Of Guard and Ward

 Greetings,

The following came out of a discussion with one of my students, Adam Kaye, who has made a translation of Lovino's treatise into English, by the way. The discussion concerns the differences and similarities between guards and wards. The discussion will examine the concept of the ward and the concept of the guard, then compare and contrast the two. This leads to a discussion finding out where they mean the same thing and where they mean two different things. Within this discussion, there will be an historical consideration of these terms, in the sense of the treatises, as well as actual use of the terms as they have been used throughout the history of the sword, sometimes to mean the same thing, sometimes to mean different things.

Actual versus Potential

The difference as it is taken in the modern sense between the guard and the ward concerning their defensive positions. In simplest terms one, the guard is an actual defensive position while the ward is a potential defensive position. The guard by its nature closes a Line so it provides the fencer with an actual defensive position. The ward does not typically do this, so the fencer must make an action for defence so is a potential defensive position. Of course, there are exceptions to this, as always, which will be discussed below.

Historical Considerations

Historically, we must examine the concepts of "ward" and "guard" to understand how they were used in the periods in which they were used. Earlier on, they were used pretty much indiscriminately, the were used as synonyms, used to mean and describe the same thing. This was much the case for most of the medieval and Renaissance period. 

“lying calm and settled in some form with arms, either in order to offend or defend, that settlement, and that position, and that composition of the body in that guise, in that form, I call “guard”." (Viggiani, A. (1575) Lo Schermo, Translated by W. Jherek Swanger 2002)

  
It was only in the later Renaissance period that the ward, began to turn more toward the guard, where the weapon was used to close areas of the combatant off. This was most presently demonstrated by Fabris' concept of contra-postura in which the fencer adopted a position which was closed to the opponent.

“According to Fabris, a counterguard (or counterposture) is a subtle adjustment of any of the main guards made to ensure that the line between the opponent’s tip and one’s body is completely covered by the forte of the sword.  Counterpostures are to be formed outside the measure in order to ensure good defense once the “danger zone” is entered.” (Leoni, T. (2002) “A Brief Glossary of Italian Rapier Concepts”, The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, http://www.thearma.org/rapierglossary.htm)

While this was a process made against an opponent and the later forms of rapier positions began to take into account the position of the opponent and began to close off areas to the opponent's attack. This was only the beginnings of what we could call a "true" guard. The guard which is familiar today would have to wait until the advent of the smallsword.

The guards of the smallsword and later modern sport fencing weapons were designed to close off a Line. These were guards in the truest sense. Any attack down the Line of the guard that was closed could be ignored and this forced the opponent to attack a Line that was open. Here we see the conception of what is understood by a guard in the modern sense. But the discussion does not end there.

One is the Other

There are instances where a ward is a guard, where a Line is closed to the opponent because of the position of the weapon or the body, or the combination of the weapon and the body, this article does not claim that this is absent. Indeed these instances are recognised and are notable. One of the prime instances that this occurs, is when a person deliberately adopts a contra-postura to the opponent's position. Other instances occur when the individual is in a such a position in which the weapon is in such an position that the opponent's weapon must be closed out of the Line such as in the hanging guard. These positions are made easier by the addition of an off-hand device which can serve to assist in the closing of a Line. In these cases there are more wards that are like guards. 

Most guards are also wards; they are also positions from which attacks and defences are easily launched. They simply have the added advantage of having one Line which is closed to the opponent so that Line the fencer does not have to worry about during the initial part of the encounter. The guard is a position from which it is also comfortable to launch attacks from, and also defend the other Lines which are not defended by the position of the guard in that position. It is a guard in the sense of one Line, but a ward in the sense of the other Lines which are not already covered.

What is the Purpose?

The necessary thing is that the purpose needs to be examined, the purpose behind the two different types of stances which are present in fencing. The ward starts the fencer relatively open, but expects the fencer to act against all the actions of the opponent, making choices to attack or defend. The guard closes a Line automatically defending a position against the opponent and driving their attacks toward another direction. This, primarily, prepares the fencer to respond to attacks in that other direction. The guard is intended to limit the opponent's options, and also the required actions of the fencer.

Once you can understand the purpose of a thing, like the ward and the guard it is relatively easy to sort out which is which. Further you can sort out how to turn one to the other, how to close a Line that may be open or create an opportunity for an active action, depending what your desire is. Some will prefer to sit and wait for their opponent to make the first action, others will prefer to make the first action themselves. In part this should be a consideration as to whether you choose a ward or a guard, and which one you take against which opponent. While relatively simple, these questions can get quite complex the further you look into them.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

All a Matter of Attitude

 Greetings,

The following discussion is about attitude, about the philosophical approach you take to your fencing. Now, I will admit that in my early years that I was a "tourney-bunny" which meant that all that was important to me was the next tournament, defeating my next opponent, securing my next position in that tournament, and I did quite well at it. Time has gone by, I have found that there is more to be found in the Art of Swordsmanship, there is more to be found than just defeating my opponent. 

There is a philosophical approach that a person can take that will enable a person to find personal growth, but it has to be embraced, and it is necessary to focus on more than just how to defeat an opponent, as this is rather limiting in the scope of things. Questions will be asked in the following discussion, questions that we must all answer in all seriousness. If you want to change your approach you have to be serious about it, and work on it every time that you fence.

Are you focused on the win or swordsmanship?

The first dividing line is the biggest one of them. It is a rather generic approach which people will then claim that a person can use swordsmanship to win, this is true, but the focus is still on winning not on swordsmanship. A person who is concerned about the win over swordsmanship will compromise their swordsmanship for the win.

A person who is focused on swordsmanship will not be concerned about winning, they will be concerned about improving their skills in swordsmanship. A bout or tournament is merely a way to test what they have learned outside of the cooperative situation of the drill. To put their skills to the test against an opponent, who may not give them the "textbook" attacks or responses, to see what they have truly learned in their training. This leads on to the next question that needs to be asked.

Are you concerned about the hit, or the way you got the hit?

A fencer who is concerned about winning will only be concerned that they struck their opponent. A fencer who is concerned about swordsmanship will be concerned about the way they struck their opponent. There are all sorts of gimmicks and tricks that can be used to strike the opponent, not restricted to, using the flexibility of the blade to bend it around the opponent's weapon, or simple blind speed.

The fencer who is concerned about swordsmanship will be concerned that they struck their opponent in a fashion which would result in the sword, acting like a real weapon, striking the opponent and doing sufficient damage to incapacitate or wound them, while maintaining the principles of fencing theory i.e. such things as engagement, time and distance. A clean cut, not one that bounces. A clean thrust, not one that skips off the opponent. A clean action, one following the other that results in the opponent being struck and the fencer not being struck. Actions which conform to what the fencer has learned and practised in drills. When the fencer is struck by such an attack, they complement their opponent.

Can you complement your opponent on a good hit, or is it simply a failure on your part, an assault on your ego?

The fencer who is focused on the win will not understand how a fencer can complement an opponent on a good hit. They will not understand how the fencer can appreciate the good action of an opponent, because in their mind the strike against them is a failure on their part; it means that they have not won the bout. This is because they are focused on the win, and anything that is not a win is to be disregarded. This truncates their learning, because they never get to learn from their opponent.

The fencer who is focused on swordsmanship, who complements their opponent on a good hit, who appreciates the action of the opponent, has the advantage because they can learn from their experience. They can always see the strike against them as a chance to learn from an encounter, not as a failure because they did not win. They also have the advantage that their opponent will often have a better feeling fighting them and enjoy their encounters with them more, because of such appreciation.

Do you understand the difference between notoriety and renown and how they are achieved?

I have already written about the difference between renown and notoriety in a previous article on this blog, because it is a significant subject. They are something which the fencer should always have in the back of their mind when they fence, regardless of whether they are fencing in bouting, or in a tournament. These are achieved through the view of the individual's peers, through the actions of the individual. It is the public's impression of the individual, and they do go ahead of the individual.

The fencer who wins and is focused on the win, especially if it is regardless of the cost, will earn themselves notoriety. Notoriety is a difficult mark to get rid of, and the respect that goes with it only last so long as the individual is an effective (that is to say, can win) fencer, after that, often the notoriety remains and the respect goes. The fencer who is focused on swordsmanship, who complements their opponent, who fights with courtesy, will more likely earn themselves renown. The fencer with renown, will keep renown so long as they continue to treat their opponents with respect, regardless of the results they have in bout or tournament. The issue being that once notoriety is earned it is difficult to get rid of, in the period when swords were sharp it would've earned the fencer the name of "duellist."

Do you understand what would gain you the reputation of a duellist, and that of a gentleman, or lady?

Some will claim that there is little point in knowing the history or the culture of the period in which the weapons were used, even when they are studying the same weapons. Some will claim that there is little point in studying the manuals on duelling and etiquette from the period, as they do not apply to what is being studied in our contemporary era. This is because the weapons that we are using now are blunt, and there is little chance that someone is going to be challenged to a duel.

Once again it highlights the difference in attitude, it approach to the art of the sword, that people study. Many of the explanations for the actions are found in the culture and history of the period. The manuals on duelling and etiquette give the cultural foundations for what is found in the fencing treatises of the period for the weapons which are being used. If you were an individual who was just interested in furthering yourself through finding fights and winning them, you would've quickly earned your name as a duellist, however if you studied the art as a part of the requirements should you require it, that would earn you the name of lady, or gentleman, or swordsman. 

The one could likely get you in trouble, decrease your reputation, impact other areas of your social life, determine who would associate with you, and not. The other title would assist you into negotiations and further you life, increase your reputation and so forth. The interesting thing is that the same thing can be seen even today in contrast between the two different groups highlighted in this discussion. For the most part, the latter, the ones who are interested in swordsmanship, and are courteous to their opponents, find more people to fence, simply because people like to fence them more. 

Consider your approach to your fencing, don't just consider what you're getting out of it, but what are you giving back, especially to your opponents.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Fencing is Choices and Consequences

 Greetings,

The title of this article makes it look like it's about social choices we make in our fencing career. I have spoken about this long and in-depth previously; this time it isn't. Those choices will determine the length and depth of your fencing career, often will result in what sort of people you will associate with, and your overall worldview of fencing. For this article I am wanting to look more at the fencing itself, though it is likely the discussion will venture into some those areas again as they are all related. 

When we fence there is a set of choices to be made. These result in consequences in our fencing, and sometimes, even broader than that. For the purposes of this article, I want to focus on the choices and consequences that are made in regard to the act of fencing, and some of the physical details attached to it. There are some simple things that we do not take into consideration which will affect our fencing, choices which we make, either consciously or subconsciously which will affect the result of the bout/s that we have.

The interplay of choices and consequences in the act of fencing one of the reasons I really enjoy fencing (there are others). A fencer makes a choice in the actions that they take; then they must face the consequences of those actions. Sometimes the consequences of those actions are immediate, sometimes they take a little longer to take effect, but they always have an effect. There is no avoiding this situation. There is always some effect.

If an opponent makes an attack, there is a choice to make in the response. Even the timing of this response is a choice. If the fencer making this choice gets the choice right, they don't get hit; if they make an incorrect choice, it is likely that they will be hit, unless they have redundancy built into their choice, and the redundancy is a choice too. This is the immediate result, the immediate consequence.

Even where there is a redundancy built into the response, there will still be a consequence for the primary response failing. This may cost the fencer Time, Distance, or both. Both of these are essential to fencing, and any action that loses the fencer either one of these will affect the actions that follow.

Each time a fencer makes a choice, there are consequences. Those consequences are not necessarily immediate, such as being struck, but they will have an effect on the encounter. Each action affects the position of the fencers in time and space, an action which takes the fencer out of the correct time or space is going to affect where they should be for the following actions. This is especially important for compound actions. The effect of half a foot-length (even less) over two actions can be amazing, as will be the effect of an action which is even slightly out of tempo.

Fencing with an opponent is a series of choices and consequences made. Successful fencing is simply making the right choices, for your fencing at the right time. Of course, this is made easier by training and practising so you have more options available and so more correct choices to make. 

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Special Fencing Fest Edition: Walking Sticks and Their Use

 Greetings,

The following is an additional article primarily for those who attended Fencing Fest XVIII this year. It serves as a follow-up and some documentation for some of the things that were discussed during one of my lessons. For all my other good readers, it's an extra article for the month, lucky you.

There has been some long discussions over the past couple of months on some forums about the use of sword and walking stick as a combination, especially as form which existed in the period pre-1600. For many of my readers this dating won't matter so much as the existence of the practice itself. With some digging done by a good friend Lois Spangler, there has been evidence found that the combination was used and is evident in at least one treatise, actually three.

I will give the reader fair warning, this article is going to be a little long and a little heavy reading.

An Iberian Method

de la Torre

Pedro de la Torre discusses the use of the walking stick as a replacement for the sword when facing an opponent who is fighting with two swords, also known as case of rapier.

“Fighting with two swords isn't an old method, and he invented his method while having a four-palm stick in his left hand with which to defend himself – parry with the left sword and wound the opponent's left arm with the right sword”

So de la Torre states that the stick should be used to parry the opponent’s weapon while the sword is used to strike the opponent’s arm. It is simple enough instruction to follow, and flows simply enough on to the use of case of rapier.

Pacheco

Luis Pacheco de Narváez, (Nueva Ciencia, p. 499) discusses a similar method in which the sword is parried with the stick and the opponent's sword arm is attacked, much like de la Torre.

“he was found with a stick of four palms, more or less, in the left hand, and as he lacked a defensive weapon for it, thought to parry with it, and that in effect he was defended, and thus with this easy and chance experience, with it was established this science, or whatever it is; and the most substantial doctrine that was left written, is that his diestro waits for what the opponent throws, and with the left sword he parries the blow of the right, and with his right he wounds in the left arm”

Both of these writers discuss a stick which is four palms in length which makes it quite a decent length object, well in the vicinity of a decent walking stick. This establishes the foundation of the walking stick sufficiently, if with rudimentary instruction. For mere documentation of the stick itself, Carranza mentions the item as one which is used as a defensive device in his discussions, making three Iberian theorists who mention the use of the stick with the sword. 

The most interesting thing is that this method is one which had already been being taught for a little while previous to the discovery of this information, at least within the SCA. Most other HEMA groups thought that the use of the sword and stick was just something the SCA did, something which they did but was not actually provable and until more recently, the documentation was a little lacking.

Two Methods

Within the SCA there was two methods, one which held the stick by the blunt end as described above, using the stick like another sword; the other method held the stick a little further down and used the curved part of a walking stick to capture an opponent's weapon, and there was arguments against it. Here I present the counter-argument.

Argument:

There is a misconception that only the straight walking stick was used in pre-1600, so the action of using the hook in the form of sword and cane, more accurately bastón, as the Spanish would call it, is a non-period method. Whereas, there is evidence present in period documents demonstrating the existence of walking sticks which have angled heads from at least the 15^th-century, if not before. This would, as a result, indicate that a stick with such an angled head could be used in such a fashion as indicated.

Previous Evidence

Evidence has already presented with the assistance of Lois Spangler from Carranza, Pacheco and de la Torre as evidence for use of sword and cane as a method evident in recognised extant treatises. So there is no doubt that this method of combat is a form which was used pre-1600. There is even a rough description of the bastón in the material; at least its length is given.

 Another method which uses the sword and walking stick, utilising the hook on the cane was taught to me by the Paul Sawtell many years ago, and I have taught the same method to various students over the years as an effective method of utilising this combination. Some would dispute the method as one which is not to their particular liking, but preference is not a matter for historical debate, or scientific enquiry, or George Silver would have had the Italians run out of England at the first chance. So, we must put such preferences aside and examine the evidence which is presented.

Assumed Evidence

The “Classic” Walking  Cane

When the subject of the “walking cane” is brought up as a subject of discussion there is an image which forms in the mind of the individual of a stick which is used to assist an individual to walk. This may be of wood or metal construction, but to save some confusion and to point things toward our discussion we will discard the evidently-modern metal versions and examine the wooden version.

This form of the cane does not belong to the period of swordsmanship that we study. Indeed it does not belong to most periods of swordsmanship, unless you count modern swordsmanship as this form of cane belongs to the 19^th-century.

From a more practical point of view, the turn on the cane the curve which is presented, is actually too pronounced for effective use in the method which is described and presented where this part of the cane is used. It tends to bind on the opponent’s weapon too much, which is ironic of itself. This is not the walking stick that is the focus of this discussion, or the one which is advocated for use in the indicated method.

The “Known” Walking Stick

When it comes to the walking stick of the pre-1600 period it has been argued that this item is straight, and different examples have been presented. For clarity, and honesty, an example of the straight walking stick will be presented.

This image, as noted in the caption is Saint James Major, also known as Saint James the Greater and Saint James of Compostela, it is a German woodcut of 1519, by Hans Baldung Grien.

What will be noted is the straight form of the walking stick as is known of the “typical” walking stick of this period. In this case the walking stick has some round carvings on it to give it some texture and by the way it’s being held at the top a round top as well. It is quite long, as will be noted. It comes almost up to the individual’s armpit.

The walking stick is quite a bit longer than the “four palmo” stick which is described by de la Torre. The mere length of this stick, let alone the weight of the stick would necessitate a different approach to its use. It would not be as balanced as a sword of the same length as well. One must take these things into consideration when looking at such a strict interpretation.

Evidence from Period Sources

The following pictorial evidence will present images of walking sticks in pre-1600 manuscripts and other media to demonstrate that walking sticks other than the straight form were present. Further it will present that there were forms of walking stick which did indeed have cross-pieces at the top quite present in the period. This is to demonstrate that the straight walking stick, as presented previously, was not the only form used.

1260 Rutland Psalter

The Rutland Psalter which bears the shelf mark in the British Library MS 62925 was written in Latin, and is dated c.1260. The image which is presented shows a beggar with a walking stick. While it is mostly straight, it will be noted that there is evidently a curved element present near the individual’s hand.

This element in the stick is likely because the walking stick that the beggar is using was actually a stick which was broken off a branch and then fashioned to be used as a walking stick, the curved part being the remains of a smaller branch. This is the simplest reason, and the flimsiest evidence of a walking stick which is not simply straight as has been previously presented.

1381 German Missal

The image, which originates from the Morgan Library, with the shelf mark MS M.892.3 fol 001r, and is from a Missal from Hamburg, Germany, presented is of particular interest to me as it presents a fox in one of its many incarnations of “Reynard the Fox” a warning against itinerant monks and other holy men. For our present discussion, while it is not a human being, which is presented in the image, there is evidently a walking stick being used. This walking stick has an evident curve at the top of it.

The argument against this will be that it is a simplified version of a bishop’s rod, or similar religious iconography; however the mode in which it is being used, means that it could be argued in either direction. This will be made further evident as the following images will present not only walking sticks with a similar curve at the top, but also held in a similar fashion.

1432 From Ghent's "Hermits"

The image is a small piece of the piece entitled The Hermits: Adoration of the Mystic Lamb which was painted by Jan and Hubert van Eyck in 1432. The focus of this piece is evident. In the hand of this individual is a walking stick which has a distinct bend in the top of it. It is certainly not straight, and it certainly does not come up to the armpit like the Grien example. This is a piece of wood which has been fashioned into a walking stick.

This is a walking stick which has been measured to the height of the hip as can be seen by the height of the hand and the clear angle of the handle demonstrates that such angled walking sticks were evident in this period is evident in this image.

15^th-century Italian

The image is from Bastia Mondovi, Church of San Fiorenzo, “Episodes from the Life of St Anthony Abbot”. What will be noted from this image is the walking stick which is being used by the abbot to ward off the advances of the female in the image. If a close examination of the hand is made, it will be noted that the hand is holding the cane by the handle. The shaft comes out between the fingers. The bottom of the handle is seen coming out at the bottom of the hand, while the thumb sits on top of the other end of the handle.

This means that not only is the handle of the cane have a piece which comes out one end as in the previous example, but there is also a part which comes out the other, meaning that this has a “T” shaped handle, if short on one end. This is certainly not the simple straight stick which is claimed that all walking sticks of the period are claimed to be. It would be difficult to hold the cane in this manner if the handle were not of this shape and certainly more difficult to hold someone off.

1470 Book of Hours

The image is from the m366.050r a Book of Hours from France dated c.1470. In the image will be seen the older male individual on the right holding a walking stick which is fashioned out of a piece of wood, which is likely a branch or root. It has a clearly angled piece at the top which forms its handle. This is similar in nature to the one found in the Ghents Hermits example presented previously. It should not be surprising that such natural examples of walking sticks with angled handles existed in the medieval and Renaissance period.

These wooden walking sticks which are created from naturally formed pieces of wood are still being created in the same fashion to this day, often using the same methods. These images of such items should be sufficient to demonstrate that such walking sticks with angled handles did exist in the period appropriate, and thus would be of use to the combatant.

1470 Italy

The image presented is from a Book of Hours, having the shelf mark, MS M.454 fol. 217r from Italy, and was probably created in Milan, c.1470. The cane in this image is different from most of the previous examples in that the shaft is not mostly straight, indeed, it is quite bent.

For the current discussion, it will be noted that the handle on the walking stick which is in the image is of a distinct “T” shape. The walking stick comes up to about the height of the hip of the individual. The handle shape alone should demonstrate that the simple straight walking stick which has been proposed as the only period form of the item is definitively not the only form and a broader perspective of the subject should be taken.

1480 France

The image which is presented is entitled “Cas des nobles hommes et femmes malheureux”. It is from France, probably Tours, and is dated c. 1480. It is sourced from the Morgan Library with the shelf marker MS G.35 fol.1r.

Of particular note is the male individual, dressed in red toward the middle foreground, who is bent over and using a walking stick. For convenience this section, with the walking stick in question, has been presented separately so it can be examined more closely (below).

What will be noted is that the handle of the stick has a distinct angle to it. It could even be accused as being square to the shaft of the stick which is below. Indeed, slightly in the background is another individual using another walking stick, and again there is a distinct angle in the stick which is being used. Here are two representations of walking sticks in this image, both of which are presented with angled handles, both of which have the sticks as closer to hip height rather than longer.

1538 Dance of Death

The image presented is “Dance of Death” and was published in 1538. This section’s name is “Death and the Old Man”. It is a French woodcut, from 1547 by Hans Holbein the Younger.

Like the previous instance of the walking stick, the handle his square to the shaft. It is not a straight shaft, and it is also about the same height as the hip or waist of the individual. What will be further noted is that the walking stick has been forms from a naturally occurring piece of wood as is indicated by the knots in the wood.

Here is another example of a walking stick with a handle which is at an angle to the shaft rather than it being a simple straight shaft as is assumed of the walking stick by some. It is evident by this example, and the previous examples that the straight walking stick was not the only kind of walking stick which was in existence pre-1600.

Conclusions from Sources

The walking stick which was presented for the straight and thus “known” walking stick was dated as 1519, the date for the last source used was 1538, this should prevent any argument stating that there was a sudden change at the end of the 15^th-century toward the straight walking stick, because all of the evidence that was presented was before the “known” example.

The Rutland Psalter example of the walking stick was presented to demonstrate that the walking stick, especially for the lower classes was most often any stick that a person could get their hands on. This was most likely fashioned from some branch which was broken to the most suitable height and maybe had some sort of wrap around it to make it more comfortable. Some of the examples embraced this idea of using the natural examples and simply used such wood and modified it to suit. Such investigations are more suited to individuals who have experience in this field.

The focus of this investigation was the handle and shape of the walking stick to demonstrate that the straight walking stick was not the only form of walking stick that was present pre-1600. For such investigation primary sources were used, and multiple examples were sourced to ensure that conclusions could be supported by sufficient evidence. To this point, images from pre-1600 of walking sticks were sourced and presented.

The sources that were presented in the “Evidence from Period Sources,” certainly from the Ghent's Hermits onward, presented clear examples of walking sticks with angled heads on them to some greater or lesser degree. Mostly these angled heads were a deliberate result of construction to enable a hand hold for the individual using the walking stick, which was usually measured to hip or waist height. This is quite a contrast to the straight walking stick indicated earlier. Such examples of walking sticks present clear evidence for the presence pre-1600, of wooden walking sticks with angled heads.

Drawn Conclusions

Evidence has been presented and accepted for the existence and use of the combination of sword and walking stick as a weapon form pre-1600. This is now beyond doubt, as it has been present as evident in the treatises of de la Torre, Carranza, and Pacheco. This describes, while rudimentary, a method which employs the stick in the predominantly left hand of the combatant as a defensive item to be used, especially when defending against an opponent who has case of rapiers, the stick standing for a sword that the combatant does not possess.

From the presented evidence, it is clear that the walking stick, both of a length which came up to the hip or waist, and which had an angled head on it was present pre-1600. This walking stick existed contemporaneously with other forms of walking stick, crutch and other walking aid, as will be found in other extant manuscripts of the period. The same item existed over a long period of time, from at least the 1430’s, considering how long it took to commission and paint a piece of art, further that the same style of walking stick, a bent piece of natural wood, is found some hundred years later, means that such a style was well-founded and present in at least Western Europe, from where the manuscripts, originate. This should give sufficient evidence that the notion that walking sticks with angled heads were an invention of the post-1600 period is simply false.

A method has been in practice, with some effect, for multiple decades using the walking stick, utilising the angled handle of the walking stick against the opponent’s blade to sometimes gain extra control, which has proven to be effective in those trained in this method. The most important thing with any method of any weapon combination is that an individual must be trained in the method and have practise using the method. A person who uses “tips and tricks” of various methods will never be as effective as one who has trained in a method.

One of the greatest arguments against the above method was that the walking stick with the hook in the end was not a pre-1600 item, so it could not be used in such fashion. It will be noted that a walking stick with an angled head, is quite sufficient to achieve the actions which are described in the method, should a person have sufficient practise. Indeed a walking stick with too much hook is actually detrimental to the use of this method. The evidence has already been presented that the angled-head walking stick is pre-1600, putting such arguments in the realm of disagreements of technique. The method by which, is arguably, while not documented in an extant treatise of the period pre-1600, quite period in nature and not to be discarded due to the walking stick used or indeed its method.

I would encourage the reader to source these images from their original sources, or at least look them up on Pintrest or some other media search engine as I did when looking for images of walking sticks. Indeed, you can click on the previous link to go straight to my Pintrest board where I have collected other images of walking sticks and other devices for assisting walking, most of which are of a pre-1600 nature. 

I was supposed to present all of this as a formal class at Fencing Fest in August this year, however COVID-19 reared its ugly head and Brisbane went into lockdown and quashed that chance. I hope that by the time this has gone out that I have had a chance to present the evidence and taught some more people the other way of using the walking stick, if not, hopefully there will be other opportunities.

Cheers,

Henry. 

Things You Can Do To Improve Your Fencing

Greetings,

I usually don't do the "list of things you can do to improve your fencing" thing, because I think that it is rather simplistic. I think that my time is better spent focusing on particular elements and focusing on these elements to a greater degree. However, there are some things that people should be aware of that they should keep in mind that will improve their fencing overall. I will go through these things one at a time in a kind of list form, not in order of importance, because they are all important in their own way. Indeed each is necessary for a complete methodology and learning process.

1. Practise

Let's start with the really obvious one, practise. Practise is important to improving your fencing. If you are not practising in some measure, on a regular basis, you will not improve it is as simple as that. I recommend, if you are not practising fencing, in some measure, at least three times a week you will not improve. You need one lesson to learn a technique, one lesson to work on that technique, and one lesson (at least) for that technique to become a part of your active fencing. Many people do not have access to this opportunity. So, in the main, we can examine practise in two parts: Group Classes, and Solo Training.

1.1. Group Classes

This is what most people think of when they think of as training. A most-often, structured school-type setting with a senior individual who gives lessons, which goes for a period of time. Where, hopefully, there is warm-up, lesson, bouting and cool-down periods. This may happen once or twice a week. Maybe even more, if the individual is lucky or attends different schools. This form of training is usually administered by a teacher, the student essentially only has to have the motivation to turn up and follow what the teacher says.

If you attend these, at least you will improve gradually, depending on how many classes you attend, and how regularly you attend. It will also depend somewhat on the teacher, the classes, and the other students, as this is the nature of this structured approach. Each one of these things can have a positive or negative impact on your experience, and thus your training.

1.2. Solo Training

I am not talking about having the attention of a teacher to yourself, that is personal training, specialised to your requirements, that is something else and fits in between these categories (a sort of 1.1.5). You are lucky if you can get this sort of training as it can advance your improvement a great deal if you harness it properly. This is also likely to cost you, and quite a bit, unless you are extremely lucky. 

If you are one of these lucky people who gets personal training, don't take it for granted.

In regard to solo training, I am talking about the training a person does by themselves. This must be self-motivated because you do it. You need to choose to get out and do it, but the benefits of this sort of training is that you will improve, even if you only focus on the basics. Doing footwork on a patch of grass, or practising your attacks against a target with footwork, are all a great asset; so long as you ensure that you are performing the actions properly. I am a great believer in this sort of practise as an adjunct to any sort of other training, and for maintaining skill where you cannot engage with other people.

This form of training is most important where a person cannot make it to classes for one reason or another. Maybe the student has moved away from where their regular classes are held. Maybe they have lost their regular means of transport. Maybe there is some external reason that training cannot occur. It should not stop the dedicated fencer's training. Practise footwork, practise your thrusts, parries and other actions. You can find ways around most problems, and find useful tools around you. I have written a previous post on this subject of solo training, focused on doing it all alone, you can find it here. I was in this situation before, it is hard, but very rewarding in the end.

2. Learn

Learn. Sounds simple, and sounds like a very broad statement, which it is. People improve when they learn because they are learning new things about their skills, and themselves. This is no different for fencing. If you read a book about fencing, even if it is not related to what you are actually studying, it will give you information about how the sword works. All swordsmanship is based on the same principles, regardless of the weapon, or its methodology. You must keep learning to improve your skills otherwise you will stagnate, and that is no good for your fencing.

2.1. Read

Reading was mentioned briefly above as something that you can do. Ask your teacher what texts you are using or if there are any texts which might be suitable. Have a look at a period treatise, even if you just give it a quick scan to have a look at the pictures and examine them, you will get an idea of movement patterns. Read things about duels, social aspects of the period, history of the periods in which the sword was used. You will be surprised how much is explained by small social elements, especially how the sword was used. The best thing, you can read in many places where you cannot swing a sword, or even practise simple practical aspects of fencing.

2.2. Watch

Watch other people fencing, watch how they move and how their actions are formed. You can gain a lot of information about fencing by watching two fencers bout. The internet has given us great access to visual aids to allow us to watch other people fence, YouTube has many different videos of people fencing, which you can watch and analyse. Have someone film you and watch it after, this is a great aid to assisting you improve. Repeat the process to check for improvement.

3. Listen

The Stoic philosopher Zeno of Citium is credited with the origin of the saying that we have two ears and one mouth for a reason; we should listen twice as much as we speak. It is good to sit back and listen to other fencers talk about fencing, listen to how they describe their actions, describe fencing theory. You should accept what people say, and ideas that they have about fencing, even about your fencing, with open arms. Try everything properly at least once, you never know, you might find something really useful that will improve your fencing a lot, a thought may be given to you which will enable a break-through.

4. Ask

I believe that there is no such thing as a "stupid" question. When it comes to improving your fencing, this counts double. If you have a question about something that a person has said when it comes to a technique, or a theory, ask them. Remember to phrase your question politely, but make sure you ask the question. Wait until you can ask it one-on-one, but ask the question. If you are unsure about something in your fencing, ask a teacher, ask a friend, ask the question. Asking questions is how we find answers. Sometimes we need to ask ourselves questions and find the answers ourselves, but the question still needs to be asked.

5. Accept Criticism

Where something does not work, it needs to be fixed. Some people might even offer suggestions about how you might improve aspects of your fencing, and this will come across as criticism. Accept the criticism, take it in, learn from it. It may be valid, it may not be valid. Until you examine the criticism, you won't know. If you go blindly along ignoring all criticism you will not improve, and you will miss the chance for some useful advice along the way.

There will also be those which will criticise any time they get the chance. Often these individuals also have no solutions to go with their criticism and the only reason they are presenting the criticism is because they believe they have some sort of right to be heard. Examine all criticism in the same light, examine it rationally and see whether it is based on evidence or not; where it is you can use it to your advantage and improve; where it is not, you know you can ignore it and not be concerned, understanding that there are some who are only happy when they are complaining about something.

Broad Terms, Lots Present

So, some ways to improve your fencing have been presented. Each one is important in its own way. Each one will allow you to grow as a fencer, but each will require some truthful examination and dedication on your part. Take the time, think about ways that you can improve yourself as a fencer. Plan out some ideas how you can utilise aspects which have been presented here, and others that you may come up with. I hope that this helps.

Cheers,

Henry.

Etiquette for Facing A Seated Opponent

 Greetings,

A long while ago I wrote an article entitled No Footwork Fencing Or Fencing From a Chair, intended to teach people some of the ideas that I had gained from my practice of fencing from a chair. This is no gimmick, no trick. This a legitimate way for those who are not able to stand, to participate in rapier combat, from a period foundation, and from a comfortable position. This article has been quite popular and people have taken these principles on board, and this is great. I would like to thank all of those who have promoted these ideas. I will not name names, to prevent embarrassing myself by missing someone, you know who you are.

Now, we have the problem in reverse, people who do not understand how to fence a person who is seated in a chair. They do not know what to expect from a seated fencer. They do not know what they should and should not do so they can treat their opponent with courtesy, so both can have an enjoyable encounter. I have seen some really good things, I have also seen, and experienced, some not so nice things. Here, I will explain how to face an opponent who is seated, so you both have an honourable encounter, and an enjoyable one as well.

Precedence: For all of those who are looking for precedence for fencing from a chair, look no further than the Paralympic Games. For those who want a more period approach, I believe there is an incident in one of the many duelling books, where it is reported that one individual fought seated, even in a chair, while the other stood. I don't have the story to hand, if I find it I will include it later on.

Not Often Seen

Facing a seated opponent is something that does not happen very often. Even when a person is legged in SCA rapier combat, most will choose either to go to their knees or post, rather than sitting on their behind. Personally, I find this quite odd. The seated position, is quite stable, and substantially more comfortable for an extended period of time, especially for a person with dodgy joints, but I digress. 

The fencer who chooses to start their fencing bout from a chair, by choice, does not happen all that often, though there are is a small number who are doing so more often. This is an unusual situation, and there are some important things to consider when facing this opponent, seated as they are. These are things which should be considered above and beyond facing an opponent who has been legged, but should also be applied in the same situation.

"It's a Trap!" ... No. It's not.

One of the things that runs through some people's minds about the seated combatant is that the chair is some sort of defensive device that the seated combatant is going to use all of a sudden (especially with some recent discussions about di Grassi's approach to defensive items and the concept of off-hand chair, a discussion for another article). Another thought is, the combatant is going to lure their opponent in, and then spring out of their chair to launch a devastating attack against their opponent. 

Put these fears aside. If your opponent is starting fencing from a chair, there is likely a good reason for it. It is not the best position to start from as the person loses most of the control of Distance by doing so. They may lure you in, but they are not going to be springing out of their chair at anytime, so you can put that one to bed.

Comfort

Just like any combatant who has had their mobility impaired by your action, you should check your opponent's comfort. You should check whether they are comfortable, is the sun in their eyes, or glare affecting them. Ask them whether they are comfortable in their position. We will return to this comfort area shortly.

While it is a true courtesy, I would suggest that you ask whether they want to check their Distance, and check yours as well. This is useful for at least a couple of reasons. First, it allows your opponent to check their Distance knowing when they can strike you, thus giving you an idea of when they can strike you. Second, when you check your Distance, it allows you to give the same courtesy, and a rough idea of how close you have to be to strike your opponent safely. The seated combatant isn't going to walk into your blow after all. There are some things that the seated combatant can do, but mostly it is up to the standing combatant, hence checking Distance is useful.

When we come to the combative elements of facing the seated combatant, there are some two main headings that things can be placed under: Line and facing. The Line is the more straight-forward one and has less discussion so it will be dealt with first, but this belies its importance. Likewise, just because the subject of facing is being placed second does not mean that it is of "secondary" importance, they are both of equal importance if you want to have a bout that both you, and your opponent, will enjoy.

The Line

The Line is determined by the position of the hilt of the sword, in most standard ward positions this usually divides the individual through the waist, or thereabouts, unless you are from an Iberian school. A person who is seated is not likely going to be performing something from one of those schools from a chair due to the movement requirement. This means that the target for the Low Line is the hips and legs, maybe the lower belly.

Forget the Leg

Why am I discussing the Low Line? Unless you are aiming for the lower belly or femoral arteries of the seated opponent's legs, striking at the Low Line is a waste of time. Indeed, I would say that striking a seated opponent in the leg is just plain rude. Just don't do it, "Just to be sure." or for any other reason, leave the legs alone. Yes, incidental contact happens, and this needs to be accepted, but targeting the legs of a seated combatant, not polite. It's not like the fencer in the chair can be any more immobile, or any more seated.

Facing

The facing of the opponent is important when it comes to the fencer who is seated, it becomes more important when the fencer is seated in a chair. Like any opponent who is grounded you should not "corkscrew" (move around your opponent) this is just plain impolite. In the case of the seated combatant, they have no way to move, except to possibly swivel on their chair, if they are able, in most instances they can't, or simply won't, as this will affect their comfort. In regard to this, remain to their front.

Don't Turn the Opponent

The seated combatant will have placed their chair in a particular position facing you in a particular way so it is comfortable for them. This will likely result in the back of the chair not being directly behind them and other similar factors involved. Further the stability of the combatant is likely founded on the position of them in their chair. While it is convenient for you to change the facing so you can stand front facing to them, so the chair is front-on as this will give you the bigger target, this is certainly not convenient for them. 

Their stability is likely compromised due to this positioning. If they try to lean backward, they could topple the chair over and hurt themselves. Remain to the seated combatant's front. Consider your opponent's comfort as well as your own. Doing so will make it a much more pleasurable bout for you and your opponent.

Be Polite

In all of these instances, put yourself in your opponent's place. Would you appreciate your opponent doing the same to you? This is one of those times when you need to ask yourself, what is more important, the win, or the experience? 

We should always be considering how we can make the experience of fencing better for our opponent. This involves being polite, greeting a new opponent and introducing ourselves. Saluting our opponent in an honourable fashion. Giving our opponent the benefit of the doubt, in all instances. It does not mean that we should not use our skills, or seek to win the bout, but we should try and make the experience as enjoyable as possible. The way that we know that we have achieve this is by, both combatants coming off the arena both with smiles, and more so when the same combatant seeking us for follow-up bouts afterward, because the experience was so enjoyable. 

Have fun with your fencing, but take your opponent's fun into account as well.

Cheers,

Henry.

Myth of Speed Part. 2

 Greetings,

I wrote a previous article on the Myth of Speed in which I indicated that speed had little to do with the muscles of the fencer, and more to do with the efficiency of the fencer performing the actions. This comes from practising these actions so that they become smooth and efficient. A similar idea was raised in the discussion concerning the learning process, especially in slow training, which starts here. This article will examine the subject of speed and the myth of speed a little closer, taking another look at the subject.

Of the things that people notice, one thing is that the experienced fencer does not appear rushed in his actions there is a certain sprezzatura, assumed easiness, in their actions. They have control over what is happening. This is reflected in an expression of Musashi concerning speed, “Speed is not part of the true Way of strategy. Speed implies that things seem fast or slow, ... Whatever the Way, the master does not appear fast.” (Musashi, 1974:91). 

The actions of the practised swordsman look deliberate and purposeful from the outside, they do not look fast or hurried. Facing them may be a different matter, they may certainly seem fast, but it is because the combatant has practised the actions so they have become efficient. This means there is no wasted energy and no wasted time, so they seem fast.

In discussing the actions of the smallsword Monsieur L'Abbat also discusses the subject of speed in his Chapter XXVI: Of Swiftness. There is much said about the subject of swiftness, but it is linked to practise. This is even stated in his first comment on the subject.

"Swiftness is the Shortness of Time between the Beginning and End of a Motion: It proceeds from a regular and frequent Exercise, joined with a good Disposition; that is to say, Vigour and Suppleness, which form Agility." (L'Abbat, 2007:75)

The action which proceeds with swiftness results from regular practise, or exercise as he calls it, but it also comes from a good disposition. This means that the individual has to be prepared to perform the action, the body has to be prepared with the appropriate amount of agility. So, he acknowledges that there is a physical fitness aspect as well. He then emphasises that the speed cannot be gained without practise and the disposition of the body to gain the speed.

L'Abbat then notes that, "every one is earnestly desirous of it, tho' most People are ignorant of the Means necessary to acquire it." (L'Abbat, 2007:75). Much is the situation in our current age. Many a student of the blade will see the more experienced fencer performing a feat with the blade and attempt to copy it, and fail. They will then attempt to speed up their hands or body, thinking that this was the reason, where it was the efficiency of their action, and thus timing was truly at fault. As L'Abbat indicates, "The Situation requires this advantageous Point of all the Parts, to communicate Freedom and Vigour to the Action, that they may act with Quickness." (L'Abbat, 2007:75)

Speed, as it is seen, needs to come from efficiency of action. Brute strength without knowledge and practise behind it will not give the results that the individual requires. A certain amount of speed may be acquired, but there will be a lack of accuracy in the technique, and this will result in the action falling short of its mark, being false in its timing. The action must be quick and accurate.

"As to the Motion of the Hand, it must not only be animated, but also the Action must not be wide, whether in Disengagements, Engagements, Feints or Riposts; because if you would be soon at your Mark, it is not sufficient to go quick, but it is also necessary that the Action be close." (L'Abbat, 2007:75)

Accuracy in an action comes from practise. Through the practise the action becomes efficient because the performance of the action becomes accurate, this results in the action becoming quicker, or seeming so. This improves the timing of the action and allows the fencer to hit their mark. 

Speed is a myth, the secret is efficiency of action and motion, but this needs to be matched to the opponent. There is little point in performing your actions with one timing if your opponent is performing them with another. Unless you have no intention of your weapons coming into contact, and intend to play with Absence of Blade; even then there is still the timing of the movements of the opponent to consider. Control of the actions is important, efficiency of action is important, speed is really only required for brief moments.

Cheers,

Henry.

Bibliography

L'Abbat (2007) The Art of Fencing, or, the Use of the Small Sword, Translated by Andrew Mahon, Dodo Press

Musashi, M. (1974) A Book of Five Rings, The Overlook Press, Woodstock,  New York, USA (Translated by Victor Harris, originally written 1645)

Gripping the Sword

 Greetings,

For starters, don't grip the sword hold the sword. The subject of how to hold a sword is a subject that I am back at AGAIN. It would seem that most people when they approach the subject, give little consideration to its importance, and then wonder why they are having difficulties with the more precise actions of fencing later on, or in some cases find themselves with injuries. Yes, at least one injury, or strain, can be traced back to holding the sword in an incorrect manner, as will be described below.

Hold the Sword

Let me say this again, DON'T grip the sword, hold the sword. The weapon should be placed in your hand and you should hold the sword in natural fashion. The weapon needs to become a natural extension of your body, not something that you are gripping on to for dear life. 

Hold the sword firmly so you can feel it against your fingers and hand. It is described as like holding a small bird, firmly enough that it will not escape, but not so hard that you will crush it.

The previous article was quite short, and went over some of the basic details about how to hold a sword. It indicated that it was dependent much on the weapon that was being used at the time, and this is very true. You don't hold a foil the same way that you hold a longsword, or a sabre. Each has a slightly different hilt construction which will affect the way that you wrap your fingers around the hilt.

The previous article indicated that the sword should not be held too tightly not gripped but held. It indicated that a sword that was gripped too tightly would reduce the amount of control the fencer had on it rather than increasing the amount of control the fencer had on it. Clearly if it was gripped too loosely there would be little control over the weapon. The weapon needs to be held properly, with the correct amount of pressure from the fingers on the handle of the weapon. 

The article then went to discuss holding the sword by the index finger and the thumb primarily, and then the different types of grip that could be used and some discussion of which method may be more beneficial to a fencer and for which reason. Here, there will be a little more discussion about the physical characteristics of the sword, which will affect the method of holding the weapon, more specifically the handle.

The Handle

There are many options for buying a weapon for the practice of Historical European Martial Arts, many more than I had options for when I started. There are all the options available from simply buying an "off the shelf" model all the way up to a fully-customized weapon of the fencer's choice. The fencer can often choose hilt, blade, and pommel shape. Of little concern quite often is the handle. Most often the options available are whether it is covered in leather, wire bound, plain wood (and what type of wood) or what combination of these. The handle usually comes in a standard shape, only the length is of concern. The shape of the handle is of concern, as is the size of the handle, all of these things affect how effectively the individual is able to hold the weapon.

The shape of the handle does have an effect on how effectively the fencer is able to hold the weapon. If the handle is too thick, then the individual may not be able to wrap their fingers all the way around the handle, this will result in them gripping the handle, and often too tightly. This is often for fear of losing the weapon, the result of this hard grip is discomfort and potential further issues as will be described. If the handle is too thin, the individual's fingers will overlap, resulting in discomfort similar to that of the thick handle. The correct size should enable the tips of the fingers to touch the palm comfortably. This will enable the handle to be held properly.

Further, the handle can be shaped to fit the hand of the fencer making the handle even more comfortable for them. Thinning out certain parts to add more grip, adding hatching for more grip, or simple removal of certain areas so the handle simply sits in the hand, all add to the ease of holding the handle of the weapon. 

Likewise the length of the handle should place the pommel of a single-handed weapon just below, or at, the grove at the bottom of the hand. A shorter handle can be uncomfortable, placing the pommel in the hand. Likewise longer handles can get in the way of performing actions. These physical characteristics of the handle are often forgotten, but can make a comfortable sword into an excellent sword.

Method

Did you choose your method of holding your sword, or were you told that this was the way to do it, and just followed? Have you considered why you hold your sword in this particular manner? Have you considered the effects of this method, as compared to other methods? These are questions that we should always be asking ourselves about how we hold our swords. A change in method may open new opportunities.

At the beginning of our fencing careers, we are often told how to hold the sword, and usually just follow what is said without question, because we do not know any better, and that is expected. If that method does not work for the fencer it should be expected that the individual will change their method. This is the reason that the teacher should offer options for how to hold the sword. In my previous article on the subject two options were discussed, and also some considerations of their effects. You need to consider why you are holding your sword in this manner.

Does the method give you better control of the sword? Does the method give you better strength in engagement? Does the method give you a balance of these attributes? Is the method that you are using actually comfortable? Frankly, if it the answer to the last one is not a resounding "Yes," then you need to think about seeking another option for holding your sword.

We will examine two typical methods of holding the rapier, and one extreme method. Each will be examined for its advantages and what it gives the fencer. This will describe the effect holding the sword in this manner applies to the sword in a functional sense, which is the most important, rather than any other consideration. Each will be examined to see what the fencer is given by using these methods.

Single Finger

In the single finger method, the index finger is placed about the forward quillon, or ricasso. The thumb is then placed on the back of the ricasso, or placed on top of the tip of the index finger by preference. There is a different effect from both of these positions, the latter gives more strength to the edge when making parries and actions, but has the thumb activated all of the time. The former has the thumb relaxed and can be used as a counter-lever to the index finger to control the weapon.

The advantage of the single finger method is that it allows the lower fingers freedom for use to manipulate the weapon, and leaves the wrist freedom of movement for manipulation of movement of the weapon. This allows the weapon to move freely as the fencer desires. This is a very basic form of grip where the sword is essentially held between the index finger and the thumb, with the other fingers and the hand assisting in the movement of the sword, and nothing more. They can, should it be required, be used for strength actions, but most of the time, they should not. There is a lot of freedom of action in this method.

Two Finger

In this method, the index and middle fingers are placed about the ricasso. The thumb touches the tip of the middle finger. More of the handle is placed in the hand for this method, and the more of the hand is used to hold the weapon. This means that the hand is used to manipulate the weapon.

The advantage of this method is that the sword is held firmly which means it is useful especially for longer weapons. The fingers lock the handle against the hand and the hand is moved rather than the fingers to manipulate the weapon. This means that it is primarily up to the wrist and forearm to move the weapon about. This method gives the weapon strength in its engagement with others and results in no change depending on whether strength or fine actions are required. This method is more common to the later period treatises.

"Pommeling"

 "Pommeling" is an extreme form of holding a sword more common to sport fencing than it is to the rapier, but worthy of mention in this discussion. In this method, the pommel is placed in the palm of the hand and the index finger is extended so it is either just over the quillon, or just below as in a normal grip. The other fingers are placed around the grip as they are usually.

The greatest advantage of this method is that it gives the fencer the extra reach of the handle usually taken up by the hand. There are some claims that this method also gives superior leverage in the sword due to its extended position, but this is disputed. It is recommended that this method is only used by more experienced fencers as it is quite easy to lose the weapon through disarming. There is also some control lost of the weapon due to its extended position, unless the fencer has a particularly strong hand and fingers.

Different Methods

There are lots of different methods for holding a sword, and only three have been discussed as they are the most commonly used with the rapier. The first two are the most commonly taught, with the last being an extreme example given to show an extreme approach to gaining a little more advantage of reach over an opponent. Serious consideration should be given as to what method a person uses and what advantages the method gives. 

The question of comfort should not be ignored when using a particular method of holding a sword. Find something that is comfortable for you, because holding the sword is the thing that you are going to be doing the most while you are engaged in swordplay. Talk with your teacher if you are finding your current method uncomfortable. Examine each aspect of the method and see if there are any aspects that can be changed to make it more comfortable for you. The importance of a correct method of holding the weapon cannot be denied.

Importance of Correct Method of Holding

Only a correct method of holding the sword will allow you to perform actions correctly when you are engaged with an opponent, or even in drills. The feedback that you will receive through the sword is important as this will allow you to respond correctly to the stimulus that your opponent gives with their sword. Holding the sword correctly will give you the correct feeling through the sword (senso di ferro) which will allow you to anticipate the actions of the opponent.

Correct blade engagement actions, especially when engaged with an opponent relies on senso di ferro which relies on holding the sword properly. If you are gripping the sword tightly you will not be able to feel these sensations through the sword. Likewise, if you are not holding the sword tightly enough, you will not feel the sensations through the sword and you will miss your opportunity to respond to the actions of your opponent. Further the Actions on the Blade, both the Attacks on the Blade and the Takings of the Blade also require you to have such sensations and to be holding the sword properly so you can manipulate it properly so you can perform these actions correctly. So much of fencing comes down to how you hold the sword.

Even the performance of offensive actions in the correct manner result from the correct manner of holding the sword. A thrust made with a hand that is gripping the sword tightly will likely strike hard each time, almost regardless if the opponent is even at correct Distance. A thrust made with a hand that is holding the sword correctly will likely strike the opponent with just enough force that they will feel it sufficiently, especially if they are at correct Distance. If they are too close, for some reason, there is flexibility in the hand to compensate for some of this.

A cut made correctly with a rapier should impact and then slide along the target allowing the edge of the weapon to do the intended damage. The cut should not strike and bounce off. Test-cutting experiments that I have performed have demonstrated that a cut which is delivered where the edge is driven into the target, will simply bounce off, doing little damage. While a cut which is performed so the edge strikes and then the edge is drawn through the target does damage to the target, quite a bit in fact. The difference often lies not only in the method, but in how the sword is held.

A cut which is made where the sword is gripped in the hand hard, is likely to result in the cut bouncing off the target with little effect. A cut which is made where the sword is held properly with a more firm, but relaxed hand will impact and then slice through the target with great effect. A lot of cutting correctly with the rapier comes down to how the sword is held. Further, holding the sword tightly while cutting can result in damage to the fencer.

Injury from Cutting

A fencer who persistently cuts with a had grip on their sword can eventually damage themselves if they are not particularly careful. If the fencer is not careful when they are careful the stress from the impact of cutting can be transferred through the hand, through the wrist, to the elbow, resulting in damage to the elbow. This damage also results from the full extension of the arm in both cutting and thrusting.

The damage that can result from cutting with a stiff grip is damage to the tendons of the elbow, this is known as Tennis Elbow or Golfer's Elbow, depending on which tendon it damages. The damage results because the hand is locked and the impact has to go somewhere, often it travels through the hand to the wrist, this may take some of the impact out. Often it travels further to the elbow resulting in the two conditions mentioned. This is especially the case where the arm is fully extended. The same can result where the arm is fully extended in a thrust. A way to stop some of this damage is to not fully extend the arm in either the thrust or the cut, however a proper method of holding the sword is also effective. It is best if both of these methods are used.

Hold the Sword

Holding the sword is one of the beginner lessons that is taught at the beginning of most swordsmanship courses. A method is often told by the teacher how the sword will be held and the student follows the instructions, in the worst case, the lesson is skipped, or is absent and the student is left to figure it out for themselves. It is often the case that the lesson is never revisited by the teacher or the student.

The lesson should be revisited, especially if the student is having trouble with their lessons. It could be as simple as the student is having trouble with holding the sword, or they might have a handle which is the wrong shape, or too big. In this case a simple solution can change the fencer's ability to progress. The student should be aware from the beginning of their lessons that if something is not comfortable, their grip included, that they should check in with their teacher about the issue.

The effect of the method of holding the sword should not be underestimated as it does effect senso di ferro and as a result if effects all the skills that rely upon this important aspect of swordsmanship. If the student's hand or arm is tiring quickly during lessons, the sword may not be too heavy, it may simply be that they are gripping the sword, rather than holding it. There is a difference between these two, it is subtle, but there is a difference. 

If you grip the sword and cut, especially with your arm fully extended, you are likely not going to make an effective cut. Further you are headed down a road toward damage of your elbow and a lifetime of issues with that joint. Simple correction at the early stages can prevent this issue. Holding the sword and cutting with an arm which is not completely extended will result in a much more effective cut, and also reduce the damage to the elbow. The same applies to the thrust. This is something that both students and teachers should pay attention to all the way through the fencing career.

Remember to hold the sword correctly, and revisit your method of holding the sword, especially if you begin to feel it to be uncomfortable, or you feel actions to be more difficult than they should be. The method of holding the sword is simple, but essential do not just push it aside and forget it.

Cheers,

Henry.