DEFENCE AND ATTACK
Although one would probably be quite justified in stating that there
can be no arbitrary system of attack and defence with the sword, yet
the four and a half centuries of accumulated experience that measure
the development of modern sword play must have taught certain lessons
as to greater, or lesser, desirability of method. The foil, being
essentially a weapon of practice, has further been surrounded with
certain conventions which carry a direct, or indirect, penalty for
doing things that would result in a wound to the offender in actual
combat with sharp weapons.
The convention of the “right of way” is probably the most important
single convention in foil play and has evolved from certain very
logical assumptions regarding conduct in actual combat. It is assumed
that there is no attack until there is a threat and that there can
be no threat unless the point is directed toward the valid target.
It is further assumed that any individual threatened with a sharp
weapon would make some movement of defence. In order that the attacker
should somewhat more definitely indicate his intention than by the
simple direction of his point in order to be able to claim the benefit
of the convention, it is further assumed that the first movement
of a real attack will consist in the extension of the arm, as the
forward precipitation of the body with arm withdrawn might result in
impaling oneself upon the extended sword of one’s opponent. Thus,
the convention declares that the individual who extends his arm
towards his opponent, with his point in line (that is threatening the
valid target), shall have the right of way. This convention (right
of way) requires that his opponent shall deviate the attacking point
from its threatening position by parry, or attack on the sword,
or by evasion through bodily movement before initiating any type
of counter-offensive. If the effort to deviate, or to evade, the
threatening point is unsuccessful and the one threatened precipitates
himself upon it in making a counter-attack, the touch counts against
him, even though he scores what would otherwise have been a valid
touch. The logic of this convention is clear. The defender has taken
a chance with practice weapons that would never have been accepted in
actual combat and is penalized for the transgression. This convention
leads to the rule: The man attacked must parry. Of course, this rule
does not mean that every attack, no matter how ill-conceived as to
time and distance or how poorly executed, must be honored by a parry.
However, it does mean that, in the face of a properly executed attack,
the defender has no offensive rights until he has found the attacking
sword with his own and carried its point away from his torso.
[Illustration:
FIG. 11. Guard of prime; front view, p. 15.
FIG. 12. Guard of high prime, p. 51.
FIG. 13. Seconde, side view, p. 16.
FIG. 14. Seconde, front view.
FIG. 15. Tierce, side view, p. 16.
FIG. 16. Tierce, front view.
for quarte see figs. 1 and 2.]
This discussion of one of the fundamental conventions of foil play and
its accompanying rule brings us to a detailed consideration of the
guards, parries, and attacks. The general character of the guards has
already been mentioned. Experience has shown that the entire target can
be covered and the different lines of possible attack closed by four
guards. To all intents and purposes, in the French school, there are
but four guards, but, as it is sometimes advantageous to take them with
the hand in pronation or in supination, each position has been given a
separate designation. These positions are designated by number and the
first (prime) is the position guarding the low line on the inside with
the hand in pronation, to which the sword naturally goes upon being
drawn from a scabbard at hip level on the inside, or side opposite the
sword hand. If this guard was deceived by the opponent, the hand was
carried directly across the body, to meet the deceive and to cover
the outside line, the hand still pronated and slightly below breast
level, the point still at the level of the knee if the deceive was in
the low line, but raised to the level of the eye if the deceive was in
the high line. These two positions give us the second and third guards
(seconde and tierce). These were the early days of the rapier. The
weapon was very long (a sixty inch blade being not unknown and a length
from ground to navel being considered the perfection of individual
fitting) and relatively heavy, being still suitable for cutting as
well as thrusting. There was no light play of the point in attack,
or light tapping of the opponent’s blade in defence. The guard, or
parry, must carry authority. This was perhaps accomplished best by what
today might be called a rolling parry. So, on the deceive of the third
guard, the hand was carried across the body, rolling from pronation to
supination, developing the first guard of the high line on the inside
and the fourth guard of our series (quarte). Although this position
proved the handiest for the high inside guard with the heavy rapier,
the other guards being with the hand in pronation, it was only natural
that a similar guard should be developed for this line--so we have the
fifth guard (quinte) which covers the high inside line with the hand in
pronation. The development of the rolling guard from quinte to cover
the high outside line led naturally to the sixth guard (sixte), with
hand in supination. We can readily visualize the duellist, rolling his
guard from tierce to quarte to meet his opponent’s blade, suddenly
realizing that the threatening point has shifted to the low line. Just
as quickly, he drops his point to cover the threatened area, and the
seventh guard (septime), is born, with hand in supination to cover the
low inside line. The eighth guard (octave), probably had a similar
birth during a rolling guard from quinte to sixte, which had to be
quickly modified to cover the low line. And so we have the eight guards
of the French school--all with the hand at the same level, slightly
below the breast; four (prime, seconde, tierce, and quinte) with the
hand in pronation; four (quarte, sixte, septime, and octave) with the
hand in supination; four (tierce, quarte, quinte, and sixte) with the
point at eye level; four (prime, seconde, septime, and octave) with the
point at knee level; four (prime, quarte, quinte, and septime) with
the hand in the same vertical plane as the front of the inside (rear)
shoulder; four (seconde, tierce, sixte, and octave) with the hand in
the same vertical plane as the back of the outside (front) shoulder;
and all with the elbow carried inside the outer line of the body.
In this discussion, no distinction has been made between guard and
parry. However, in modern fencing, there is a definite, though slight,
difference. The guards are _positions_ which close certain lines to
attack, whereas the parries are _movements_ which are designed to
close threatened lines to attack and, at the same time, to carry the
threatening point definitely out of line. In the guard position, the
point is toward, or at, the center line of the body at the approximate
height of the eye in the high line, and of the knee in the low line. In
the parry position, the point is in the vertical plane of the shoulder
on the side threatened. The defending point is carried to this position
by a sharp loosening and contraction of the fingers, as the hand moves
from one guard position to another.
The parries accomplished by this movement of hand _and_ point from one
line to another are called simple parries and are indeed the simplest
and most natural method of meeting a threat in any of the unclosed
lines.
[Illustration:
FIG. 17. Guard of quinte from front (low quinte not shown), p. 16.
FIG. 18. Guard sixte from front, p. 16. For side view see Fig. 1.
FIG. 19. Guard septime from front, p. 17.
FIG. 20. Side view both octave and septime, p. 17.
FIG. 21. Guard octave from front, p. 17.]
_Distance._ As usually employed in fencing, the word “distance” applies
to the extreme limit from which an attack can be successfully launched.
In other words, it is the additional distance added to an attack by the
extension of the arm and the lunge, without moving the rear foot closer
to your opponent. This automatically creates the conception of a double
distance, one for each fencer, as physical conformation, position, and
correctness of performance are seldom identical in any two opponents.
This is a matter of major importance in competition, as what is out of
distance for one fencer may be well within for another.
_The engagement._ When two opponents face each other _within distance_,
they have the choice of fencing either in, or out of, engagement. The
engagement consists in the holding of the faibles of the two swords
in light contact, the line in which the contact occurs usually being
closed by both opponents. Of course, either of the guards closing a
particular line may be employed by either fencer. Thus, one may be
engaged in tierce and the other in sixte--both closing the high line to
the outside of the arm.
Where one fencer is left-handed, they engage in opposite
guards--quarte, or quinte, opposing tierce, or sixte. When fencing out
of engagement, there is no contact of swords and no prescribed line
is closed. Fencing out of engagement is usually not employed within
distance.
_Counter parries._ Each position of guard, in addition to its simply
parry, also has what is called a counter parry of the same name. In
contrast to the natural, or instinctive, character of the simple
parries, the counter parries are definitely planned parries. Instead
of meeting the threatening point in the line attacked and deviating it
from the target in that line, the counter parry picks up the attacking
blade by a somewhat encircling movement, carries it back to the
original line and deviates the point in that line. On account of this
encircling movement, the counter parries are often called circular
parries. Literally, this is inaccurate, but it has been widely accepted
by both teachers and authors on account of the difficulty of either
describing or illustrating what should occur. If one can visualize
the simplest threatening movement by the opponent in the open line,
it will consist of simply passing the point under (in the high line)
the defending sword and extending the arm, with the point threatening
the target. Of course, as a terminal movement, this extension will
be followed by a lunge. But, at the completion of the thrust, it
places the attacking sword relatively close to the defending one, in
a horizontal line at the height of the shoulder, with the point in
approximately the same transverse vertical plane with and about six
inches above the defending guard (or point of intersection of guard and
blade). However, the defending blade is sloping upward from slightly
below breast level to about eye level and toward the mid-line from
the shoulder line. This places the defending hand about six inches
below and the defending point about eight inches above the attacking
sword. Also, if the attacking sword is very close to the defending,
the defending point may occupy a position further in the open line
than does the attacking point. This means that, before the start of
the encircling movement, the defending point must assume a position
below and to the closed side of the attacking blade. It must then pass
back _under_ to the open side and, as a third movement, strike the
opposing blade and deviate its point while carrying the defending point
past its original position of guard to that of parry. In theory, this
would form a triangle with its sides continued beyond the apex. Figure
1 (page 21) roughly illustrates this theory, A being the starting
position of the defending point and ABCD its line of travel about the
attacking blade O. However, in practice, this is a continuous movement,
so that the base angles are rounded and the enclosed area becomes more
a raindrop than a triangle. Figure 2 illustrates the rounding of the
base angles. These figures illustrate the movement of the point from
the guards of quarte, or quinte, as you face the attacker. The movement
is counter-clockwise to the observer. From the guards of tierce, or
sixte, the movement by the defender would be clockwise. In the low
lines, the loop would be inverted, as the defending point passes over,
instead of under, the attacking blade. These analyses and figures only
apply to the counter as an initial parry; i.e., when taken from the
position of guard. When it is a later parry against a compound attack,
i.e. taken from the position of parry instead of guard, the movement
of the point is somewhat different. Being already in the position of
parry, the point need only be lowered vertically to be in position
for its encircling sweep and need only return to its starting point,
so that the theoretical figure becomes a right-angle triangle with
apex uncrossed, and the practical figure becomes only one-half of our
raindrop.
[Illustration:
FIG. 1
FIG. 2]
_The attack._ As the object of all sword play is to touch without being
touched, an efficient attack must be of the very greatest importance.
Any detailed reference to the technique of the attack has been delayed
in the present work on account of the obvious fact that the character
is almost wholly dependent upon the system of defence employed and the
efficiency of its execution. As this makes it true that no adequate
appreciation of the objectives, logic, and technique of certain attacks
can be attained without a thorough understanding of the various
parries, the endeavor has been made to impart this understanding before
proceeding to a detailed consideration of the attack.
When considered according to motive, attacks may be divided into frank,
false, and concealed attacks. The present discussion is concerned with
frank attacks, which are just what the name implies--frank efforts
to gain a valid touch by the offensive penetration of the opponent’s
guard. According to the complexity of the manoeuvers with the sword in
their execution, frank attacks are classified as simple attacks and
compound attacks.
The simple attacks are called:
1. The straight lunge.
2. The disengage and lunge.
3. The cut-over (coupé) and lunge.
The compound attacks are composed of any series, or combination, of the
simple attacks used as feints, with the thrust accompanying the first
and the lunge the final movement.
_The straight lunge._ The straight lunge is executed by extending the
sword arm toward the target and lunging without any effort to evade
the defending sword. Its efficacy must depend entirely upon speed and
timing. Therefore, it is almost never used against an opponent who
fences in engagement, with the line of engagement properly closed.
_The disengage and lunge._ The disengage and lunge is executed by
passing the point under the defending sword, as the arm is extended,
and lunging upon the completion of the thrust. This is our first
practical example of the delicacy of the French finger play. In the
position of guard, in engagement, the hand is already on the open side
of the defending blade, and the point is on the closed side. To make
this disengage, the guard grip of the fingers is relaxed sufficiently
to permit the point to drop below the level of the defending sword; the
fingers are tightened in the attack grip as the thrust is executed; and
the lunge follows immediately. All of this is accomplished without any
conscious lateral movement of the attacking point, the mere shifting of
the finger grip accomplishing this first disengage.
To avoid confusion, it is probably well to mention at this point that
the guards of pronation do not lend themselves readily to finger play
in offensive work, although some of them are particularly strong for
defensive purposes. For this reason, the guards of quarte and sixte in
the high line and septime and octave in the low line are frequently
favored by fencers of the French school.
The disengage from one low line to the other must pass over, instead of
under, the defending blade and, consequently, requires more wrist play,
but in other ways is essentially as described.
_The cut-over_ (coupé) _and lunge_.
The cut-over is executed with the fingers by elevating the point just
enough to clear the point of the defending sword and dropping it into
line on the other side as the arm is extended. The lunge follows the
thrust immediately.
Although there is little difficulty, or danger, in executing the coupé
from the position of guard, as an original simple attack, there may be
both difficulty and danger in its use from the conventional position as
a second, or later movement in a compound attack. With the arm extended
in a full feint, there is some difficulty in clearing the defending
point without bending the elbow. As the cut-over withdraws the point
from its threat of the opposing target, the accompanying bending of the
elbow would result in a complete surrender of the conventional right of
way obtained by the extension of the arm with the point threatening the
target. For this reason, the cut-over carries an inherent danger, or
weakness, to the attacker, in any case. Therefore, it is advised that a
slight departure from the conventional position of the hand be employed
with the coupé. This would consist of a slight turning of the hand
toward a mid-position, with the thumb up. This permits a much greater
withdrawal of the point by finger action alone, without any bending of
the elbow.
As already stated, the compound attacks may consist of any series, or
combinations, of simple attacks. They are all based upon the successive
execution of one or more parries by the defence and are planned so
that the second, third, or later movement will, through superiority of
execution in speed or timing penetrate the defensive guard. They must
be adapted in both character and timing to the defence, as failure
in either will result in contact of the swords and a breaking of the
rhythm of the attack. Indeed, this accidental contact of the swords may
be considered a technical parry and deprive the attacker of any further
rights. In other words, more than one disengage will not deceive a
counter parry and the type of attack that will deceive a counter parry
will not deceive simple parries.
_The Feint._ In any attack, a movement that is designed to draw a
defending parry but not, by its direct continuation, to reach the
defending target is called a feint. In a frank attack, this would carry
with it the further intention of evading this parry and completing
the attack on a subsequent movement in a different line. One of the
simplest examples of this would be to execute a disengage, without a
lunge, and, as the defending sword makes a simple parry to deviate the
point from the threatened line, to make a second disengage, with lunge,
back into the line of original engagement. All _threatening_ movements
in a compound attack, prior to the final one which is accompanied by
a lunge, are feints. Thus, a compound attack consists of one or more
feints followed by the actual attack. To be _legal_, that is to retain
the conventional right of way, the arm must be extended and the point
threatening the target at all times. To be _effective_, a feint must
so closely simulate a real attack as to draw a defending parry. Thus,
it will be seen that a feint may be legal without being effective--the
slowness of the execution failing to convince the adversary that he is
being attacked. On the other hand, a feint may be effective without
being legal, as almost any sudden movement may draw a parry from a
nervous, or shaken, opponent.
One of the simplest and most widely used of the compound attacks has
already been mentioned as an example in the above definition of feint.
This is the feint disengage and deceive of the simple parry. This is
called
_The One-Two._ The One-Two is frequently, and erroneously, described
as a lateral movement of the attacking point under the defending blade
into the open line, followed, when that line is closed by a defending
simple parry, by a second lateral movement under the defending blade
back into the original line, with a terminal lunge. This is the
natural, unconsidered technique, and is the way not to do it. We
have already described how the first disengage is executed, without
conscious effort at lateral movement of the point, how the finger
relaxation in the grip of guard permits the point to fall below the
defending blade, and how the tightening of the fingers in the grip of
attack brings the point in line on the other side of the defending
sword. If this movement, with its accompanying thrust, is executed
smartly, it will be an effective feint and will draw a parry. If this
is a simple parry, the attacking point is already in the line which
it wishes to hold, threatening the opposing target, and _should not_
be deviated in a lateral direction. How evade the parry? Drop the
point, by a simple relaxation of the fingers, and allow the parry to
pass above it. Tighten the finger grip to bring the point back to
its original level, as you lunge. More doigté. The lateral movement
is all made by the defending parry. The down-and-up movement of the
attacking point is the sole evasion. Whether one, or seven, simple
parries are taken, the evasion is a repetition of the same relaxation
and tightening of the fingers, down-and-up of the point until the
psychological moment for the launching of the lunge. Exactly the same
technique is employed that would be necessary to avoid the successive
swings of a pendulum.
But, suppose a One-Two has already proved successful or that for other
reasons the defender does not respond with a simple parry. Instead,
to the feint of disengage, he responds with the counter parry--that
somewhat asymmetrical raindrop that has already been described. Does
one, as so often taught, try to deceive this parry by following
it around the circle? He does not! Again, we avoid the natural,
unconsidered course and follow the efficient, considered course. As the
defending blade describes its encompassing arc, the attacking blade
is carried obliquely downward in the same direction as the concluding
sweep of the parry and, as this passes, is brought back along the same
line to its original position as the lunge is executed. This deceive of
the counter parry is called
_The Double._ The Double is sometimes described as two disengages into
the same line. While this definition describes the intention, it gives
an erroneous impression of the technique, as the vertical down-and-up
of the successive disengages is quite different from the oblique down
and back of the successive doubles.
Although an infinite number of compound attacks might easily be
imagined to deceive an equal number of mixed parries, in practice
the compound attack seldom tries, or needs, to deceive more than two
or three parries. During instruction, more complicated series may be
practised for their value as exercises in control and coordination.
It is important to realize that attack and defence are interdependent.
No attack can be more intricate than the defence that it seeks to
penetrate. Similarly, although to a lesser degree, the defence may be
restricted in its versatility by an attack that depends primarily upon
speed and timing combined with the simplest movements.
In another section of this work certain exercises, or lessons, are
given, by which two fencers may practise the interplay of the various
attacks and parries. The performance of these, or similar exercises, is
vital to the development of the accuracy and coordination that go to
make the finished swordsman.
So far, the subject of attack and defence has been treated as though
one fencer attacked and the other defended and then started over.
However, nothing is farther from the actual method of procedure. It is
true that, when one fencer seizes the initiative by extending the arm
with point threatening the target, the right of way remains with him
until he surrenders it by bending the arm or removing the threat of his
point from the opposing target or until his opponent deprives him of
it by forcibly deviating his point from the target. With this surrender
or destruction of the right of way, the initiative passes to the
other fencer. If this termination of the right of way is by means of
a successful parry, not only does the initiative pass to the defender
but also the right of way for an immediate counter-stroke, even though
the arm is not extended and the point is not in line at the moment of
completion of the successful parry. This is the only condition under
which the right of way exists without the extension of the arm with the
point threatening the target, and this is only momentary. The right
of way ceases automatically, if not immediately used for delivering a
counter-stroke. This counter-stroke is called a _riposte_. It may be a
direct thrust in the line of the original attack, which has been opened
by the force of the parry, or may be a compound movement with one or
more feints or deceives. As in all thrusts, the grip shifts from that
of guard to that of attack. In spite of the dependence of the right
of way upon the immediacy of the return, it is at times of definite
advantage to delay the riposte until the attacker starts to resume the
guard. If this delay should occur, without a resumption of the guard,
all right of way ceases and any subsequent touch by either must be
judged upon the basis of priority alone.
When an attack has been successfully parried and the defendant delays
his riposte, but does not keep the original line of attack closed, the
attacker may renew the attack in the original line without returning to
the position of guard. This attack is called a _remise_. The remise is
only valid when the defender delays or misses his riposte.
Under similar conditions of a delayed riposte, with the defender
keeping the original line of attack closed, the attacker may
immediately renew the attack in another line, usually by a partial
return to the position of guard. This is called a redoublement
d’attaque.
When, upon the completion of an attack, or an attack, parry, riposte,
and counter-parry, or any other sequence originating in an attack but
not terminating in a touch, the attacker resumes the position of guard
and immediately launches another attack; this is termed a reprise
d’attaque.
It will be gathered from the preceding remarks that the original
attack may lead into a quite complicated series of movements by both
fencers. The rule is that such a series of attacks and counter-attacks
terminates only with the command of the Director of the Jury to halt.
The Director should halt the action (1) upon the indication of a fair
or foul touch by one of the judges; (2) upon the loss or breaking of
his weapon by one of the contestants; and (3) upon the transgression
of the rules by a competitor. Such a series of attacks and ripostes,
finally terminating in a touch or a halt by the Director for other
reason, is called a _phrase d’armes_. Neither contestant has the
privilege of discontinuing the phrase of his own volition and his
action in doing so leaves him open to a fair touch by his opponent.
_Counter-Attacks._ In general, there are two types of aggressive action
employed to interfere with the formulation and execution of attacks.
These are designated counter-attacks and, according to the time of
occurrence, are classified as attacks on the preparation and attacks on
the execution. If the proper moment, during the making of preliminary
movements but before the establishment of the right of way, is seized,
the attack on the preparation may take the form of any of the frank
attacks, its only difference lying in the fact that it seizes for its
execution the exact moment when the opponent is _mentally_ committed
to the attack rather than prepared for defence. One of the best
examples of this is where one fencer advances, making a simultaneous
attack on the sword, with the idea of closing distance and shaking his
opponent’s defence preparatory to launching his attack within distance.
If his opponent evades the attack on his sword, he can extend his arm
and lunge, having seized the right of way on the preparation of his
adversary, or may even touch by a simple extension if the attacker
precipitates himself upon the point. Possibly, a more usual example
would be found in a quick extension against the “short arm” fighter,
who rushes to close quarters with multiple feints with the sword, but
no proper extension of the arm.
The attacks on the execution are neither so simple nor so safe as the
attacks on the preparation. There are three such attacks and all are
executed against an adversary who has established the conventional
right of way. They are designated the _tension_, the _stop thrust_
(coup d’arrêt), and the _time thrust_ (coup de temps). The _tension_
is the simple, frequently instinctive, extension of arm and point
toward the attacker in the hope that the point may strike the attacker
and that the unexpected counter-attack may cause his blow to miss.
It is frequently devoid of planned objective and always without any
conventional rights. It can only score if the attacker completely
misses the target. It is bad form, poor fencing, and the recourse of
excited or inadequately trained fencers. The _stop thrust_, although
frequently confused with the tension, is quite different. Although
employed against an opponent who has established the conventional right
of way, it is used only when that right of way has been technically
(even though only momentarily) abandoned. An example of this would be
an attack initiated by a feint of disengage, which gains the right
of way, and followed by a cut-over, which technically abandons it by
removing the point from a position of threat and, possibly, slightly
bending the elbow. If, upon the first elevation of the point from the
target, the defender extends his arm with point in line and touches
either with the thrust or an accompanying lunge, he has executed a
valid stop thrust. The sole condition controlling the validity of a
properly executed stop thrust is that it must precede by an appreciable
measure of fencing time any touch made by the original attacker in
the continuation of his attack. Another common example of a properly
executed stop thrust is found when the attacker, after having properly
taken the conventional right of way with his initial feint, proceeds
in a compound attack with subsequent feints wide of the target and
the defender takes advantage of the first of these withdrawals of the
point to extend and score. These examples and distinctions are given
in detail and emphasized on account of the confusion that seems to
exist among both fencers and judges regarding the difference between
the tension and the stop thrust. Instead of the existing tendency to
penalize a properly executed stop thrust, on account of its superficial
resemblance to the tension, there should rather exist a reluctance
to concede any rights to a fencer who deliberately, or through
carelessness or ineptitude, abandons his right of way and then tries to
recover it on a technicality that should not exist.
However, there is one form of stop thrust against which technicalities
should exist and be enforced. This is the stop thrust by evasion.
Here, an endeavor is made to “side step” or dodge under a properly
executed attack and make a point from the side, or below, after evading
the attacking point. The rules have an added penalty by awarding a
fair touch for a touch made on any part of the person that may be
substituted for the valid target in such an evasion.
The _time thrust_, when properly executed, is the perfection of
analysis of your opponent’s offensive play. It consists in closing the
line of the final movement of your opponent’s attack with a simple
opposition parry, at the same time extending arm and point toward his
target. To be valid, this manoeuver must fully deviate the attacking
point from the target. Therefore, its proper performance requires
perfect analysis, perfect coordination and perfect timing. As there can
be no more exacting requirement, so there can be no higher attainment.
While the preceding paragraphs cover the theory of the counter attack,
it is well to give warning as to the practical application in a number
of these cases. The Rules Committee of The Amateur Fencer’s League of
America, in order to avoid hair-splitting definitions, has covered
the subject of the stop thrust in one broad statement which reads as
follows:
The stop thrust is a simple counter attack, against the opponent’s
attack. It is successful against a faulty attack, simple or
composite; or against attacks advancing (“on the march”) and delayed
attacks, when the attacker exposes an open line and enables the
defender to obtain the advantage of a sufficient interval of fencing
time.
It will be seen from this definition that the final decision in most
of these instances will rest with the director, who alone decides the
validity of touches. If the director happens to be ill informed, or
unsympathetic regarding this type of counter attack, a perfectly timed
attack on the preparation or stop thrust may be declared a stop thrust
without sufficient interval of fencing time. Unfortunately, in this, as
in many other instances, knowing your officials or their prejudices is
almost more important than knowing your fencing.
_Attacks on the sword._ Sometimes there comes to an aggressive fencer
the feeling that his opponent is a little too sure of himself; that his
position of guard is too assured; that his confidence in his defence
is too unshaken; that his response to feints is too deliberate, too
unhurried. There is no reaction to the preliminary movements of a
compound attack, and the response to the final movement is so delayed
and so sure as to carry with it exceptional danger of a successful
riposte. Something must be done to shake this confidence, to make the
defender a little less sure of his position, a little less certain of
the line in which the developing attack is to come. What shall it be?
One possibility is an attack on the defending sword, as a preliminary
to the actual attack. Such an attack on the sword may be suggested,
or real. Also, it may be single, or multiple. The suggested attacks
are: (1) the _press_--a light, sharp pressure, faible to faible, in
the position of guard; (2) the _glide_ (coulé)--a light, prolonged
pressure from the position of guard as the arm is extended to a feint
in line; and (3) the light _beat_--a light tap, faible to faible,
in the position of guard. None of these suggested attacks on the
defending blade forces it from the position of guard. In fact, its
intention is quite the opposite, being to suggest a forcible entry in
the closed line so as to delay response to an actual attack in the
open line. All of these attacks should be performed by mere finger
play. The real attacks on the sword are executed with much more force
and authority than the suggested attacks and are planned to actually
force the defending blade aside so that an opening will exist in the
closed line, whether or not penetration is intended. The real attacks
on the sword are: (1) the heavy beat--performed much more strongly but
in the same way as the light beat in the suggested attack; (2) the
force (froisé)--performed in much the same way as the glide in the
suggested attacks, but with a force that almost throws the defending
blade out of line and not infrequently results in a disarmament against
a lightly held blade; (3) the cross (croisé); (4) the bind (liement);
and (5) the envelopment. The last three of these have no corresponding
movements in the suggested attacks and will have to be treated
separately.
As mentioned above, the heavy beat is much heavier than in the
suggested attack. However, it is executed entirely with the fingers
in the lines of seconde, tierce, quarte, and septime and with minimum
wrist play in quinte, sixte, and octave. The beat from prime is not
mentioned because of the very infrequent use of the guard of prime in
modern fencing and because of the extreme difficulty of executing a
successful beat from that guard.
The _cross_ is executed by closing distance enough to permit engaging
the faible of the defending sword with either the forte or middle
section of the attacking blade. This closing of distance may be
accomplished by a short advance, or may be unnecessary against an
adversary who extends the arm with point in line. In the latter case,
great care must be exercised in the execution of the movement, as
the defender’s extension is a recognized invitation to an attack on
the sword, and it must be assumed that he is especially prepared for
such a manoeuver. As such preparation probably means that he plans
to evade the attacking blade and permit the attacker to precipitate
himself upon an extended point, which has taken the conventional right
of way, care must be taken that his blade is found and his point
deviated before the attack is pursued. When the adversary’s arm is not
extended, it is necessary to raise the hand slightly in order to obtain
the necessary control of the defending sword. Control of the opposing
blade having been established, the faible is forced laterally toward
the open line and depressed, while the attacking sword crosses over to
the open line--the extension and lunge following immediately. In this
movement, great care must be exercised to maintain contact of the
blades until the thrust is completed. When made upon a blade with right
of way, additional care must be exercised to sufficiently deviate the
threatening point to effectually and obviously destroy the right of way.
The _bind_ is executed under the same conditions and in the same manner
as the cross, except that it retains control of the opposing faible
and carries it through an encircling movement to the low line of the
high line in which the original engagement occurred. The converse is
true from low to high. The same restrictions and precautions must be
observed as with the cross.
The _envelopment_ is the third of this series of attacks on the sword
and is merely a further development of the bind, as the bind was of
the cross. In this instance, the defending sword is carried through a
complete circle, ending in the guard in which it started. The thrust
and lunge of the attack follow immediately upon the completion of
the envelopment. It is probably unnecessary to point out the need
of increasing caution and exactness as these movements become more
extensive and complicated. The addition of each succeeding quadrant to
the encircling movement detracts from the element of surprise, adds to
the chance of evasion, and increases the probability of wide play.
With the exception of the beat in the inside high line, greater
authority in the execution of the various attacks on the sword is
obtained from the guards with the hand in pronation. However, as all of
these manoeuvers are in preparation for the final lunge of the attack,
it is well to remember that what is gained in force is ordinarily
sacrificed in control and accuracy. Therefore, the cross, the bind, and
the envelopment will usually be used most effectively from the guards
with the hand in supination.
Reference has already been made to the progressive development of
the cross, the bind, and the envelopment. This same comparison could
quite properly include the simpler attacks on the sword which use
force and are designed to create an opening for the attacking point.
In other words, we have a progressive series of forceful attacks on
the sword, which have as their objective the opening of a line of
attack by the deviation of the defending blade. These are, in their
progressive intricacy or extent: (1) the strong beat, or strong press;
(2) the force (froisé); (3) the cross (croisé); (4) the bind (liement);
and (5) the envelopment. Where these attacks are to be employed, the
fencer should carefully master the details of each one and accustom
himself to its use. When the adversary can anticipate a fairly definite
and dependable reaction under given circumstances, the advantages
attendant upon initiative and surprise are largely lost. It is of
utmost importance that the play should be very close and controlled,
as the temptation to put elbow and even shoulder movement into these
attacks is great. There are few occasions more disconcerting than the
termination of a powerful and uncontrolled attack on the sword--which
has been evaded. At this moment, the attacker, has widely opened his
own target and, instead of an attack on the sword, may have executed a
precipitation on the point.
_Defence against attacks on the sword._ The first step in preparing
an adequate defence against attacks on the sword is the inclusion of
these manoeuvers in all practice and lesson work. This will permit one
to school himself against response by instinctive movements. In other
words, there must be no instinctive response to such attacks. The
tendency to hold the guard in which a light beat or press has been made
just a moment too long may result in a successful disengage to the open
line. But, on the other hand, the careful training of oneself to always
make a simple parry in the open line upon such an attack will be just
as fatal with an observant adversary, as he will make the attack on
the sword and lunge in line as the parry is executed. Therefore, so
accustom yourself to the attacks that you neither allow them to hold
you in the original guard position nor draw you into an habitual parry.
This advice applies not only to suggested but also to real attacks on
the sword. But, in the latter group, something more is necessary. The
forceful attack on the sword is bound to shake the position of guard
and to derange the plan of defence. Also, it opens a line of attack and
must be met by some form of defence.
All of these attacks are best met with some form of evasion. The
simplest form of this consists in a quick retreat, executed as soon
as the heavy blow or pressure characteristic of such attacks is felt
on the blade. However, the simplest is not always the best, and the
retreat should be the defence of desperation rather than of routine.
As soon as the retreat becomes a regular part of every defence,
allowance is made for it in every attack. The better form of evasion
is with the blade. This requires the maximum of readiness, almost to
the extent of anticipation. Of course, where the arm has been extended
with point in line, this constitutes an invitation to the attack on
the sword and readiness for any eventuality may be assumed. In such
case, the relative success of attack or evasion is governed by the
superior timing, coordination, and speed of attacker or defender. The
evasion consists of the simple, finger-controlled disengage, one-two,
or double required by the form of attack made--always treating and
considering the attack on the sword as a parry to be deceived. However,
when the contact of swords is established and control of the blade
gained, and resistance is of no value, as the attacker has an advantage
of leverage that cannot be counteracted by any amount of force, the
defence must consist of some form of parry of either a releasing or
a yielding character. Even the releasing parries in these cases are
partly yielding in character. For instance, with engagement in the
line of sixte, a strong press or beat, or a froisé, is executed by
one fencer. The defender allows his hand to follow his point into the
guard of quarte, executing a counter of quarte as he does so. In doing
this, he has been forced to yield with the point; has voluntarily
yielded with the hand; and has released his point and covered both
high lines with the counter of quarte. Against the more controlled
attacks on the sword (the cross, the bind, and the envelopment), a more
pronounced yielding and following of the attacking sword is required.
Both point and hand yield, but there is little hope of release against
a properly executed attack, so the hand must be allowed to slip into
a defending parry while appearing to yield continuously. The bind is
the simplest and the cross the most difficult of these “slipping”
oppositions to execute. Taking the bind from quarte as an example, it
would start by taking control of the defending faible in the guard
of quarte and delivering its touch in the line of septime. However,
as the carrying of the defending blade into septime is completed,
and the attacking point is advanced, the defender is able to oppose
forte to faible. This is accomplished by allowing the deviation of the
point from quarte to septime and at the same time carrying the hand
across the target from quarte to octave (or seconde) and, as the point
is released from opposing control, carrying it by a strong movement
of the fingers to the parry occupied by the hand. If taken too much
by surprise, the movement of hand and point must be synchronous. A
less usual, but very effective, reply to the bind is accomplished
by yielding to the pressure of the attacking sword, turning the
hand into pronation, dropping it to hip level with point high, and
offering strong opposition in the attacked line. If the attack is the
envelopment, again from quarte, the point again travels freely to the
end of the movement, but the hand has travelled to the outside line
and, with the final finger play of the parry, sixte (or tierce) is
opposed to the attacking point. Also, it is possible to allow this
attack to proceed to its completion and to execute a counter of quarte
parry at that time, which is a return to the yielding and releasing
manoeuver. While the reply to the cross may offer no greater intrinsic
difficulties than these attacks, it does require a radical departure
from fundamental positions. Here, the blade is forced downward as well
as in a lateral direction, and the proper defence of the high line
must be by a high line parry. To assume that point and hand can be
returned to the attacked line in time for its closure is to assume too
great a margin of superiority in speed and technique on the part of the
defence. Here, the yielding “slip” parry must use a low line parry in
irregular position to cover a high line. So, the point is allowed to
remain in the slightly low position to which it has been forced, and
the hand is raised to chin level, the parry of septime (or prime) being
taken from this position, if the attack was made from sixte. Probably
the only time that the parry of prime will be recommended in this work
will be where the cross is employed from sixte with sufficient force
to thoroughly shake the guard and to make it more natural to roll this
hand into the parry of prime than to carry it across into septime. When
the attack is made from quarte, the high octave is the parry of choice.
It may be well, at this time, to emphasize a mental attitude toward all
parries. In making a parry, unless _very_ sure of the analysis of the
opponent’s play, it should never be considered as a terminal movement.
In other words, a fencer never says to himself, “Upon such and such an
attack, I shall take the parry of so and so.” He says, “Upon such and
such an attack, I shall take the parry of so and so--and--.” The “and”
may be left open, as merely indicating a state of mind. In other words,
if the attacker deceives the planned parry, the defender is mentally
prepared to take another parry and awaits the contact of the blades
before closing his mind on that particular defence. This is especially
true of the encircling attacks on the sword, which are very hard to
analyze until the style of play of a particular opponent is known.
_The Attacks Advancing._ Although there is no fundamental difference
between the execution of the _attacks from position_ (de pied ferme),
which already have been described, and the _attacks advancing_ (en
marchant), there are certain points that are worthy of special
attention. Where the fencing is out of engagement and out of distance,
or where one of the fencers accompanies every parry with a retreat,
or a pronounced backward swaying of the body, the attacker must take
cognizance of these circumstances each time he prepares to attack.
How is he to so adjust the distance at which his lunge is executed
as to be sure that he is within distance? The first requirement is a
knowledge of his adversary’s reaction under given conditions. If the
defender is a “pendulum” fencer, swaying back with each parry and
forward immediately afterward, the distance is fixed. When he sways
backward, his weight is carried to his rear foot and further retreat
is awkward, slow, or impossible. Therefore, having once determined
the limit of rearward travel that this sway permits, it is only
necessary to add the gain of that distance to any other that may have
to be covered in reaching the target. If the fencing is in engagement
and within distance, the sway is the total amount to be gained. If
possible, this should be done without warning. Generally, this is best
accomplished by the employment of a movement designated “the gain”
(gagnant). This is simply a contraction of the foot position of the
guard to the front. In other words, without moving the front foot and
without attracting the attention of the defender, the rear foot is
brought forward either the needed distance or all of the way to the
front foot. In order to distract the attention of the defender, it
is well to execute some feint with the sword at the same time that
this movement is executed. With the completion of the “gain” and the
return of the hand to the position of guard from the accompanying
feint, the previously planned attack is immediately executed, before
the defender has time to appreciate the change in foot position. This
simple movement will diminish the distance to be covered by more
than eighteen inches with the average position of guard. Where the
fencing is out of distance and the defender employs the sway, but
knows that a single advance will not close both the extra distance and
his sway, the single advance, with gain, may be employed. Here, the
advance which is inadequate to close the total distance is completed
by bringing the rear foot up to the front foot, and the attack is
completed immediately. In this instance, it is well to accompany the
advance with an attack on the sword to cover the changed foot-work.
Either the simple advance, or the gain, will cover similar distance
made by the adversary and any combination of the two will match him
move for move. However, trying to follow a retreating opponent is
likely to disturb the accuracy of any accompanying attack. In order
to avoid this, it is well to time the consecutive movements of the
attack to the successive gains in distance, so far as this is possible.
For instance, assuming that the distance to be gained requires two
advances and that the parries to be deceived are a counter of quarte
and sixte, the first advance is made with the feint of disengage, the
second advance with the deceive of the counter parry, and the deceive
of the simple parry and lunge are made from this position. As this
method establishes a certain coordination and rhythm between foot
and hand, it offers a minimum likelihood of deranging the attack and
should be employed whenever possible. Against the consistent multiple
retreater, the rabbit of sword play who has come into his own with the
extension of the fencing limits, there is no recourse but to gain all
of the distance possible and hold what is gained. After all, with a
forty-foot strip, each fencer has only about fifteen feet behind him in
the original position of guard. If he uses this distance for running
exercises, and his adversary takes and holds the distance surrendered,
the time soon arrives when there is no further room for retreating
within the limits of the strip. He must then stand and take the attack
or run off the strip. If he does the latter with both feet, a touch is
scored against him, and it is just as good a touch as any other. In
fact, psychologically, it is better. If a fencer who depends upon the
retreat for his defence is once driven off the strip for a declared
touch, subsequent to that time his mind will be divided between what
he is trying to do and how much distance he has behind him. However,
it is well to give warning against the following of such a fencer with
over-confidence. There is always the possibility that this exaggerated
retreating is planned to lure the attacker into an ill-considered,
rushing attack which will be met with a parry and riposte from
position. Never assume that you are a better or a smarter fencer than
your adversary, until the final decision of the jury justifies that
conclusion--and, then, don’t assume that the condition is more than
temporary. Who knows what will happen tomorrow, particularly if you
presume on the basis of what happened today.
There is one method of closing, or extending, distance in large
measure and quickly that we mention with trepidation. Before the
discovery of the lunge, which was an advanced development of fencing,
there was need of some method of quickly arriving within striking
distance of one’s adversary. An ingenious movement was evolved which
was based upon the “gain” and was called the “passado.” This movement
was executed by bringing the rear foot not only up to, but past, the
front foot and planting it, and, then, bringing the front foot forward
to the position of guard. By this movement, three feet or more could
be swiftly covered in one forward movement. Although long omitted from
the formal instruction in the classical French school of the foil, it
was retained in the school of the bayonet under the designation of
“front pass” and “rear pass.” The principal objections to the “passes”
are: (1) that they commit one almost irrevocably to an extensive,
sometimes excessive, gain or surrender of distance; (2) that, at the
mid-point of the “pass,” they have a tendency to do away with the
effacement of the rear shoulder and broaden the visible target; and (3)
that in both attack and defence, they have a tendency to disturb the
steadiness of the hand. However, there are very rare occasions when
they may be advisable. The most definite of these is to supplement a
“parry of desperation.” Another, but more questionable, use would be
when pursuing a badly shaken and rapidly retreating opponent. It will
occasionally, though rarely, happen that such a pursuit will carry the
opponent to the limit of his available space and that a following lunge
may drive him off the strip.
_Opposition in Attacks._ The giving of opposition in attacks is that
deviation of the hand slightly away from the direct line of attack and
toward the defending sword that endeavors to keep that line closed
against a stop or time thrust, or succeeding simple riposte. Against
the stop thrust (really “tension” under these circumstances), it is
unnecessary, as the attack has the right of way. Against the time
thrust, it is inadequate as that manoeuver will force it aside. Against
the anticipated riposte, it is foolish because the parry has not yet
been made and may prove unsuccessful. However, immediately following
a successful parry of your attack, it is an excellent procedure and
should always be employed, unless you have something better planned.
The group of attacks and counter-attacks described prior to this
have all been in the class of _frank attacks_. As will be recalled,
two other classes of attacks were mentioned at the beginning of
this section--_false attacks_ and _concealed attacks_. The false
attacks are just what the name would indicate, movements simulating
the characteristics of attacks but lacking the intent of gaining a
touch by their execution. They are usually employed with one of three
purposes--to gain distance, to gain information, or to discompose
the adversary. Their employment to gain distance is against the
running defence already described. Here, there is neither hope nor
intention of touching. The false attack is delivered with the usual
precautions against a parry and riposte, but is used with the idea
of closing _forward_ to the guard position upon its completion and
making a permanent gain of distance of any ground gained by both the
lunge and any advance that may have preceded it. Its use for gaining
information is in the process of feeling out an opponent’s defence,
in order to discover whether he has favorite parries, or sequences of
parries. Against some fencers, a quick feint, or series of feints,
will serve this purpose. Against a stronger and more confident fencer,
the actual lunge may be needed to draw the parry. The feint does not
differ from that of the frank attack, but the lunge is usually a little
“tied-in,” being delivered with the same initial impetus to give the
impression of a real attack, but only going to one-half or two-thirds
the distance of a full lunge. Its use to discompose the adversary is
most useful against the fencer who is constantly edging in rather than
making a frank attack advancing. This edging-in process is frequently
accompanied with attacks on the sword, or with multiple feints, but
usually does not lead to a frank attack until the desired distance
is attained or a moment of unreadiness seized. If not prepared to
deliver an attack on the preparation but still unwilling to permit the
persistent gain of ground, an unexpected deceive of the attack on the
sword and false attack will frequently cause a hurried withdrawal that
will surrender any ground gained.
A _concealed attack_ is one which originates in a false attack but is
immediately followed by a true attack which was part of the original
plan. A good example of this is the planned remise against a fencer who
slightly delays his riposte, with the idea of delivering it during the
resumption of the guard. A false attack is delivered with two-thirds
lunge and the remise follows immediately, without attempting to
regain the guard. However, a more generally useful employment of the
concealed attacks is in a group of secondary attacks that are called
_counter-ripostes_. The _counter-ripostes_ are most useful against a
strong defence, where the parries are held to the last possible moment,
are both authoritative and carefully controlled, and are followed by
immediate ripostes. Such a defence is extremely hard to penetrate. By
making quick, apparently hard false attacks which will draw the parry
and riposte, the riposte may be parried and an opening found for the
counter-riposte. Few fencers, no matter how strong their defences,
are as well prepared against a counter-riposte as against an original
attack. This play should be practised assiduously in all lines and
mastered by every fencer who hopes to attain a rank that will expose
him to difficult and versatile competition.
The original attack of the planned counter-riposte generally employs
only a two-thirds lunge and the parries preceding the counter-ripostes
are frequently made in an almost fully extended position of the arm.