Sabre tactics: don't attack, make the other guy attack

[Thearos]

Looking at the 1887 manuel, "Le jeu de l'épée" (Jules Jacob)-- appendix on how to fight a duel with the sabre. I translate from pp. 172-3:

"In both cases [épée and sabre], the essential principle remains the same: by all means, to make the opponent surrender himself, offer himself within reach of the weapon, and not to offer oneself, such is the general aim of the sabre fighter as well as the epee fighter"

"He will therefore seek, above all, to make his opponent attack him outright [à se faire attaquer franchement], in order to parry and ripost, or counter-riposte to the body or the face; after which, as with the epiee, he will immediately spring back."

"In matter of attacks, he will almost exclusive carry out false attacks on the closest part, in order to set his opponent off [afin de faire partir l'adversaire\, to make him lunge, and deliver himself [se livrer]."


--advice for a real duel, mind: watch and wait and riposte when the opponent is open; self-preservation and caution above all; attacks only as feints, half-attacks to provoke riposte which gives the opportunity for the real attack, in counter-riposte.

Is there no place for "outright attack" (attaquer franchement), with one of the six cuts ?

[Andreas Engström]

Is there no place for "outright attack" (attaquer franchement), with one of the six cuts ?

Sure there is, but not realistically or profitably against someone standing in a perfect guard against you at a comfortably safe distance. Create a better opening with a beat, disengage, feint, half-attack or whatever, to make him leave the guard. A point about the feint or half attack, though.. of course if the opponent doesn't' react to it enough to keep himself safe it can often be turned into a proper attack, and will then look quite like a simple outright attack and not like the feint it was really intended as. If he reacts too much it will of course instead just open the way for the real attack.

-Andreas

[Andreas Engström]

I usually attack far too much (or more than I should, at least) in sparring, but that's because I'm easily bored.

-Andreas

[hafoc]

Interestingly, standing upon your guard, parrying and riposting rather than initiating the attack is the same advice given in "Highland Broadsword" by Wagner and Rector, and seems to have formed the foundation of the regimental Highland broadsword methods that were adapted to saber for British cavalry and the cutlass for the British navy.

[Thearos]

I seem to remember MrAdmin talking about Silverists (Silveradoes) being very good at defence ant counter attack, but basically having no theory of how to attack; and I think I understand better the earlier thread (also by MrAdmin) on "how to attack" (lunge into distance, batter aside, feint...).

[admin]

IMO defending and riposting is easier and therefore, for most people, safer. That does not make it better though. The key is to learn how to be as good and as safe whilst attacking as you are whilst defending. Some sources, such as Waite, give very clear advice on how to feint and attack, which on paper (and I believe in practice) gives you a framework in which you can attack just as safely as you can defend and then counter. Ultimately it all usually comes down to time, line and distance, and if you can make sure your opponent gets one of those wrong, whilst you get all three correct, then they are screwed. It doesn't actually matter who is defending or attacking.

[admin]

p.s. I should add that whilst parry-riposte is generally easier and safer, for less experienced people, if you only ever do that then you will get walked over by a really good fencer. Against an experienced fencer you can not only play the role of defender, because you'll get taken apart eventually - you need to be able to keep the opponent guessing and nervous by mixing 1) parry-riposte with 2) stop-thrusts and 3) attacks (some with feints, some not - if you feint all the time then it's not a feint).

[hafoc]

p.s. I should add that whilst parry-riposte is generally easier and safer, for less experienced people, if you only ever do that then you will get walked over by a really good fencer. Against an experienced fencer you can not only play the role of defender, because you'll get taken apart eventually - you need to be able to keep the opponent guessing and nervous by mixing 1) parry-riposte with 2) stop-thrusts and 3) attacks (some with feints, some not - if you feint all the time then it's not a feint).

I would tend to agree. Thompson is of the opinion that the regimental Highland broadsword methods in the 18th cen. treatises and as practiced in the regiments into the 19th cen. were a simplified version of an apparently more sophisticated dueling method prevalent in the Highlands before 1745 and the disarming acts.

One thing about the manuals simplicity: the methods seem calculated to be able to teach a large number of men quickly to attain a reasonable degree of skill in a short time.

[Thearos]

I can't remember where I read a good section on battering (beating ? rebating) aside the opponent's guard. Taylor ?

In Waite, pp. 76-7 seem relevant:

"Drawing" your opponent out into an attack for which you are prepared, by a half-attack on a half-lunge;

"Observations on feinting", both on how to neutralize them (do not answer) and how to respond to that (make feints more aggressive)


"How to deal with a man who is continually countering" (which Waite thinks "a very bad practice")-- wait him out, OR draw him out with false attacks, OR time and structure your attacks to as to throw him off the rhythms of his counters.

[Lyceum]

Fencing is a waiting game until someone dies, you can't ward off death indefinitely and have to strike yourself.

Learning how to fight defensively is, of course, a core skill but...well basically I agree with what Matt said.

Also, its much easier to talk about tricking and manipulating your opponent on paper than actually doing it. Aggression often works even where strategy and skill can fail. Two years back I took out a very good epee fencer simply by hitting constantly fast and hard. Obviously, there are many incongruities between sport and more martial forms of Fencing, but the point still stands.

[Thearos]

Can't wait !

[The Salmon Lord]

The "wait til they attack and then riposte" or even "wait til they attack then cut their wrist" tactic is very common but does miss a lot of the "fun" but also the nuances of the system. Fenders who rely on this tactic often get found out.

As already described beats, bearing, fients etc can all be used to improve the odds of the first attack. But a decent sabruer should also be able to recover and parry from an initial failed attack, and suddenly you are the fencer who never practices recovering and you are the one lying spent.

Sabre is not simply a game of one or two plays at a decent level. Its being able to execute the fourth, fifth or sixth action properly that is the sign of a good sabruer.

[Dave B]

"He will therefore seek, above all, to make his opponent attack him outright [à se faire attaquer franchement], in order to parry and ripost, or counter-riposte to the body or the face; after which, as with the epiee, he will immediately spring back."

Is 'attack outright' the right translation? I think an equally correct translation would be attack direct. (without feint or other preparatory action). That would seem to make more sense to me given what he says later.

[Thearos]

I think your translation is the correct one (the French just says "Frankly"), with the swordsman's experience !