Fencing & World War II Military Theory

Posted on September 26, 2011 by Patrick

Sir Basil H. Liddell-Hart was a mid-20th century British military strategist.  And, as a strategist, Liddell-Hart wisely stuck to his strengths, writing a book titled Strategy.  As a military historian, Liddell-Hart had examined notable battles; from those studies, he distilled his eight maxims of strategy.  Published in 1954, Strategy became very influential on post-World War II military theory.

Although he wrote about military theory, Liddell-Hart’s theories are instructive for fencers as well.  (Indeed, given some of his maxims’ wording, one suspects that Liddell-Hart was a fencer himself.)  For instance, Liddell-Hart’s seventh maxim on strategy is:  “Do not throw your weight into a stroke whilst your opponent is on guard—whilst he is well placed to parry or evade it.”  This maxim epitomized Liddell-Hart’s theme of dislocation:  before you attack, the enemy must be distracted, thrown off balance, or otherwise disabled from defending properly.

For fencers, Liddell-Hart’s seventh maxim is the essence of acting “in time”: to be effective, your action must occur within the time period created by the start of the opponent’s action and the end of that action.

Note that this maxim is a negative statement:  do not do x.  In this case, we might more wordily say, “Do not attempt a simple attack from pied ferme, out of time, and while your opponent appears otherwise ready to receive it, i.e., he is not doing something else (improperly advancing, changing lines, etc.).”

But, given their nature, negative statements do not tell us what to do and, lacking further guidance, can thus leave us paralyzed.  So, positively stated, we can express this maxim by noting that, in general, we must dislocate our opponent before attacking.  (The qualifier “in general” is necessary because we may be faced with a sufficiently inexperienced or unskilled fencer who cannot defend against even a direct, out-of-time attack.  But, c’mon, don’t be a bully.) And, in fencing we can dislocate our opponent in a number of ways, such as with:

  • a beat (battement) and then lunging to the open line;
  • a feint, such as by counter-disengaging upon the enemy’s change of engagement, threatening the now-open line, and then evading the parry and lunging to another line; or
  • an expulsion (froissement), similar to the beat above.

Of course, these are only examples.  You can come up with your own applications.  The point is to learn from Liddell-Hart: act in time by disrupting your enemy’s equilibrium and then acting within the time of that confusion.

Posted in Theory | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

NY Times Article about Martinez Academy of Arms

Posted on September 12, 2011 by Patrick

Here’s a link to a recent and interesting NY Times article featuring Maestro Martinez and the Martinez Academy of Arms in Manhattan.

Posted in Event, Tournament | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Tromper and Doigté

Posted on September 10, 2011 by Patrick

As we study le trompement this month, we are necessarily focusing on using our fingers and, to a lesser extent, our wrists in steering our blades around attempted parries and engagements.  The French had a term for skillful finger-work in manipulating the blade, in being able to detect the opponent’s pressure and lightly evade it:  doigté.  (That’s pronounced “dwah-tay.”)

In order to help us develop our own doigté, I thought it might be useful to receive guidance from two influential French fencing masters of the 19th century.

The first is from A.J.J. Possellier, who was called Gomard in that he was the adopted son of another French fencing maître with that name.  In 1845, the adopted Gomard published his Theory of Fencing Taught by a Simple Method.  Gomard’s text was very influential in the French school of fencing.  Gomard’s Theory is systematic and clear in its descriptions.  Here is an excerpt from the Theory:

Doigté

     Doigté refers to conducting the point of your blade solely by the action of your fingers.  It is one of fencing’s most precious qualities, and, without it, it is impossible to become skilled in this art.

Not all the fingers contribute equally to executing the blade’s movements.

The thumb and the index finger are the point’s two principal motors.  These are the only two that should place the point in moving and leading its advance; these are the only two making the feints, the disengage, or coupé; these are the two which also begin the circular and demi-parries. The three other fingers serve only to maintain the blade, and their action is to make you aware when you must press upon the enemy’s blade as in the parries, the beats, the croisés, etc.

In general, students tend to tense the arm and contract the muscles, which activate the arm in order to obtain more speed in the blade movements.  This is a fault . . . .  [The maître] should require slowness in the demonstration of the feintes in order to assure that the shoulder and the forearm do not participate in these movements.  By slow and repeated demonstrations of the feints of engagements in all the lines, the maître leads his student to execute with speed the sole action of doigté.  We insist particularly on this recommendation because, in our long career of practice, we have noted that the absence of doigté is a common fault of many students and is very difficult to remedy

Note that Maître Gomard recommends using the index finger and the thumb to steer the blade.  Traditionally, French practice refers to these two digits as the “manipulators,” while the remaining fingers are called the “aides.”  Nonetheless, our practice at CCF is to use the aides to maneuver the blade’s handle, reserving the so-called manipulators as essentially a fulcrum.

Only two years after Gomard’s text, Augustin M. Grisier published his Les Armes et Le Duel.  As Émile Mérignac noted in 1886, Grisier’s text is not as analytical and systematic as Gomard’s:  Mérignac describes Grisier’s work as “sometimes inferior to other theories,” but, due to the work’s “delicious” preface by Alexandre Dumas, Les Armes et Le Duel was among the better written texts at the time.  As you read the following, observe that Grisier—like Gomard—stresses conducting the point, not the entire blade itself, thus distally shifting your focus in executing doigté.

Doigté

     Doigter is to conduct the point of one’s blade solely by the fingers’ actions and without aid from the wrist, which always wants to act in this circumstance.

It is impossible to successfully deceive the blade if you do not have precise doigté with your blade’s point.

One generally makes the coupés from the middle of the arm, and one will be very surprised by the speed which one can attain in practicing the coupés while using only the fingers.  They alone should conduct the point directly, as near as possible to the enemy’s blade, close inside the lateral lines.

To have fingers, we say, is to sense the blade with all one’s fingers, to maintain it without force, and to improvise with it according to the circumstances in all directions.   It is to skillfully deceive the parries; in short, the term signifies conducing the blade’s point with art, accuracy, precision, dexterity, and speed, but only with movement of the fingers.

And there you have it:  art, accuracy, precision, dexterity, and speed.  And only with your fingers.  That should be easy, right?

Posted in Theory | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thanks to Trovare di Spada!

Posted on July 23, 2011 by Patrick

Today David Achilleus and members of his school, Trovare di Spada, came up to Columbia to fence with us.  They brought their smarras, their sabers, and their foils.  Judging from the talk going on while people fenced, most of us at CCF marveled at Trovare di Spada’s fencing.  Hence, this made us grateful for what touches we were able to manage throughout the afternoon.

Thanks again to David, Ryan, Patrick, Leonard, and Holly for making the drive!

Posted in Event | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Drill Discipline

Posted on March 5, 2011 by Patrick

As you know, when we are learning at CCF, our classes typically have this structure:

  1. Explanation of the night’s theory.  This can entail explaining the primary theme (what we are working on that night):  sentiment du fer, refining the circular parries, maintaining opposition, etc. (There may also be a secondary theme or collateral issues to explain.)
  2. Demonstrate the motions.
  3. Provide opportunity for questions.
  4. Practice the drill.
  5. Review before disbanding for the evening or free fencing.

Whereas steps 1 and 2 are mostly the instructor’s responsibility, you are responsible for steps 3 and 4.  Most importantly, in step 4, it is very important that you exhibit “drill discipline,” i.e., practice only what was given to you, without unauthorized elaborations or embellishments. (Note the qualifier:  you can ask the instructor if you can experiment or, given your level of experience, ratchet up the complexity.)

Of course, to properly execute the drill, you must understand it.  This is why step 3 is vital:  you must have a clear picture in your head about what the drill is before starting the drill.  If you don’t, there is a greater chance that, as you try to work it out while practicing, the drill will “drift” to something different from the instruction.  This can be a disservice to you and your training partner.  To avoid that, ask any questions to clarify what the drill is, how to execute it, etc.

So, going forward, recommit yourself to maintaining drill discipline.

Posted in Curriculum | Tagged , , | Leave a comment