Greetings,
Sorry it has been so long, I have been busy writing articles for my Patreon page, and other projects, of course. The following is like all the other posts about fencing from a chair, complete.
As with all techniques, my method of fencing from a chair
has changed over the years, reflecting the knowledge I have developed about the
subject. The result is that the following are some considerations which have
arisen out of examining the concept of seated fencing, as is applicable to the
SCA. These methods have been used in SCA fencing and do not delineate policy or
concepts for the Paralympics or any other form of swordplay[1].
1. Chair
Position
Figure 1: Seated Chair positions
This looks like a particularly odd diagram, possibly it more
belongs on an electrician’s schematics or some other technical drawing.
However, these are positions of an individual seated on a chair as compared to
an opponent who is also seated on a chair. The circle represents the
individual’s body, the little sticks with bulges on them are the individual’s
feet and legs. The line through the circle is the general angle of the body
based on the position of the feet and legs.
Number 1 and 4 shows individuals of the same method facing
one another directly opposite one another. Number 1 shows individuals seated
using the method I have described in my previous discussions of seated fencing,
with the two front feet of the combatants aligned. Number 4 shows the more
traditional method of sitting on a chair, with both feet and legs facing
forward.
Number 3 depicts what happens when you have one using one
method, while the other uses the other method facing one another, and it is
here we begin to see the change in perspective, of angles between the pair of
fencers. The lower one is in a more stable position as they can lean back more
easily without fear of falling. Further, they have positioned themselves so
their front foot, the one that assists guiding the thrust is pointing at the
centre of the opponent’s body. One will note that this can also restrict the
possible targets for the one who is sitting on the seat in the traditional
manner.
Returning to the previously-described images (1,4), these
both have their opponents directly opposite one another. In 4 it is evident
that both combatants have easy access to the entire opponent, at the other end
of the scale, with the feet positioned so they are directly against one another
the target is very limited, mostly to would be the Outside Line in a
right-handed fencer. These two images are excellent for demonstrating the
extremes of both methods of seating.
Number 2 is the only one which has not been discussed thus
far. This is a new method of seating for the seated combatant using my method.
Rather than the direct method (1), this one pushes the front foot to the Inside
Line, opening further options for attack, and allowing more effective use of
the off-hand and any device they might be carrying. This is my preferred method
of placing the two combatants when seated on their chairs.
2. Distance
How far should two seated combatants be placed from one
another? Who should have priority over distance, the person with the longer or
the shorter reach? Regarding the placement of two seated fencers, this is the
question that gets asked most, even more than the question about position in
comparison to one another. There are certain aspects which must be considered
here.
If the combatants are places where the person with the
shorter distance can reach the opponent, the taller one is guaranteed to reach.
If the combatants are placed with the longer person’s reach, it is not
guaranteed that the shorter will reach the longer. So, we have a quandary to
solve, who should get preference for reach.
First, the combatants should be measured for distance in a
“neutral” position, i.e. both fencers should be sitting up in their chairs.
Movement of the body backward and forward allows the fencers to advance or
withdraw from their opponent. This is something I have discussed in my previous
discussions about fencing from a chair.
It should be established a person should be able to reach
the opponent when sitting up, if the shorter person’s reach is chosen. However,
this could mean that the longer could reach the shorter even if they are
leaning back. This is a consideration to make and goes to the heart of this
issue.
If the longer person’s reach is used as the standard, then
the shorter fencer is going to have to lean forward to strike the opponent, but
they will be able to lean back to withdraw from their opponent as well. So, the
shorter is going to require more effort to strike the opponent. This is the
choice that should be made, by the combatants participating preferably.
I think it should be left to the combatants to decide where
there is a difference in distance, whose distance they will choose to make
their initial measurement. This way the combatants take upon themselves the
decision of where they are placed and what they will require both to strike the
opponent, but also to not be struck. Yes, this is not a definitive answer, but
it does give agency to the combatants who are fencing.
3. Weapon
Combinations
When considering the best weapon form to use when seated,
there are some principles that can be applied in this choice. Through these
principles we can then find the most suited combinations for fencing from a
chair. It must be remembered that these are my assessments, a combatant is always
free to choose what they want to take, these are not rules.
1.
The best combination considers both long and
short range, especially when facing a standing opponent.
2.
The best combination considers offensive
capability at long and short ranges, especially when facing a standing opponent.
3.
Better forms consider defensive capability at
long and short ranges, especially when facing a standing opponent.
4.
Better forms consider the issue of entanglement
prevention, and the opponent’s ability to control the item being used.
5.
The method employed will consider the seated
combatant’s position and their vulnerabilities against the opponent’s actions,
and their own vulnerabilities against the opponent.
Why is the difference between a seated or standing opponent
so important? In very simple terms, because the standing opponent can change
Distance, not only to withdraw from the seated fencer’s Distance, but also to
close beyond the points of the seated opponent’s main weapon.
Considering the fifth principle presented above, there will
be those methods which are more suited to the seated combatant, while there are
other methods which are best left to the standing combatant. This is a matter
of how the combination is used, rather than any inherent advantage. Further,
these are general recommendations regarding these forms, not hard and fast
rules. It is the fencer who decides the efficiency and effect of the
combinations, not the combinations themselves.
“Standard” combinations are: single sword, sword and
gauntlet, sword and buckler, sword and cane, sword and cloak, sword and dagger,
and case of rapiers. Forms becoming more common are: sword and rotella, and
spear. Each will be addressed in turn so we might find out which of the above
statements applies to the combination, and the reason for this.
Single Sword
The single sword is the foundation of all the other forms.
This is the form the individual has most likely had the most practice, because
of its foundational status. Considering the factors above, the single sword has
ability at both long and short range, including offensive and defensive; it has
no special issue regarding entanglement. This form thus qualifies under the
four principles.
Sword and Gauntlet
The gauntlet is an addition to the single sword, leaving the
weapon side of things with no issue. This method, as with the single sword,
qualifies under the four principles.
Sword and Buckler
The sword and buckler is an enhancement of the defensive
capability of the fencer, thus it lacks the offensive capability of some of the
other forms. It can be used at short and long ranges however it has an issue
when it comes to shorter ranges regarding offensive actions with no enhancement
beyond those found with the single sword.
Sword and Cane
Sword and cane is also known as sword and baton, or sword
and stick. The implication is some solid object of a cylindrical nature is
being held in the off-hand for defence, it lacks the offensive capability
beyond the single sword, so has a failure in this respect. There is also a
potential tangling issue when it comes to closer work with the cane, especially
longer ones. The shorter ones may not have this issue.
Sword and Cloak
Cloak or cape, the same applies here. It lacks offensive
capability beyond the single sword, and there is an increased chance for
entanglement unless the fencer primarily used it wrapped about their hand, in a
kind of soft buckler.
Sword and Dagger
The sword and dagger combination, like the single sword
qualifies under all four of the discussed principles. However, the dagger has
an additional offensive capability, especially in the close. This weapon is
less likely to be entangled than most of the other off-hands. For the seated
combatant, this is the best form to use. I would consider it even better than
the single sword, and if you know me, this is remarkable.
Case of Rapier
Case of rapier, case of swords, or “Florentine”, they all
refer to the same method of having a sword in each hand. This method is
primarily used at distance due to the high chance of entanglement, especially
when being used by someone of less experience. It is certainly a lot of fun to
fight with case from a chair, but it is certainly not preferable considering
the principles laid down.
Spear
Even with a butt-spike, the spear is simply not useful from
a chair. Once the opponent closes beyond the fencer’s point, there is little
the fencer can do in reply. Indeed, the best combination involving a spear,
would be to have a dagger in reserve, if the opponent closes that far. Even
with this combination, adding the dagger, there are issues to solve. I do not
recommend fighting with a spear from a chair.
I hope these considerations assist those who fight from
chairs to improve their game and ability while fighting from this position. I
use this method when my body is complaining and not doing its thing. This is no
gimmick, it is a method so more people can be involved in our game, to consider
how more people can be accommodated.
Cheers,
Henry.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are welcomed if they are in English and are relevant to the topic. Comments will be moderated.