From John Taylor to what?

[TribalPunk]

I have been reading and practicing using John Taylor's Art of Defense of Foot with the Broad Sword and Sabre and am feeling comfortable with everything (which is most likely a sign I am doing something wrong or that I need to find a sparing partner in PA) Any suggestions of where to go next. I have heard good and bad in equal parts regarding Hutton and mostly good things about Burton and Waite. Any suggestion would be great. A little background...I have fenced (sport) for years and am looking to stay away from rapier as much as possible as personally it has grown stale for me. Though if that is what I should go back to than I suppose I will. There seems to be little interest in sabre specifically at least in regards to the wealth of interest in longsword and rapier. Thanks ahead of time.

[Andreas Engström]

I would recommend Waite, and stick with sabre. The interest has been growing by leaps and bounds these last few years, and is starting to really take off. Go in the forefront! Curved is the new black!

-Andreas

[Magnus Hagelberg]

Sabre has distinct qualities for the working man.

So I would recommend that you stick to it.

some of the selling points are that you can without much hardshipp, get your hands on an antique, so the feel and balance of the historical objects are within reach.

The straight posture and stable footwork of sabreuring is beneficial for strengthening the lower back and thus combating back ache. Further, if you train to be equally proficient with both hands, you may somewhat lessen the strain of mouse arm

Waite is not a bad choise

[Andreas Engström]

Actually, of course I would really want to recommend Swedish sabre to you instead of Waite, but then I will have to hurry up with my english translations thereof.. I'm about half-way through with the first of the two manuals I intend to translate. Integrating the illustrations is actually the biggest pain. I hate Microsoft Word's way of dealing with images.

-Andreas

[admin]

Curved is the new black!

LOL.
I'm actually intending to do the opposite soon - that is, have a proper look into Taylor. From my light readings of it in the past it seems a really comprehensive manual. For example he covers traversing, which most British sabre manuals do not. I would recommend reading as many manuals as possible - you can read through most in one sitting, or perhaps two. Hutton is definitely worth reading (and of his many books). Burton is also worth reading. O'Rourke is a good American source. For actually practicing, with sword in hand, I would recommend Waite most highly. The most unique thing about Waite from my perspective is that he better illustrates how to be an attacker than most of the other sabre manuals. He also writes incredibly clearly and has very good illustrations. If you fancy reading French, German, Spanish or Italian then there are good sabre manuals in those languages as well.

[TribalPunk]

Curved is the new black!

LOl. I have really fallen in love with the sabre over the past few months. I would love to read a translation of the Swedish manual you are working on.

O'Rourke is a good American source.

Anything in particular.


Thanks again. I just need to find some similarly interested people in my general area to practice with.

[Motley]

Sounds like you need to look into starting a group in your area so you can get some practice buddies.

I think there is advice to that effect around here, plenty of experience in doing it any way if you did want to start a new topic, I would search the forum first though.

[TribalPunk]

Sounds like you need to look into starting a group in your area so you can get some practice buddies.

I think there is advice to that effect around here, plenty of experience in doing it any way if you did want to start a new topic, I would search the forum first though.

I have been thinking along these same line most of this week.

[John H]

I’d definitely say get someone to work with, everything takes on a new dimension once someone is swinging back at you. You get to play with what the real options for attacks and ripostes are once you have the other guy working with you.

Once you are through one manual most the rest read pretty quickly, you end up looking for things that are different. The interesting parts tend to be each authors advice on how to deal with things rather than the system itself. So read through Hutton, I like the Angelo military manuals, there is a recent translation of Radaelli in english, Burton is good, Waite etc…I tend not to like the American manuals, something about reading an entire section on how to draw and salute, that was almost longer than the section on how to use the blade.

Edit: also as you read the manuals you can get a sense of what kind of blade they are writing for. Taylor is more applicable to a heavier blade but is also adapted to a Spadroon, while Hutton is more applicable to a light blade.

[admin]

This last part is interesting to me. In part those differences are because of the regulation swords then in use. In Taylor's time infantry officers either carried a sabre or a spadroon, and those early infantry sabres were more or less based on cavalry sabres, so they were fairly broad and curved (Google '1803 pattern sabre'). The spadroon in contrast (the 1796 pattern spadroon) is usually almost useless for cutting, but it more like a battlefield smallsword (ie. a poker). Some of them have beefier blades, but most are very light (I own two originals and I would naturally use them like a smallsword).
Hutton is a bit more tricky - he does specify in Cold Steel that he is discussing the 'light sabre', but I think what he means is simply the standard weight infantry sword, rather than the cavalry sword. In general infantry sabres were around 2lbs in weight and cavalry swords around 2.5lbs, and the infantry swords tend to balance slightly closer to the hand as well. So they do often feel quite a bit lighter, but there is a lot of variation and overlap. Waite says that with a 'light' sword you place your thumb up the back of the grip and with a 'heavy' sword you hold it in a hammer grip, but he does not suggest that his system is any different for each. The Italian duelling sabres systems are, in my opinion, designed to take advantage of having a light blade balanced very close to the hand.
I think broadly speaking though, you can use pretty much any of these systems with pretty much any 19thC sword. For example cutlass systems were pretty much the same, yet the weapon was fairly different.

[admin]

Looking at Taylor, he specifically states that his system will work for broadsword, sabre, spadroon or hanger. In terms of gripping the sword he notes that lighter swords favour the thumb-up grip, whilst heavier swords, or swords with shorter grips, favour the hammer grip. As Waite says.

[Chris Holzman]

The Italian duelling sabres systems are, in my opinion, designed to take advantage of having a light blade balanced very close to the hand.

I largely agree. Maestro Radaelli/Capt. Del Frate, and those who followed him (and those who opposed him, in Italy) all pretty much say that they want the blade balanced pretty close to the hand. That said, these systems (Radaelli/Parise) were all meant to be basic training in the handling of the sabre for military purposes, using the lighter blade as a training tool for the military weapon. Maestro Masiello, who was a student of Radaelli, but who greatly modified his system of fencing, wrote to Gen. Angelini in the mid 1880s in a letter that Del Frate was prevented by Radaelli's death from updating the book on Radaelli's system to take into account the needs of sabre fencing as a sport.

The Italian M1871/3 et seq. sabres had the grip designed by Del Frate that Burton speaks of, which provides an extended thumb rest beyond the guard that helps to move the balance point closer to the hand. These were still 1" wide curved cavalry blades, and while the actual practical use of the sabre in the mid-1870s in Italy was mostly fencing for fun and dueling, they were still certainly taking the sabre seriously as a military weapon. In fact, they Italian army didn't adopt a metallic cartridge bolt action rifle until something like 1871, and even then it was a single shot Vetterli rifle without a magazine.

Oh - and John H, I do appreciate the mention of my Radaelli/Del Frate translation. It's now actually available, after a number of delays that mostly centered on how in the heck the printer was going to bind in the full sized fold out images. The figured it out and did a nice job of it though.

Chris

[John H]

First thanks for the translation; I should have mine by next week.

The Italian M1871/3 et seq. sabres had the grip designed by Del Frate that Burton speaks of, which provides an extended thumb rest beyond the guard that helps to move the balance point closer to the hand. These were still 1" wide curved cavalry blades, and while the actual practical use of the sabre in the mid-1870s in Italy was mostly fencing for fun and dueling, they were still certainly taking the sabre seriously as a military weapon. In fact, they Italian army didn't adopt a metallic cartridge bolt action rifle until something like 1871, and even then it was a single shot Vetterli rifle without a magazine.

That was something I was wondering about concerning the context of Radaelli. The US M1860 was roughly 1.25 inches wide and the main weapon used was the carbine or pistol, as the Civil War fighters had already begun considering the Sabre an outdated weapon, and later during the 'pacification of the west' the rifle was used more than the blade. None the less we still fielded a more robust Sabre and many official manuals favored republishing older manuals like Le Marchant’s over the newer systems that seemed more suited to dueling blades. Add to this Matt’s statements that the English troopers commonly ordered heavier blades, I had started to wonder how much actual battlefield fighting Italy was doing in this time period. It does seem the use of their Sabre was more directed to a duel rather than battle, but I’, sure I’ll have more thoughts on this after getting through your book.

[Chris Holzman]

First thanks for the translation; I should have mine by next week.

The Italian M1871/3 et seq. sabres had the grip designed by Del Frate that Burton speaks of, which provides an extended thumb rest beyond the guard that helps to move the balance point closer to the hand. These were still 1" wide curved cavalry blades, and while the actual practical use of the sabre in the mid-1870s in Italy was mostly fencing for fun and dueling, they were still certainly taking the sabre seriously as a military weapon. In fact, they Italian army didn't adopt a metallic cartridge bolt action rifle until something like 1871, and even then it was a single shot Vetterli rifle without a magazine.

That was something I was wondering about concerning the context of Radaelli. The US M1860 was roughly 1.25 inches wide and the main weapon used was the carbine or pistol, as the Civil War fighters had already begun considering the Sabre an outdated weapon, and later during the 'pacification of the west' the rifle was used more than the blade. None the less we still fielded a more robust Sabre and many official manuals favored republishing older manuals like Le Marchant’s over the newer systems that seemed more suited to dueling blades. Add to this Matt’s statements that the English troopers commonly ordered heavier blades, I had started to wonder how much actual battlefield fighting Italy was doing in this time period. It does seem the use of their Sabre was more directed to a duel rather than battle, but I’, sure I’ll have more thoughts on this after getting through your book.

My 1860 is dead on at 1" wide. It's an antique blade that was dismounted during the 20s probably, and was in the hollywood/western costume buyout on ebay about 2001. 35" long, 1" wide, on 1/4" thick stock with a lot of distal taper. Stiff with deep fullers, and about 1.5" or so of curve - whatever is standard. I have cut 2 inch green bamboo without even really noticing it is there. The specs of the M1871/3 trooper's sabre in Italy aren't a great deal different, though its a straighter but still curved blade. The M1871/3 photo I have in my book is an officer's model that is a bit lighter.

I think the thing to keep in mind with sabre in Italy in the 1870s and onward, is that from a military perspective, we have to ignore the dueling sabre blades. A dueling sabre = a military fencing practice sabre which =/= a military issue sabre. Radaelli was charged with creating fencing masters for the regiments of the cavalry and artillery. Radaelli and Del Frate were both veterans of the Italy v. Austria campaign in ?1859? as members of the Monferrato cavalry - way before Italy had anything by way of modern-ish rifles. The Vetterli they adopted in 1871 was a cheapskate's joke. Del Frate's book speaks of the molinelli or circular cuts in terms of big circular cuts, made primarily from the elbow, but also involving the shoulder moving the upper arm up and to the sides. The head cuts go around and behind the head, the cheek cuts carry the elbow either open to the outside, or across the body, and so on. The direct cuts (coupe') are chambered with the sabre drawn up and back to the height of the head, and 'delivered like the blow of a hammer'. Radaelli and his students were often criticized by their Southern political/fencing opponents for hitting too hard. Guard is extended almost fully, point in line in 2nd position - and all the parries are made contracting the arm somewhat, which helps chamber the direct riposte or get the molinello or cutover riposte started. Expulsions/disarms are started fully chambered like the direct cuts as well. The molinelli are taught from a half lunge position, and the body rocks back and forth with the knees, during the withdrawal of the blade and then the making of the cut - and Del Frate points out that every cut should have the power to remove the opponent from combat. Del Frate also makes some statements about how prior to Radaelli's method, the sabre in Italy was a weapon that 'had been languishing for some time'. That is probably a shot across the bow of the Southern contingent, who were even then pushing Parise's system. After the scuola magistrale was moved to Roma after Radaelli's death - Parise hired Radaellian students as his assistant masters. Add to that a statement by Gelli, that the regiments of cavalry tried Parise's system, and after some unsatisfactory period of experimentation, abandoned it and returned to Radaelli's method, and I think we get a sense of at least what was perceived as effective.

So on the whole, while I'd say that clearly that actual percentage USE of the fencing system was enormously skewed toward having fun and/or dueling with the lighter blades, the basic training system was very much designed to make use of the heavier and sturdier military blades, in a military training and application method.

I do hope you enjoy the book. It is a bit of a hefty piece of reading, but I really hope that people find the additional materials in addition to the translation of Del Frate useful.

Chris

[admin]

For the record, most European infantry officers' sword blades were about 1 inch wide, whilst most cavalry blades were a bit wider until the end of the century when most countries swapped to narrow thrusting blades. Italian and German infantry blades were a bit narrower on average, I think. Maybe because they weren't fighting tulwars, dao and shamshirs like the British and French. Maybe not. Britain's experience in India and Afghanistan seems to have played an important part in our sword and fencing history.

[Chris Holzman]

Honestly, I'm not sure I can even begin to speculate as to why, Matt. I do recall that some of the photos I've seen of earlier Italian sabre models are of wider blades, and some of the earlier Italian fencing books illustrate what appear to be wider blades as well, for what that is worth.

Radaelli/Del Frate definitely have an acknowledged preference for the thrust, but not to the exclusion of the cut. Indeed, Radaelli's school and followers felt that the wrist based molinelli and push cuts of the southern school were a weakness that needed to be fixed, if you read between the lines of what Masiello and Gelli say in their writings at the end of the 19th century - and they fixed them by utilizing controlling the cuts and other weapon movements primarily with the elbow - a larger, stronger movement.

During this period, even the dueling sword (spada) in Italy, unlike the French epee, was still intended to have two cutting edges, and Rosaroll-Scorza and Grisetti recommend a dueling sword blade about 3/4" wide at the ricasso, in order to retain some cutting ability. Even that hadn't changed that much by last quarter of the 19th century.

Chris

[admin]

Very interesting Chris - it's great to have someone around with so much insight into these Italian sources.

For those who don't know the swords in question, here are the Italian cavalry officer's sabre of 1873:

http://users.skynet.be/euro-swords/Image7.jpg

And infantry officer's sabre of 1888:

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7627/39420929.jpg

And straight version:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/9833/15033771.jpg

And the equivalent British cavalry officer's sword:

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6076/1821.jpg

And infantry officer:

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7757/1854.jpg

So basically it seems there wasn't really much difference in the size of Italian and British blades up until the 1890's.

Generally speaking cavalry trooper's sword were chunkier and this is especially true in Italy. The Italian cavalry troopers' sword of 1860 was as big and broad as the British 1853 and 1864 swords (in fact it is the only Italian sword I have owned and it's a massive beast).

[Chris Holzman]

Jean's 1873 at the top is the one I feature in the book, as he was kind enough to provide me with some good photos. The troopers' model is indeed a beefier sword of the same basic design. I wanted to focus on the officers' model since the dueling class was primarily nobility and/or officers (setting aside celebrities and others to whom the concept of honor attached in the public eye) and frankly the 'The Art of the Dueling Sabre' was judged a better title in concept than my initial preference of "Northern Italian Military Sabre".

There is usually an 1871/3 troopers model on US ebay, and I think Lions Gate or whatever it's called has a photo or two of one as well. I would also suspect that the 'camera Del Frate' for the thumb on the 1871/3, which lets you move the hand an inch or so forward on the grip, probably yields a sufficient balance change that the feeling of the practice sword and the military sword, in hand, aren't as different as they might be otherwise. I think it's also interesting to note that the thumb rest ramps upward a bit, and thus sets the blade more aggressively forward in the hand - similar in concept to a canted hilt.

[admin]

I have for years been looking for a reasonably priced 1873, but every one I ever find seems to have a bent or kinked blade. One of the disadvantages of the pipe-backed cross-section in my opinion, that and the fact that they don't cut great (which is why they were replaced in Britain in 1845). The 1873's are lovely handling swords though.