Battlefield

This is the most obvious use of the sword as a weapon. It is also the one that is least understood by fencers. Contrary to popular belief in some quarters, rapiers were never used on the battlefield at any period in history¹. This does not mean that the rapier is an inferior weapon or that the soldiers of the day were unskilled sword fighters (because otherwise, they’d all use rapiers). It simply means that the rapier is the wrong tool for this context. Heavier weapons and weapons which could deal more effective with armour were always preferred.

Judicial Duel

Generally, battlefield weapons were preferred, especially in the Germanic countries, long after they disappeared from warfare because this was serious business. A judicial duel was rarely to first blood or any other nicety. It was almost always combat to the death.

Duel of Honour

Duelling for points of honour were also to the death until the concept of first blood was introduced around the 19th century. Even here, as late as 1547, duels were being fought with sword and buckler rather than the new-fangled (and Italian) thrust-centric rapiers. Rapiers were used when the fight was immediate rather than in formal, prepared duels. Also, contrary to even the words of the masters, the thrust is much less deadly – and certainly less immediately deadly – that the cut. It was only after the introduction of the small sword in the eighteenth century that this nature of the duel began to change.

Gang Violence and Thuggery

Those crazy Italians were not the only people to carry swords in the streets for personal protection but they became known for it. It is for fighting in the courts, taverns and streets that the rapier was truly developed. The weapon’s main feature is its length, which grew steadily over time to ridiculous proportions. This length gave the wielder the ability to hold opponents at a safe distance. It’s also good for attacking someone without putting yourself in danger of any form of retaliatory response.

Sports

Swords have always been used for sport with sets of rules to codify and control behaviour. The most complete set of rules we have is the Belgian Guild rules which were known to have been used from at least the 1540s in northern France and Belgium. There are plenty of medieval notes about bouts in the market place. Sport is as valid a context for swordplay as war.

Nobility

The final context is related to sport. The sword has always been the symbol of the nobility. Long after the weapon disappeared from the battlefield, the nobility and those who wanted to emulate them trained regularly and frequently with swords. They bouted between each other in the same way that CEOs (arguably the nobles of today) play golf. The further away from the medieval battlefield we stand, the more likely we are to find non-lethal sport combat between members of the aristocracy using increasingly light and thrust-centric weapons.

¹ They were used at the start of the English Civil War (1642-1651) but were quickly dropped in favour of more useful weapons.

Related posts:

1. Swordplay 11 Is On!
2. Rapier Play Versus Modern Fencing
3. Swordplay 10 Review

My latest addition is Darkwood Armory‘s magnificent “Arms and Side-ring” side sword which they list under the code ARMSIDE. It’s a great example of a sixteenth century rapier which, for me, matches the swords you find in the diagrams in many manuals of the period, in particular, Joachim Meyer’s Art of War, Henri de Sainct Didier and the rest of the gang who published around 1570 or so.

It lacks the complex hilt of later rapiers in favour of a simpler cross hilt with a knuckle bow and finger rings. It’ll be interesting to see how much protection these give in practice. I suspect it will be fine. The blade, while def enough for point-work, maintains a reasonable blade profile for cutting attacks. The weapon is a little blade heavy but I’ve an armourer friend develop the fullers in the standard Darkwood blade a little more fully which has lightened the blade considerably and brought the balance point back very close to the finger rings.

I’ve had a few test bouts with friends in the few weeks I’ve had the sword. I’m really looking forward to giving it a proper work out when training at the Australian College of Arms (ACA) starts again this month. That will be the real test of the weapon’s value.

Related posts:

1. Meyer’s Rapier in One Post
2. Papa Got A New Longsword!
3. Fencing Fest VII

I can’t summarise Dall’Agochhie’s essential actions better than has already been done by Steve Reich (Nova Assalto).

Dall’Agocchie proposes to teach the prospective duellist only one of the multitude of guard position in the Bolognese tradition. What he calls the porta di ferro stretta Meyer calls the Iron Gate in a variant which is held to the left side of the right handed swordsman (2.54R).

From this position, Dall’Agocchie advocates only two actions to parry all attacks and counter strike. The first is beat away an incoming attack to the right by transitioning into guardia d’alicorno (Meyer’s Right Ox; 2.53V) and thrusting at the opponent’s face. Meyer describes this action in several places (2.89r3, etc). The second is raise the hilt and cut a riverso squalimbro (Meyer’s Defense Cut from the left; 2.55R) against an incoming attack to the left then thrust into the opponent’s flank. Meyer describes this action here (2.70r2).

These similarities are hardly a surprise. After all, there’s only so many ways to swing a lump of metal. What strikes me as interesting is Dall’Agocchie’s use of provocation. He advises the newbie duellist to draw his weapon, passing into guardia d’alicorno (Right Ox), and immediately thrust at the opponent – not to wound but to force the opponent to act. Then, he says, the duellist can use one of the two basic actions to score his or her point of honour. This is a perfect example of Meyer’s provoker – taker – hitter schema in another tradition.

Dall’Agocchie is adamant however that simply practising these techniques does not a fencer make. The newbie duellist cannot in thirty days be taught tempo, which he says only comes from fencing a variety of partners. Tempo is a subject on which Meyer is almost entirely silent. While he speaks of fighting in the vor and nach, this refers more to siezing and controlling the initiative of the fight than the timing of fight actions.

While the similarities between the two schools of fence are in many ways to be expected, the differences are most enlightening. For me, Dall’Agocchie’s admonitions and Meyer’s silence on the subject of tempo shows the advantages of training in more than one fencing tradition. Each illuminates the practice of the other.

Related posts:

1. Summary of Meyer’s Rapier System
2. Meyer’s Rapier: Provoker, Taker, Hitter
3. Meyer’s Rapier in One Post

• Summary of Meyer’s Rapier System (PDF)

Meyer’s text on the rapier is difficult to understand for two reasons:

• he never clearly explains the tactical underpinnings of this teachings, and
• despite initial appearances to the contrary, the text is not laid out in a logical manner nor does it highlight the important over the incidental.

My process was to go through the text and make notes of each example technique presented. These were then collated in order to bring together similar techniques that differ only in nuance. The aim of this process is to determine which are the core techniques, because they occur more frequently than others, and which represent no more than variations on the theme.

I’ve found that Meyer’s rapier system cannot be so easily summarized into a list of techniques. It cannot be divorced from his fight philosophy which permeates the text and, of course, follows closely in the German tradition. Key to the system is the scheme of characterizing actions are provokers, takers and hitters. All actions are presented as taker – hitter combinations and assume that you are fighting in the nach. To fight in the vor, you cut or thrust to provoke your opponent into an action against which you can apply a taker – hitter combo.

Irrespective of the number of postures and their variations presented in the text, Meyer states quite explicitly that you should always approach the fight in a guard position somewhere along the Straight Parrying – Iron Gate continuum. The same observation applies to offensive and defensives actions. From the bewildering number of actions describes, most can be accepted as variants of a core action applied in differing tactical circumstances.

As for the PDF of my summary of Meyer’s rapier, read it and work through it. All I ask is that you tell me whether I’ve got it wrong or whether what I’ve said is useful.

Related posts:

1. Meyer’s Rapier in One Post
2. Dall’Agocchie’s Essential Actions
3. Meyer’s Rapier: In the Onset

Before I get stuck in, here’s a copy of the rules: Lancet Fencing Modern Rapier Rules (PDF)

The first thing I like about these rules is their simplicity. There are priority (head and sword arm) and non-priority (everywhere else) target areas. If each fencer hits the other in-tempo such that fencer A hits a priority target area and the fencer B hits a non-priority target area, fencer A wins the point. This differs from many of the points based tournament rules sets I’ve seen around the traps. The rationale for which areas are considered priority targets and which aren’t are pretty clear and make a lot of sense.

This schema is suitable for adaption to better handle cuts and cut-and-thrust styles of swordplay. For instance, the rapier rules consider any cut (as opposed to a thrust) to a priority target area to be a non-priority hit. It effect, this means that a thrust to the head beats a cut to the head with a rapier. Only a minor change is required to adapt the rules to a cut-and-thrust style: treat cuts in the same way as thrusts. This changes the dynamic of the rules while retaining their simplicity.

The second point of note is that the rules penalises simultaneous hits. Hit in the same tempo to non-priority targets are ignored wheras simultaneous hits to priority target areas incur a penalty to both fencers for failing the first rule of fencing, “don’t get hit”. Where the rules start to get a little complex is in the distinctions of tempo. Two hits may be simultaneous if they occur in the same tempo, subsequent if the second hit lands a fraction later or late if the second hit occurs out of tempo. It may seem a little complex but it’s not too tough for a competent bout referee to judge.

(There’s also an explanatory doc to assist bout referees.)

Scoring is a lot like tennis in that a bout consists of an odd number of sets, usually 5 or 7. It’s also scored like tennis in that each set is scored not with a tally of numeric points but as a see-saw of advantage. For instance, if fencer A scores a touch, he or she has “advantage” and with another touch, he or she wins the set. Fencer B, however, may score the next touch and even the score again.

This rule set has a lot going for it and everyone who’s serious about historical fencing should give it a try.

Related posts:

1. Fencing Match Double Hits
2. Building an Historical Fencing Community
3. Dall’Agocchie’s Essential Actions

As we’ve all discovered, attacking someone standing in a solid guard position is a sure way to get hit. The best you can hope for is that you both hit each other. To the problem become one of how to inspire your opponent to step out of his or her secure posture and give you an undefended opening to attack. As Meyer says: “you cannot attack without an opportunity [...] therefore you must see how you can bring him out of his advantage” (2.67r).

Let’s define the terms then examine a couple of quotes to find these actions in them.

• Provokers (coloured blue in the quotes) are actions intended to force the opponent to act. In other traditions, this is called a feint.
• Takers (coloured green in the quotes) are actions which prevent your opponent from hitting you and are otherwise known as parries.
• Hitters (coloured red in the quotes) are self-explanatory. These are the cuts and thrusts you use to injure your opponent.

Any strike can perform any of these roles. For example, the Wrath Cut is a diagonal cut from high to low used as a hitter. The Defence Cut is the same action used as a taker. When this action is performed solely to draw out a response from your opponent, it is a provoker.

Here’s a couple of quotes from Meyer to show the three roles in action. The roles highlighted in colour.

“Quickly lift your weapon, and act as if you intend to cut aggressively at his lower leg, and actually cut in a little way; with this cut, lean your body well forward after the step and cut, so that it seems you have made yourself quite open, but see that you do not lose control but keep full command over your weapon. And note diligently as you thus cut in, whether he will rush to your opening; if so, then pull your threatened cut back up against his incoming blade, and strike it out upwards to the side with this pulling upward, and thrust at his nearest opening before he recovers.” (2.84v1)

Note: the taker in this instance could be the hitter if your opponent does nothing.

“If you find an opponent in one of the low postures then in the Onset deliver a Middle Cut suddenly through his face from your right. With this cut you will cause him to go quickly upward, and thus he becomes open below; therefore cut the second quickly from your left through his lower leg before he realises it: that is the Hitter. After this he will be quick to rush upon you, therefore thirdly deliver a Defence Stroke from your right, so that you take out his incoming blade: that is the Taker.” (2.67v2)

Note: the actions need not always follow the provoker – taker – hitter sequence. In this case, the hitter comes directly after the provoker and the taker is used to ensure you can safely withdraw from danger.

This schema provides a clear insight into Meyer’s thinking about how to approach the fight. Once you can recognise the actions, you can see them in close to every example his gives in his book. It also corresponds to the modern Olympic fencing notion of second (and third) intention attacks and period ideas of the feint.

The downside, of course, is that you need to make the provoker sufficiently tempting that your opponent takes the bait. Personally, I don’t like the idea of my success in a bout relying on the other guy making a mistake.

Related posts:

1. Meyer’s Rapier: In the Onset
2. Meyer’s Rapier: Attacking the Straight Parry
3. Summary of Meyer’s Rapier System

The format seems to have roughly fallen out as a day of social swordplay, ice-breaking and catching up with old friends. The second day was Mr Curtis’ workshop followed by the longsword, single-handed sword and skill-at-arms competitions on the third and final day.

The highlight of the weekend was without a doubt Puck Curtis’ Destreza workshop. The man showed vast reserves of both endurance and patience leading a bunch of gumbies like us through de Rada’s ten drills and a bunch of additional techniques and extrapolation built upon them over a period of at least six hours. I’d not looked at Destreza before now as I had always figured the Spanish were much more interested in their re-discovered geometric fripperies than they were in actually fencing. Boy, was I wrong! This stuff is magical. It made sense of a lot of the fencing dogma I’ve imbibed over the years but have never been able to figure out how to apply in practice. For instance, I’m eternally grateful to the man for giving me permission to take my point off-line when parrying. Hopefully, and with tons of practice, this will cure a lot of the mistakes I commonly make.

(I also saw a huge amount of cross-over with techniques described in the rapier combat section of Joachim Meyer’s Art of Combat. This will come out in some later posts once I digest it all thoroughly.)

I saw about half of competitions on the third day as I was called away by family matters a little after lunch. The bouts I saw displayed clean technique and, although strongly and martially competitive, shows degree of safety and courtesy not usually seen elsewhere. I’ll be back in the competitions next year for sure. This year’s list of winners are on display at the ACA’s website.

Of course, there were some difficulties as there always is with an outdoor venue. The spirits of the wind and rain needed to be appeased and after a little coaxing came around to our point of view, providing us with perfect weather final day. It rained on the afternoon of the first day, forcing us indoors to fencing in a high-ceilinged hall. The wild wind on the second day drove us into a wooded glade which provided a better natural amphitheatre for Mr Curtis’ workshop than was originally planned.

So, start preparing now for Swordplay 2012 because, as the ACA says, “if you’re not there, you’re not serious.”

Related posts:

1. Swordplay 11 Is On!
2. Swordplay 10 Review
3. Swordplay 2009 Wrap Up

Obviously, all historical fencers in Australia know about Swordplay but there’s bound to be a poor benighted few who haven’t heard of it. Swordplay is an annual event run by the Australian College of Arms which brings together schools of swordplay and historical fencing from all over the country in order to chat, compare notes and, of course, cross blades. It’s been going for a few years now and leaping from strength to strength. You won’t find three days of better value or bigger fun on the planet.

This year, the guest of honour is Puck Curtis who has generously given up his time and is coming all the way from the US to run a workshop on his speciality, the sixteenth century Spanish Destreza rapier.

There’s dinners, lunches, talk-fests, etc. As well as these social aspects, there’s a number of events for the competitively-minded. The Skill-at-Arms contest pits fencers against each other int he categories or sword alone, sword-and-companion (ie: dagger, buckler, cloak, etc) and longsword. You can enter one, two or all categories.

This year, a couple of other schools of swordsmanship have offered to demo some different contests such as a tournament using the nylon wasters that seem to be so popular with the kids these days and a fully armoured longsword bout.

So, if you can’t find me for the next few days, I’ll be in the shed cleaning my weapons under they shine and limbering up the old knees. See you next weekend!

Related posts:

1. Swordplay 10 Review
2. I Survived Swordplay 11
3. Swordplay 2009 Wrap Up

Joachim Meyer does not devote much space at all to companion weapons in his Art of Combat (1570) but what he does say in among the clearest instruction he gives in the use of the rapier. He also touches on the use of a cloak as an off-hand tool but only to state that it’s basically a dagger you can’t injure with. Let’s start with his own summary of the techniques and tease it apart. I’ve underlined the important portions of the quote. These are the sections to concentrate on.

“As regards the dagger in conjunction with the rapier, I advise the German that he accustom himself to parry with both weapons together, and meanwhile take heed whether he can harm his opponent with the weapon or the dagger, yet such that he does not bring his weapons too far from one another, to make sure he can always come to help the one with the other” (2.105v1)

To start at the beginning, the preferred stance is Side Guard with the companion weapon held well forward in the other hand (?ref?). That is, right foot forward and your rapier held in the lower outside quadrant with the point directed at your opponent’s face. The dagger is held in the lower inside quadrant.

There are three general approaches to using off-hand weapons although Meyer only recommends the last (2.101v). Meyer does not name it as such but in the world of the Australian College of Arms it’s known as the Cross Parry.

• You can parry all attacks with the dagger and respond with the rapier.
• You can parry with either the sword or the dagger, depending on which the attack is made, and respond with the opposite weapon.
• You can parry with both weapons at once.

Meyer suggests a number of techniques which may be useful depending on the circumstances. If your opponent thrusts at your left (from his or her right) side, parry with the dagger and counter-thrust either under or over the attack (2.101v1-2). This is best performed as a single-time action. Alternatively, you may respond by cutting at your opponent’s legs (2.102v1-2) or, my personal favourite, cutting left-to-right (roverso) at your opponent’s extended sword arm (2.103v3).

If your opponent cuts or thrusts at your right (from his or her left) side, block the strike with your rapier and pass forward with your left foot to attack your opponent with your dagger, otherwise known as the Adam Maneuver (2.102v4).

Against any attack, Meyer recommends using the Cross Parry. That is, you catch your opponent’s attack between your crossed dagger and sword (make sure the dagger is in front of your rapier). Then you can control his or her blade to keep it out of your way as you counter-attack with your sword (2.103r).

As for general tactical advice, Meyer has the following to say:

• Keep your dagger well in front of your face for protection (2.103v1). This is your last line of defence. Make sure it’s available.
• When responding, aim for the opposite quarter to that which your opponent attacked. That is, if he or she thrusts to your lower left, respond by cutting to his or her upper left (2.104r2).
• Remember the three types of strike: provoker, take, hitter. For example, make a cut through his or her right side in order to provoke a response. However, don’t let it connect but draw back into Right Ox for a high thrust (2.104r1 – 2.104v1)
• In all circumstances, the basic rule is parry, control, respond (2.104v2 – v3)

In regard to using a sword and cloak, while the cloak may be used to envelope the opponent’s weapon (2.106v1) but is better used like a dagger above. Meyer advises you to wrap a cloak around your hand and forearm. You can block any attack with your sword, then control it with your cloth-wrapped hand/arm as you respond and counter-attack (2.105v2).

Related posts:

1. Meyer’s Rapier: In the Onset
2. Meyer’s Rapier Parries
3. Tactical Advice in Meyer’s Rapier

Combat, he says, is based on two elements: the cuts used to overcome an opponent and the parries used to bear off the opponent’s attacks. (1.15v). All cut techniques are also parry techniques (1.15v) emphasising the counter-cut as the chief defense. Meyer also discusses single- and double-time parries in that they are designed to either:

• Catch and bear off an opponent’s attack giving you time to make a counter-attack (2.17r). In the dusack and rapier chapters, he suggests the best response is to bring your point on-line after parrying and thrust.
• Happen at the same time as your attack (2.17r2). This includes the idea of the longsword master cuts which injure and protect at the same time.

All parries with a single-handed weapon are derived from either the High Cut (the vertical downwards strike) or from the Low Cut (the upwards diagonal strike) (2.16v). This is a slight change from the longsword in which the High Cut takes away all over cuts but itself, the diagonal or middle cut takes away the High Cut and a Low Cut “with stepping out” suppresses the High Cut as well (1.16r).

How does this apply to the rapier? Meyer calls out eight specific techniques for rapier parries and possibly hints that double-time responses are to be preferred to single-time responses. These techniques can be reduced to four basic principles.

Counter-cut/Thrust Response

Aggressively cut into the opponent’s weapon, generally done as a vertical or downward diagonal cut (high cut or wrath/defence cut). This has the effect of not only knocking his or her blade off-line but of bringing your point on-line directed at the opponent’s head or torso. Your second-intention action is simply thrusting into Longpoint to hit your opponent and withdrawing back into a safe guard position. An alternative response, instead of the thrust, is a false edge cut.

Cf: Slicing Off (2.68r2), Suppressing (2.68r3).

Hanging Parry/Cut Response

With the hilt up and blade pointing downwards, sweeping the opponent’s blade away across your body. You end up in a position known in other swordplay schools as Hanging Guard. From here, you can quickly roll your wrist, elbow or shoulder to quickly cut make a vertical or downwards diagonal cut at your opponent (ie: high cut, wrath cut, reversed cut). Withdraw into guard.

Cf: Hanging (2.69), Außschlagen (2.70r2-3).

Beating Away

This is in many ways the default parrying action: interposing your weapon along the opponent’s line of attack to stop a cutting attack or, using either the false or true edge of the sweeping away a thrust attack. This can be performed with either the blade pointing upwards or pointing downwards.

If performed with the blade pointing upwards, once you have stopped his or her attack, you have the option of either making a cut (generally a horizontal or middle cut) against your opponent or dropping your point on-line and making a thrusting attack.

Cf: Barring (2.70r1), Außnemen (2.70v1), Going Through (2.68v1) and possibly Setting Off (2.68r1) if performed in double-time.

Quick Counterthrust

The quickest response to any action by your opponent is a straight thrust. The difficulty is finding a way of protecting yourself against whatever action the opponent was performing. This is done in two ways. First, always ensure that the long edge of your blade is turned towards his or her weapon. This has the effect of interposing steel along the line of your opponent’s attack. Given the angles of the blades, it does not guarantee safety as you will often form what George Silver called a “narrow cross.” You protection is enhanced by the second way, stepping out, which changes the blade angulation to something more like Silver’s “true cross” and removes you from the target area.

Cf: Setting Off (2.68r1) performed in single time and possible Going Through (2.68v1) if this action is read as a cavazzione or disengagement.

Update (10 Sept 2011): I may have to re-think some of this, especially the Quick Counterthrust paragraph. After learning a little about Spanish Destreza, Meyer’s Setting off (2.68r1), Slicing Off (2.68r2) and even the Suppressing Cut (2.68r3) look just like the Destreza atajo. Hmmm. More to come soon.

Related posts:

1. Meyer’s Rapier in One Post
2. Meyer’s Rapier: Attacking the Straight Parry
3. Meyer’s Rapier: In the Onset