance. Burton was not special.

Well, just a quick look into the Engaging guards for sabre... topic provided the following examples of back-weighted stance after 1845: Tinguely (1856), Cerri (1861) showing German, French, Hungarian and Italian engaging guards, Sebetic (1886), Swedish military manual (1893). Because Sebetic learned fencing at the Central Military Fencing School at Wiener Neustadt and his manual was officially allowed to be used for troop training, it is fair to assume that his engaging guard depicts more or less the "official" stance of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1870-1890 (this is supported by the Cerri's depiction). We have the same back-weighred guard in the pictures of Chappon's manual (1911, the third edition; the first contains only very amateurish drawings, basically useless for us).

It seems Burton wasn't a complete pioneer, but he was most definitely among less orthodox fencers of his time.