HEMA vs Modern Fencing.

[bigdummy]

Interesting, thanks Dustin.

BD

[dreagan]

To my mind sports fencing is the apogee of the former with none of the latter. It is all about the touch. It has been refined time and time again to look at nothing more than the ability to touch your opponent against his will. All gameness, or bottom has been excluded from the competitive side of the art.

Based on my own experience I would say that in sabre fencing - even with Olympic sabres aka fairy swords, car aerials etc. - you could place quite painful cuts on your opponent's body (hand, forearm, shoulder), especially if he uses only standard protection. Coaches discourage hard hitting, people sometimes complain about it, and even refuse to fence with you.

Interestingly enough it was (or still might be) a valid tactical trick. At the weekend I read a newspaper article about Tibor Berczelly, Olympic champion (1912-1990) who was famous for his intimidating "power" cuts.

erem_images_berczelly_jpg.jpg

In my experience, there is a difference between the painful, sometimes even bloody, but superficial welts & raspberries one receives from asshat sabreurs, and the deep tissue/bone bruises & fractures you get from fencing with longswords.

[Chris Holzman]

Is Hutton some kind of sportification / salle-ification of military sabre ?

To my confusion, I wasn't aware of there being a form of duelling with sabres to first blood-- I thought that was reserved for small-sword-like implements (apart from variants like German Burschenschaft duels etc). But that form-- sport /duel sabre-- did it not also emerge at some point from the military sabre ? I.e. is it

military sabre ---> sporting sabre ----> sport sabre ?

I.e. soldiers fight with sabres (cav., artillerymen, colonial troops), people develop a version for the salle (that is not based on actually hacking off people's limbs), then people develop a form for duelling out of the salle version, and ultimately those two (salle and duel) produce Olympic sabre ?

This is a rather convoluted question, which isn't entirely simple to answer because there is a fair bit of overlap.

Hutton, according to his book, is teaching his amalgamation of the then modern (late 1800s) Italian sabre, with various other importations from various other systems. Alfieri's 'guardia mista' comes immediately to mind, as does his French foil sixte parry.

We really need to look at the Italian sabre of the time, for a clearer answer, to see in general terms what Hutton is talking about.

So, in general, what Capt. Hutton is speaking of is an adaptation of the sabre taught at the Scuola Magistrale Militare di Scherma (Military Magistral Fencing School - i.e., fencing master's school) in Rome, from 1884 until sometime after WWI. The same sabre system was also imported into the French military masters school at Joinville le Pont with a fairly heavy number of modifications to make it nationalistic and palatable to them.

Scuola Magistrale started in 1869 in Milano, under Maestro Giuseppe Radaelli. Radaelli was a veteran of the Monferrato cavalry regiment, and served in the campaign against Austria in '59. Radaelli ranked as a sergeant in the cavalry, as I recall. He was a the brother of a well known Milanese fencing master of the time, Bonaventura Radaelli. His good friend Capt. Settimo Del Frate, wrote the textbook that Radaelli used at his school. That school was charged by the Italian Ministry of War, to train and certify fencing masters for the Italian cavalry and artillery regiments. We should keep in mind that the Italian military didn't adopt a metallic cartridge, breech loading rifle until the early 1870s, and when they did it was a single shot, bolt action Vetterli without even the magazine option because the politicos were worried the troops would waste ammo.

Radaelli's students included Maestri Rossi, Arista, Barbasetti, Pecoraro, Pessina, Masiello, and others. The weapon used in Radaelli's school was a lighter weapon than the Italian M1871/3 cavalry sabre (designed by Capt. Del Frate), being about 20mm wide at the guard, tapering to 10mm at the point, and around 88cm in blade length. A typical weapon of this type would weigh somewhere in the range of 575 and 680 grams, with most probably being in the 600 to 620 gram range. It was certainly considered a 'light' sabre at the time, but is hardly insubstantial. Radaellian sabre feature molinelli made centered on the elbow, and otherwise, cuts were all chambered overhead, with the sabre blade pointing up and back, the guard by the left or right temple - unless they were made as a riposte. Guards of 2nd, 3rd and 4th were taken with the arm nearly fully extended at shoulder height, and the parries all bent the arm, helping chamber the blow. As a result of the extended guard, it was recognized that direct push cuts from guard would be nearly useless. Every blow was 'to have sufficient force to remove the opponent from combat' and the non-molinello cuts were to be delivered like a 'colpo di martello' - like the blow of a hammer.

So, that is the training weapon and a really brief synopsis of the system in use.

When Radaelli passed away in 1882, the real clamor of replacing his school started, and ultimately, after a bunch of politicking, Neapolitan Maestro Masaniello Parise was chosen to head up the new school, which was moved from Milan to Rome and opened in 1884. Parise immediately hired two Radaellian sabre fencers, Salvatore Pecoraro and Carlo Pessina, to be his assistants. Barbasetti finished his certification under Parise's new school, Italo Santelli and Leonardo Terrone graduated from it as well. The school also had some civilian students - I suppose they had to make money somehow. Still, the charter of the school was for preparing fencing masters to teach sabre at the regimental level to the Cavalry, and sword fencing to the other services. As best I understand it, actual modifications for mounted combat were made at the regimental level, probably at the cavalry schools by the riding instructors. The Italian fencing texts by the various grads are, to the last, silent on the issue.

In sabre the new school used a system that blended the Radaellian sabre with some of the elements of Parise's sabre system, but which maintained the molinelli based on the elbow, not on the wrist as Parise (and Hutton) liked. Barbasetti, in his English translation of his 1899 sabre book, in 1932, recommends chambering non molinello cuts by drawing the hand back somewhat in order to give more power to the cut. Certainly not all cuts were huge molinelli - the molinello ristretto was allowed for and mentioned in some of the late 19th century books - and its just a molinello of smaller scope, still centered on the elbow.

The guard of 2nd is recommended by Parise, Masiello, Del Frate, Barbasetti, Rossi, et al., as being the guard to use during a bout. So, Parise still preferred molinelli from the wrist as attacks, rather than the push cuts from his guard of third, which was very vertical and close to the body. Parise is actually the one who gives the dimensions for the sabre, in his 1904 book, and requires the 20mm wide blade tapering to 10mm, lightly curved. This matches the illustration in his 1884 book, which is essentially identical (and scales nearly identically) to the drawings in Del Frate's book. Specifically, Parise required a blade 'like that used for dueling' when giving his measurements.

Thus, the military practice blade/fencing sabre blade for the Italian army, was the same sabre blade used for dueling.

According to Gen. Angelini's dueling code of 1885, participants were to purchase new blades, have them professionally sharpened, and have their duel with those. The restriction of the thrust, or cuts to the head, were strictly forbidden on grounds that disallowing those actions would make a mockery of the duel, and the code required at least a severe wound be inflicted, and in certain cases required that one or the other be 'reduced to the impossibility of ever wielding a weapon'. Jacopo Gelli's dueling code contains much the same provisions, and it had 20-some editions printed over the years, into the 1920s.

So, the sabre fencing of the Italian military was the same method as the Italian dueling sabre - since that was no more than fighting with the sharpened practice blade - wearing naught but a linen shirt, and possibly a sabre glove to prevent a cut to the wrist or hand from ending a duel by a minor would that would otherwise incapacitate someone without actually inflicting a sufficient wound.

These same fencing masters spread throughout Europe and South America. Pini in Argentina, Barbasetti in Vienna and later in France, Santelli in Budapest, and revolutionized sabre fencing.

Certainly, the vast majority of sabre fencing from the 1870s and forward in Italy was for fun, fame, and profit, followed by dueling, and with probably relatively little actual military use outside of the practice ground. Still, it was essentially the military sabre system.

It's not Cavalry sabre exactly, but its certainly military sabre and dueling sabre, and modifications to that system gradually resulted in the sabre of the 1960s and 70s...

Pretty much all of the information I've presented here, is in the historical note of my book, but better organized and fully cited. You might also want to look at the three articles I've got on salvatorfabris.com under the articles link. "Affect and Effect" and "From Radaelli to Present" may help fill in the blanks a bit.

So to come back to the original point, Hutton is presenting his take on the Italian military/dueling/fencing sabre system of the era. Compare it to Wright, who is teaching and advocating Masiello's variant of Radaellian sabre (molinelli from the elbow, but also presenting weird, fully extended arm parries of 1st, 2nd and 5th). Contrast that with Leon Bertrand's "Cut and Thrust" (or the same material, better presented in Cass' "Book of Fencing") and you'll see how the material had quickly begun to be sport-tuned. Given that perspective, what Hutton is trying to do is present the student with something that he finds good and practical, that includes all the things he thinks are useful or important. I don't agree with some of it, and I don't think it's a typical "English" sabre system at all - but Cold Steel is a pretty easy book to follow in comparison to some of the others of the period. Until recently, when my translation of Del Frate was released with additional materials under the "Art of the Dueling Sabre" title, it's also been the only English language sabre book of the late 19th century that was at all easily available. (I'm ignoring Wright, available via books.google, who everyone seems to overlook anyway, and who isn't the clearest, being that its an abridged translation of Masiello).

Also - I wanted to comment briefly on the noted complaint that books are old and dead. This isn't a new idea cooked up by the modern fencers of today. Maestro Pallavicini complains of fencers and master having the same attitude on the same topic in 1670, in his book, "La Scherma Illustrata". In Ch. 26 he says, "In seeing an old book they condemn it by saying "it is an old book", but of these modern Maestri I have not seen any new good things, and so he who does not read cannot give law, and thus must not condemn other people’s efforts, especially those of good ancient authors."

Best,

Chris

[admin]

Awesome post Chris, thanks for taking the time to set all that out.

The only thing I have to add is to emphasise (as I often do!) that Hutton was very much not typical British military sabre and that if someone is interested in that then they should be looking at Henry Charles Angelo's manual of 1845 (which had its roots in his father's cutlass and sabre system of 30 years earlier) and Waite's manual of 1880 (which was in some ways related to Angelo's school, as well as the foil system of Pierre Prevost).

[Ulrich von L...n]

Nullo modo, amice. Nullo modo.

[Ulrich von L...n]

In my experience, there is a difference between the painful, sometimes even bloody, but superficial welts & raspberries one receives from asshat sabreurs, and the deep tissue/bone bruises & fractures you get from fencing with longswords.

There is no doubt about it, but from different topics on protecting equipment it seems that everybody wants to have sturdier and more reliable equipment, especially for hand protection. So in the long term there is a trend moving away from serious things (deep tissue/bone bruises, fractures) toward less serious.

[bigdummy]

There is no doubt about it, but from different topics on protecting equipment it seems that everybody wants to have sturdier and more reliable equipment, especially for hand protection. So in the long term there is a trend moving away from serious things (deep tissue/bone bruises, fractures) toward less serious.

Let's hope!

BD

[The Salmon Lord]

I think there will be solutions but they will cost. Often there are solutions, but they cost. We are a small hobby so economies of scale will not kick in. Good, well made, kit costs. Negrini jackets for example.

An issue I see a lot in historical swordplay is people trying to do things on the cheap.

[admin]

Speaking personally I have all the kit I want, with the exception of suitable gloves. They are the one things that I feel we are seriously lacking. Jackets are easy IMHO.

[Thearos]

We really need to look at the Italian sabre of the time, for a clearer answer, to see in general terms what Hutton is talking about.

...

Very learned and fascinating. Terrifying picture of what sabre combat is for-- inflicting power-cuts with sufficient impact to disable; and of sabre duelling (the money quote is that the losing party should not be able to wield a weapon *ever again*). But surely, this is of direct interest to a modern sabre fencer ?

Evviva il molinello !

[bigdummy]

I've been thinking a lot on this topic and it seems to me as if we are missing something significant from the discussion.

In pugilistic terms a fighter needs both "science" and "bottom". These are pretty basic concepts, science is technical ability to carry off techniques effectively, and bottom is gameness, or spirit, or the drive to keep fighting even if it hurts like hell.

To my mind sports fencing is the apogee of the former with none of the latter. It is all about the touch. It has been refined time and time again to look at nothing more than the ability to touch your opponent against his will. All gameness, or bottom has been excluded from the competitive side of the art.

In HEMA we still value this concept, we care deeply about the inner strength of a fighter getting up again and fighting one more time even if it hurts. That is why the Franco-Belgian system is such a good one, the King fights again and again. You have to demonstrate science to kill him, and then bottom to be him. That is why the afterblow has become so popular. That is why we brag about the ridiculous bruises we have, that is why we don't see broken hands as too big a deal. We care as much about being "up for it" as we do about being technically able. We want to show the heart of a fighter as well as the pure technical ability.

One day someone will come up with a ruleset that looks at both equally and when they do I suspect it will be widely accepted and finally allow us to start looking at proper rankings in HEMA.

Just wanted to say this is a great post.

BD

[John H]

But surely, this is of direct interest to a modern sabre fencer ?

Evviva il molinello !

It was to me, but that is why I switched to HEMA...

To give you a better understanding, many of the guys I trained with had absolutely no care in the world what a real blade would do. They were there for competition and the sport not because the liked to play with swords. So really no, a good chunk of the people fencing have no interest in duels or historical weapons or any of it. Yes there will be some, but it's not a good assumption to think that all of them care. Finding the ones who do care is the key as it means you will probably have some people to practice with.

http://www.fencing.net/gallery/showphot ... ppuser/407

[Thearos]

But surely, this is of direct interest to a modern sabre fencer ?

Evviva il molinello !

It was to me, but that is why I switched to HEMA...

To give you a better understanding, many of the guys I trained with had absolutely no care in the world what a real blade would do. They were there for competition and the sport not because the liked to play with swords. So really no a good chunk of the people fencing have no interest in duels or historical weapons or any of it.

http://www.fencing.net/gallery/showphot ... ppuser/407

Wow that looks like something out of The Onion. Would also make a great stickman cartoon or internet game.

[Chris Holzman]

We really need to look at the Italian sabre of the time, for a clearer answer, to see in general terms what Hutton is talking about.

...

Very learned and fascinating. Terrifying picture of what sabre combat is for-- inflicting power-cuts with sufficient impact to disable; and of sabre duelling (the money quote is that the losing party should not be able to wield a weapon *ever again*). But surely, this is of direct interest to a modern sabre fencer ?

Evviva il molinello !

For most, its a pure sport/game, without a lot of consideration of what the weapons really stand for. We don't even have kata like kendo does to at least illustrate and teach the ideal form of making cuts (or any sort of test cutting - or blades appropriate for it). To be fair, even in Italian sabre, the range of disagreement between Radaelli and Parise was huge, regarding what an ideal cut was - elbow or wrist, chambered or pushed, and so on. If you haven't read it, I'd definitely suggest my Affect and Effect article - though I've touched on it in this post and the prior post, I think it lays things out more clearly. The other two articles flesh out some of the same points. http://salvatorfabris.org/SabreCut20thCentury.shtml

Treating fencing as a game is fine and good, and I've nothing against it, but it's not something that interests me a great deal anymore.

I think there is a key point that I need to make - which is that sabre cuts made in the purely Radaellian method with the center of percussion can impart a heck of a lot of force into the opponent, and without it being as a result of an attempt to make a brutal hit. It's simply a heavier blade, traveling a bigger cut path, and hitting with the part of the blade the causes the most impact, whilst the front foot is still airborne in the lunge, and which tries to finish the last inch or two of arm extension into the target in order to carry the cut through the target rather than letting it bounce (not that you won't do that from time to time, especially on external targets where it's more of a pushing cut by nature than a lateral cut across the target since it enables the return to guard) on the surface of the target. Rather than a truly pulling cut where impact occurs after the top of the arc of the cut has been reached, we're cutting in and following through, and the slice occurs as a result due to the angle of the blade opposed to the target v. the direction of travel of the blade.

We simply have to recognize that bigger actions delivered with serious intent are going to hit with much more authority, without it being mean spirited. I have very little patience for that sort of behavior.

It also means that the concept of tempo becomes a little murky - and there is a definite reason in that respect, that Del Frate/Radaelli point out a couple of times that the thrust (particularly the glide) is preferable, or that feints be used to set the opponent up for the cut.

There was in the Italian dueling codes a sort of dichotomy of intent. On one hand, there was the recognition that the duel was illegal - that the requirements of honor necessitated committing the crime of the duel, and on the other hand there was the understanding that duels for a scratch were really quite silly, and that the authorities were generally blind to the goings on so long as you kept it 'secret' As a result, the sabre duel arising from an atrocious insult (one made with a blow) required the sabre duel 'to the end' - which was the inability to wield a weapon again. This was a nod to the fact that a dueling contract that required death was tantamount to an admission of premeditated murder, and probably wasn't a really good idea. It was felt that the sabre was the least dangerous weapon, because it gave the possibility for someone to sacrifice a limb in order to avoid being killed. I suppose that beats the heck out of standing at 15 paces, motionless, and trading pistol shots (literally all day if necessary) until someone has received a 'serious wound'. There was none of the 'well, we'll go at dawn, fire shots 30 degrees into the air, call it good, and go have breakfast. The penalties for violations of the dueling code were essentially "a moral death, worse than the physical one". What was meant was the exclusion from polite society, which for a gentleman whose income was likely from various business endeavors really was terrible, since such things would definitely be impacted by your exclusion from your social/business circles.

Chris

[Joeli]

Hey, this could be of interest or relevance to the subject as an example of mishmash with a sport fencing lesson and hema longsword techniques. The sources are döbringer, danzig, Windsor's private lesson methods and BAF lesson structure. The point of the lesson is to provide a controlled environment for the student with consistent input and feedback, as demonstrated to the student before each stage of the lesson. Lesson progresses as the student can perform the current step consistently to his level. The steps include an element of uncertainty, making the student to choose appropriate responses to coach's actions. Close to full speed and high intensity, but aiming at a succes rate of 80-90% for the student. Coach does not screw up his technique just to make it work for the student, but the lesson may have to be taken to the very basics if problems arise. Emphasis on action, not verbal instruction. Feders, gloves, mask.

Prerequisites: matching partner's rhythm in zufechten, nontelegraphing a vorschlag, duplieren, versetzen to change of guard. Warm up: solo footwork and cutting. Goal of the lesson is to teach the student to get in and out after a vorschlag in a safe manner, plain and simple.

1. From coach's invitation to his upper left blossen, student sets left foot within distance and strikes a vorschlag oberhauw with a passing step.

2. If coach indes leaps to side, the student does not commit but remains in zufechten. Otherwise the vorschlag is met with a zornhauw.

3. Coach retreats with a parry against vorschlag, student follows with duplieren and abzug.

4. Coach tests the abzug with unterhauw.

5. In zufechten, on coach's invitation to vom tag, indes student sets left foot within distance and leaps aside with zwerch versetzen.

6. Coach retreats with parry, student follows with unterzwerch umschlag and abzug.

7. Coach tests abzug with counter zwerch. Student covers in pflug.


So, does anyone think this is a bad way to go for teaching students how to fence in hema? Obviously this is not for class format with many students present, but it can be adapted to it if two teachers are available.

[Thearos]

There was in the Italian dueling codes a sort of dichotomy of intent. On one hand, there was the recognition that the duel was illegal - that the requirements of honor necessitated committing the crime of the duel, and on the other hand there was the understanding that duels for a scratch were really quite silly, and that the authorities were generally blind to the goings on so long as you kept it 'secret' As a result, the sabre duel arising from an atrocious insult (one made with a blow) required the sabre duel 'to the end' - which was the inability to wield a weapon again. This was a nod to the fact that a dueling contract that required death was tantamount to an admission of premeditated murder, and probably wasn't a really good idea. It was felt that the sabre was the least dangerous weapon, because it gave the possibility for someone to sacrifice a limb in order to avoid being killed. I suppose that beats the heck out of standing at 15 paces, motionless, and trading pistol shots (literally all day if necessary) until someone has received a 'serious wound'. There was none of the 'well, we'll go at dawn, fire shots 30 degrees into the air, call it good, and go have breakfast. The penalties for violations of the dueling code were essentially "a moral death, worse than the physical one". What was meant was the exclusion from polite society, which for a gentleman whose income was likely from various business endeavors really was terrible, since such things would definitely be impacted by your exclusion from your social/business circles.

Chris

Yes, I read your paper, great stuff. At least, this problematizes any notion of "duelling sabre" as being very different indeed from military sabre. If anything, the sabre seems to "militarize' the duel.

I wonder if C19th Italian literature has good descriptions of the psychology of this kind of duel. (ducks accusations of off-topic post).

[Phil C]

Aldo Nadi's biography details his thoughts and preparation for competition (keeping in mind he was a man prone to high levels of anxiety to start with) and also his experience of fencing a duel at epee which may be of use on the mindset front.

[Lyceum]

I don't think "port and eggs" is really feasible before matches nowadays though Phil.

[Phil C]

Works for me.
I have one treatise that recommends a cigar too, to be smoked while waiting for the Seconds to set things up.

[Chris Holzman]

[

Yes, I read your paper, great stuff. At least, this problematizes any notion of "duelling sabre" as being very different indeed from military sabre. If anything, the sabre seems to "militarize' the duel.

I wonder if C19th Italian literature has good descriptions of the psychology of this kind of duel. (ducks accusations of off-topic post).

Not much that I am aware of - but then again, I can't say that I've read everything there is. Angelini's code talks a little bit about how the seconds should act and talk on the way to the dueling ground, to keep their principal's spirits up, and so on. Wright (or maybe it's Angelini, I can't remember) makes some dietary recommendations for prior to the duel (though I doubt those are borne out by modern science - I recall being skeptical when I read it, but I don't remember any of the particulars).

I haven't delved into that particular aspect of the duel. It's possible there are some notes on it in some of the materials in the various books on dueling, but they're massive tomes that I just haven't had a chance to get into, and most of them seem to focus on the jurisprudence of the duel, rather than more personal matters.