Art of the Sword
as Sport, Simulation and Combat Training
or, The Perspective of Modern Fencing Applied to 17th Century Period Fencing.
By Rick Orli
(The first published 1994 in the Moderne Aviso, revised in 1995)
Part I. How combat and dueling forms evolved - weapons and practice
I expect much of period fencing. It should be historically accurate and fun to watch for demonstrations and theater, and play simulations should be accurate, fun, and safe. Fortunately, these goals are not mutually exclusive. This first part highlights the evolution of fencing, the second part reviews modern fencing weapons, and the third and final applies the lessons learned from modern fencing in the context of period simulation and play.
Fully half the fight in fencing is confidence, focus, intensity, momentum - in a word, morale. That is with only the honor of the touch on the line. In a more realistic setting, single-elimination one-touch fencing (in contrast to the normal round robin with 5-15 point bouts), more is at stake and morale is more than half. With life on the line, the weight of morale could only have been more significant.
Combat varies from the duel and fencing in that the group psychology of battle makes all else fade to insignificance. In the Gulf War, everyone seemed astounded at the huge imbalance of casualties. One to 100 casualty imbalances was also the norm in ancient battles fought with shock weapons (swords and pikes). The two forces would maneuver and crash. A short period of more-or-less equal combat would result in most of the few dozen losses on the side of the eventual winner. Then one side would give way, collapse, and suffer massive casualties in the rout and pursuit. (See Keenan, The Face of Battle, for several examples)
Individual casualties in the battle line were not, therefore, considered relevant. What mattered was the power of the shock, the cohesion of the unit in the shock, and the ability to provide "backbone" to the line through the pressure of back ranks, mean-hearted sergeants and esprit de corps. Weapons were chosen for effectiveness in group shock tactics, not fencing.
Engagement training was all about throwing the ranks forward with as much vigor and disregard for personal safety as possible. Nothing mattered but closing with the enemy and pushing him back. The Spanish short sword and shield formation worked because once the front man could get past the psychological wall of the first line of pike points, a moment of great danger was past and he would have so much momentum that nothing could stop him from closing with the pikemen; the short sword was great for infighting, and helped ensure that the attack would continue until body contact. The swordsman hoped that the pikemen would be struck by terror by the penetration of their space, the "wall" crumbling and the new personal vulnerability. The Spanish tactics helped create the local atmosphere of "we are the hunters, you are the prey; you may get some of us but we will get you." It is a formula for victory.
None of this worked unless the unit remained cohesive and responsive to orders. As an example of the operative attitude, Marshall Maurice de Saxe explained in his Reveries on the Art of War why ranks of men were forced to stand at attention in the face of withering fire. When a unit knelt or lay in the face of heavy fire, he maintained, they could not be expected to rise again, even if they had suffered no casualties. A unit kept standing would respond to a command to advance, with enthusiasm, even with huge losses. From the commander's point of view, heavy casualties in a few units were a small price to pay for a victory, or to avoid a rout.
Effect of formation. Fencing is uncommon in formation, in the sense of using a sword for both offence and defense. For one thing, most armies used polearms, and swords were drawn only when formations broke apart, either for protection while running away or to clean up in the pursuit. Fencing with pole arms happened, but that is not our subject. While some tactical forms used swords, these were chop and hack broadswords using shields and armor for defense and pushing, or short thrusting swords to close and grapple.
Effect of grappling. Grappling was particularly attractive since it offers temporary personal safety - swings and thrusts have no momentum or leverage, and your opponent's body covers your's from his buddies. The person electing to grapple had a morale and possibly physical advantage over the opponent. Forcing someone to stumble backward may be more tactically effective for disrupting a formation than a kill. Grappling tactics were specifically trained, and influenced personal combat (e.g., duels) as well.
The grappling instructions I have seen emphasize moves similar to modern Judo reaps (pushing or pulling off balance with one hand, and sweeping with the leg for a trip). These also include some moves similar to Judo throws (hit low with hips and pull or spin the opponent to the side) except perhaps with more emphasis on getting the opponent off balance and turned rather than on an actual throw. When rushing an opponent the object is to hit at proper distance (arm's length), but if the attack fails, it is essential to either close with or run past the opponent.
Effect of armor. Armor makes people feel safe even when they aren't, so it's just the ticket for the battle line. In fencing it affects the target area, and there are more opportunities to disregard a badly aimed attack that can be covered by the passive defensive armor, and use the opportunity to "counterpunch". With a light weapon, only thrusts will be effective, with the face and neck as preferred targets. A "corps a corps" body strike (like a football block) to knock down the opponent was a common tactic, as was use of the hilt as a bludgeoning weapon during infighting. Grappling was probably comparatively even more valuable against an armored opponent.
A proper duel between gentlemen would not normally have included armor. Sporting jousts and combats were routinely held with dulled weapons and extra-protective armor.
Effect of left hand use. One type of acceptable protection was a cloak or similar around the left forearm and hand, which was used to parry blows. Bucklers and gauntlets were sometimes used in this specialized role as well. Daggers and specialized weapons such as the Main Gauche were used in fights, though less often in duels. Most early fencing manuals stress use of the left in the parrying role, usually with the intent of parrying with the left while simultaneously hitting with the right. As the 17th century progressed, less and less emphasis was placed on the left, although the usual posture kept the left high and in front of the chest in at least a passive defensive role.
The use of the left in active defense diminished because it was proven dangerous to those relying on it. As weapons got lighter, pace of action got faster, and there is a definite limit on how much the body and mind can deal with. I believe that even in rapier, the two handed defense techniques worked well for those with several years of training and physical talent, but could be a fatal distractant to lesser mortals. Effective use of the left in an attack is much easier, since the attacker has the luxury to plan move.
Effect of footwork styles and circular movement. By the early 17th century, all types of modern footwork techniques were in wide use, plus greater emphasis on the pass and various to-side movements. There were occasional disagreements over the various merits of the lunge versus the running attack and so on, but I think that the modern view would have been widely accepted then: that all these actions have their proper place and are best used in combination at the right moment. A step to the side and back in defense (slip) was the default response to an attack. Various sideways dodges and downward ducks were taught then as now, but were likely identified as risky moves to be applied only at just the right moment. For attacks, circular movement is to be expected in preparation, and a 'reversa' is usually applied with a diagonal foot move to the left, but ultimately attacks are essentially linear.
Effect of movement dynamics of heavy combat swords and rapiers. Typical 14th century combat swords - Broadswords and hand-and-a half swords - were used similarly to maces. Swords and armor were both made out of the same iron, so cutting through didn't happen much, and the effect was largely bludgeoning. A good clean hit, though, was dangerous anywhere. A broadsword is a great weapon in formation, and is also easy to learn.
I have heard it said that one cannot fence with heavy broadswords, and have heard it said that one can easily fence with heavy broadswords (fencing, meaning offence and defense provided by the sword). The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Broadswords are effective in the attack because a straight extension with the point is about as fast as it would be with a rapier, and the inertia of any cut is awesome. Cuts delivered from the elbow are slow, however, and point control is insufficient to make many deception moves. On the defense, all parries can be done, but with a small time penalty. While only the smallest fraction of a second, this time delay is enough to make the retreat the only safe counter to an attack by a light weapon. A well trained, fast person can hit you with a straight attack even if you parry with the lightest and best-balanced foils, so don't underestimate the effect of the shortest delay. The only strategy against a light weapon to make sense is to stay far away, and pick your moment to make a strong attack. (As a Kendo fencer, I know that a cut thrown out with a whipping action can be very fast. In fact, the practical limiting speed is that of the footwork. However, thrusts are still faster at close range in real terms, and are harder to see and easier to redirect so are apparently faster, and more effective, at long range.)
There has always been a historic trend to drop the weight of armaments, especially during peacetime. Armor and broadswords were heavy, and not very graceful away from the battlefield. A significant pressure was an increase of strategic campaigning, and higher mobility demands on the troops with smaller baggage trains and fewer attendants. In addition, as small arms fire improved, the value of full body armor diminished greatly. For a while, torso and head protection became heavier, and other pieces gradually disappeared. Eventually, most types of troops dropped most armor because of too little protective value in relation to its weight. The exception remained some units dedicated to shock attacks, particularly those with horses to help carry the load.
Even in the days of full battle armor, however, a class of light weapons was popular for "around town" use by gentlemen. If a duel was fought, it was most likely with these light broadswords or rapiers. Rapiers, predominantly thrusting weapons with an edge, rapidly gained popularity. Not only were they light enough to carry anywhere and better balanced for point control, but were very effective in a fight. Rapiers were probably as effective as light broadswords should they be needed against an armored opponent, because the point was a better threat than the edge against several critical areas. By 1680, a still lighter breed of weapon became dominant, sometimes called a smallsword or floret (foil). Some rapiers and a majority of small swords used a triangle cross- section blade - similar to modern epee blades and had no or insignificant edges.
Point-only Epee. An epee is basically a smallsword without an edge. The edge disappeared completely for three reasons: the first directly due to a special duel problem stemming from their honor-related mechanics; the second from an accurate fix on priorities; and third, to the wide adaptation of the practice foil.
The special dueling problem is that many duels were to first blood, or if "to the death" were often stopped after a disabling wound anyway. With battlefield weapons (always edged), minor scrapes were common and caused real problems: obviously not conclusive enough to satisfy honor, yet an attractive out for an unenthusiastic participant. By eliminating the edge, clean hits could be almost guaranteed. Even a forearm hit with the point is very nasty and disabling.
Also, light cuts do little or no damage, but can be fatal distractions. The other guy does a straight attack to your face and you take a piece out his arm with a cut, but his point hits you just over the nose anyway. Who won? It is essential to establish target priorities and stick to them.
My final point is that the increase in the number of people drilling with the (point-only) foil helped ensure the acceptance of the specialized dueling epee. This is admittedly a bit of a "chicken and egg" argument. The fact that the edge was taken off dueling epees also helped ensure that foils became more popular as a training weapon.
The no-point edge-only Schlager. This Germanic horror deeply offends me (although I do own a matched pair, in case anyone wants to play). The "rules" of the "student dueling society" have nothing to do with combat sword craft, but are a highly mutated form designed to selectively impart sexy facial scars on future world conquerors while minimizing the chance of embarrassing deaths. To illustrate special dueling rules that come into vogue from time to time, I summarize the "student dueling society" rules below:
Duelists are placed on marked lines so that by leaning forward they may just cut the face of the opposite if the opponent does not lean back; and are not allowed to move their feet on pain of disgrace and a severe beating.
A heavy leather band protects the neck and major arteries. Goggles protect eyes and the small veins near the temple at eye level. Padded or leather jacket.
No point at the end of the weapon. The tip is nearly flat, although sharp.
Salt is rubbed in the wound for improved scaring (optional).
The superficial hits ensured by not moving, the absence of a deadly point, and a few bits of armor, greatly reduced the risk of serious injury.
The "Italian" dueling sabre. This Hungarian horror, brought into the world in a conspiracy with Italians, has more to do with the saber being the national weapon of Hungary than anything else. It owes some of its pedigree to broadsword fencing techniques, but more to the dubious use of cavalry sabers as an emergency fencing weapon. (Cavalry sabers are curved upward to assist their use as point weapons from a charging horse, which makes them miserable fencing weapons. See de Saxe for his discussion on the benefits of cavalry swords with triangular cross- section blades without an edge, to discourage troopers from doing "useless" cuts) A straight saber was developed that can be better used much as a light broadsword would be, and can be used as either a point or edge weapon, but it was still heavy to carry around with civilian dress and clumsy as a fencing weapon. A lighter blade came into use that was virtually identical to a rapier blade. This made fencing wholly feasible, but was a bit silly because the blade was too light to effectively cut with in combat, even against someone dressed only in a buffcoat. So it was useful mainly as a thrusting weapon in combat. However, the grip was designed for the cut, not the thrust, so it wasn't used much at all except as an auxiliary weapon.
It was, however, effective as a cutting weapon against someone dressed only in civilian dress, specifically in a dueling situation. So the blade became still lighter to allow faster blade work (e.g., easier cutting from wrist action only), and became, like the epee, a specialized dueling weapon. One benefit that may have increased it's popularity was that it was less likely to be fatal.
Conclusion of the first part. The historic trend for swords in general as combat weapons was clearly to favor the point over the edge, and to favor lighter weight and speed. Their evolution into modern sporting weapons, discussed in Part II, is seamless and logical.
Part II. Training Weapons and Combat Drill v. Simulation Weapons and Sport
Four modern fencing sport forms have an international following; three are of the western tradition, one is of Japanese origin. The weapons and target areas of the western forms are illustrated in Figure 1.
Foil is specifically designed to train for dueling and combat, and it is much better in this role than epee. The only attack allowed is a killing attack against a high-probability target, with what really does damage - the point. Committing suicide (taking a hit to deliver a hit) is specifically disallowed through a set of common-sense "right-of- way" rules. An anomaly is the restriction of the face as a non-target, since it ought to be a perfectly wonderful target. This came about because proper fencing masks were not developed until the 18th century. The first foils had blades of modern epee blade weight, but unusually large buttons at the tip to protect the eyes.
Even after the mask came into common use, training for duels per se was occasionally done without masks and shirts. The benefit of this in a technical sense is not clear to me. Perhaps it helped concentrate the mind, and was used with a choreographed drill in the sense of the Japanese kata. Perhaps it just seemed to be a macho thing to do.
Epee is, by contrast, not a training weapon in origin, but a dueling weapon adapted as a sporting/simulation weapon. Good for the feel of real duel, especially in it's original "one-touch wins" incarnation. It's a very accurate simulation of duel to first blood, the most common variety. Two problems: to emphasize the sporting element, it became 5, 10, even 15 touch; and because it's to first blood, it gave hand hits the same value as a killing hit.
If a 200 lb guy launches himself at the end of three feet of steel at your chest, you better not miss the stop hit to the wrist. Come to think of it, you better not miss a bone in the wrist, because if you do you are dead. What are the odds of making that stop hit? Is 70% good enough if the cost of failure is death (your own)? What happens if you hit the arm and he misses the attack, but is really mad at you and too pumped to feel much pain? A nuisance that your point is in or past his arm when he is going for your throat. This is the sort of assessment the duelist or combatant has to make, but is eliminated from the epee simulation.
Saber was originally a training weapon for the Italian dueling saber. With the edge removed and a foil-weight blade, it became safe to play with. The early emphasis on training for the duel was strong, so conventions similar to that of the foil were developed. The target is restricted to the upper body, unlike the foil including the arms and head. But, that form of dueling faded early and saber has been primarily another simulation/sporting weapon for a century. In consequence it is, in my opinion, further removed from the reality of dueling and combat than foil or epee.
Kendo. The Japanese form is a two handed sword method that can deliver an effective cut with the speed of a thrust. The training form is Kenjitsu, using a wooden sword (bokan) for practice, and a real sword for performing practiced kata (choreographed training sequences). The bokan is heavy, and was sufficiently deadly to be used in many duels, often with fatal effect. A problem with the bokan in training is that the fencer always has to pull the hit, and so fence with a reserved, excessively controlled spirit.
In the middle of the nineteenth century Kendo was developed to enable safe simulation of blows with force, as well as allow training with a sporting attitude. Moderately heavy leather armor was used in conjunction with a light flexible weapon composed of slats of bamboo (shinai). The key protective elements include a full mask designed to protect against both thrusts and cuts, shoulder pads designed primarily to protect the collar bone and neck against cuts, a waist belt with flaps to protect the hips and groin from stray hits, and a solid chest protector intended primarily to protect the sternum and ribs against a miss-aimed thrust.
Cuts are scored against the arms, head, and body side below the arms; the only scored thrust is against the throat.
Conclusion of the Second Part. The four modern fencing forms have their origin in the 17th century or before, and all recreate the flavor of life-and-death fencing with reasonable fidelity. Their practice is valuable to the reenactor, and they are also a whole lot of fun. It should be kept in mind, however, that in some cases directions have been followed that are not historically rooted, in response to pressures of the somewhat abstract environment of modern amateur sports. Do modern fencing anyway - to do a good simulation you need training and lots of practice, and for most of us modern fencing is easier to do regularly.
Part III. Fun, Accurate and Safe Simulations
To do a good simulation you need training, simulation rules and attitude, costume, and safe equipment. You need to prepare for it as if you were preparing for a life and death combat.
Training. Today, as historically, the major contribution of the drill master and fencing instructor is to drill to the point of automation. This wires the muscles and brain well enough to act reflexively without thought, and installs enough mechanics to allow the combatant to clear the mind of distractions when engaged. My advice is to drill, study and do modern fencing; drill; think; study and do period fencing, and drill some more.
If a modern fencer reads a late 17th Century fencing manual, such as Hope's The Complete Fencing Master (1692), it will be clear that the art was fully developed into essentially the modern form by that time. Some of the moves described seem a bit risky in the sense that they strongly commit the player in an attack to a forward-leaning off-balance position, but everything has its place. In general, footwork, body position, and blade work has not changed in the least. I was surprised that of the seventy five or so technical fencing terms he used (in both French and English), only about a half dozen would be unfamiliar to a well-schooled modern fencer, and half of those are an elaboration of a basic concept a modern fencer well understands. This is not to say that a smallsword protrayal does not require many substantial stylistic adjustments.
16th and 17th Century Rapier is another story. The footwork is quite different, and several different defenses and attacks are heavily employed. See di Grasse's 1570 manual.
Attitude. Duels ideally went like this: both fencers stayed far back and toyed for a while, and then - boom! The observation period is not timidity, but applying skills in timing the attack. The proper conduct of the combat is determined by a complex process that has to happen very fast, based on:
o assessment of overall strength of opponent,
o assessment of specific strengths/weaknesses,
o reactions and attitude of opponent,
o control of rhythm, and
o environment and distractions.
One question that often comes up is how people really fought in duels. We have photos and contemporary descriptions of many, as well as writings of a few duelists. Not surprisingly, it seems that the way most people actually fought in duels was timidly, precisely opposite to what their fencing master urged them to do.
I am convinced that the best duelists/combatants threw themselves into an attack without reservation, without fear of death. Ideally trained to technical precision, the reflexes become automatic, the mind is focused by the danger and excitement, and an attack is chosen because it is the most likely to stop the opponent. Anyone inclined to hang back, intimidated by the danger and uncertainty, was half-way to the grave. Most people, virtually all those improperly trained for the business of death as well as many expertly trained fencers, will fall into this later unfortunate category.
One example of an expertly trained fencer who did not adopt the correct spirit necessary for a duel was Naniconi. He was one on the premier stylists of the foil in his age, but the duel itself showed little of this style. Photos of the event show odd, highly conservative (retreat-oriented) fencing postures, and one gets the sense that the flavor of the combat was similar to the semi-state-of-terror fencing shown in many sequences of the film, "The Duelists" and "Rashamon." Naniconi, by far the stronger fencer, lost. Died.
I am certainly an "armchair quarterback" to argue about the right way to go about a duel. But, the history and writings of the two most successful duelists known back me up here. While a conservative and tentative air may have been typical of duels, the general tactical advice always given to duelists by those in the know is to always attack, and use defense only as a setup for an attack. To give one example, in the Book of Five Rings, Mushai wrote of an attitude to use against an inferior fencer, as if he was insignificant and to be brushed aside with the smallest effort possible. I have tried to use a "fencing master attitude" in a bout against a much weaker opponent. I would just walk toward my opponent without hurrying or stopping, regardless of what he did. I would in effect treat him as no threat, as beneath effort and contempt. By crushing my opponent's spirit, I could win by a wide margin even though I spent much time off-balance, to-close, and committing other "technical" faults that should have given my opponent an advantage.
The most important thing that can be done to help simulate the situation of a duel is to increase the stakes. The simulation rules should provide for one-touch direct elimination bouts and other incentives to make everything count.
Simulation Rules. A tournament and formal competition setting helps focus on accuracy, and doing what works as opposed to somebody's idea of what looks good. In general, modern epee rules could be effectively followed with only the slightest variations, including the addition of selected modern saber hit conventions. Special target- area conventions could be readily developed to accommodate use of breast plates, helms, and other items, but this should not apply to most tournaments. As suggested above, at least the climax of the tournament should be one- touch direct elimination bouts.
Costume. The main costume question seems to be the appropriate use of armor. In a brawling or combat situation, any period clothing and armor would have been appropriate. The use of armor and buffcoats in a dueling situation is extremely suspect. Substantial protection would not generally be appropriate in a prearranged duel between gentlemen.
Armor would have been possible by prearrangement at the insistence of a third party in authority trying to make it a semi-sporting contest to a non-fatal wound, rather than a fight to the death. Since duels were almost always illegal, armor and dulled weapons were also sometimes used to give "plausible deniability" to the duel participants in the event of embarrassing consequences. There were several forms of sporting simulations in practice at the time: joust-variations wherein each participant was heavily armored and weapons were dulled and lightweight.
Training, proper simulation rules, costume, and safe equipment are the basic elements of the realistic simulation. Perhaps the most important ingredient is attitude, settling into the life-and-death combat mind-set both in preparation and execution