[Chris Evans]

Hi Ariel,

Thank you for that terrific and informative post. It would be really nice if that book could be translated.

What I write here is an additional commentary intended to clarify the concept of `fencing' with heavy weapons, and in no way disputes anything in your post. In any event, I am not sure if this belong to this forum as it pertains more to martial arts rather than collecting.

MODERATORS PLEASE ADVISE.

OK. With those disclaimer out of the way, and acknowledging your loose definition of fencing, I'll move on.

Any discussion of so called `fencing' with weapons that had other primary applications is always a vexed one. Perhaps `sword usage' would be more appropriate , as after all, sabres were intended for a specific military application rather than one to one dueling, for which there were much better weapons in Europe.

The great demarcator of sword play is what is known technically single (ST) and double time (DT) fencing. In ST play, the opponents attacks are not parried but rather evaded and then counter attacked, at times with defensive opposition or coverage provided by one's own blade. In DT sword play the attack is first parried by the defender's blade and then a fast counter attack is launched, the riposte. All too often cover or oppostion by the blade in ST, as well as beats and other actions on the opponent's blade are confused with parry-riposte play (DT). I must add that some historical fencers extend the definition of DT to parries made with auxiliary implements such as shields or daggers; Whilst this is true, it is not a common understanding of the term and renders discussion difficult and all too often meaningless.

Whilst some DT moves are possible with heavy swords, they just cannot be moved around sufficiently quickly to reliably intercepts all incoming attacks. Even where a parry succeeds, the riposte may be too slow to reach the opponent, though this is more true of point than edge play. So the weight of the sword is a primary consideration.

In Western European late 18th and 19th century sabre play, high attacks were (at times) parried and low attacks avoided, but rarely, if ever, were both parried as a matter of course, except with the much lighter spadroon. This was because of the ever present threat that the low attack was a feint and once the defender was committed to its parry, the upper regions became irreversibly exposed.

Swordplay using numerous DT moves first became feasible with the lighter transition rapier of the mid 1600s ,that superseded its ponderous predecessor, and came of age with the arrival of the small sword, a much lighter and faster weapon. Fully evolved smallswords weighed around 1Lb, a third of earlier rapiers and about half of late 18th&19th century military sabres.

Military sabres, weighing in the 1.75Lb- 3Lb range are too heavy to allow much DT play and if used alone for dueling (without a parrying implement), deliver a rather uncertain fight, one that depends too much on luck for its outcome, as was the case with the early rapier and broadsword - As a secondary consideration, numerous edge parries result in the rapid destruction of the sword. Hence the constant search for lighter and faster dueling swords, as exemplified by the perfected 19th century weapons, the French epee and the very light Italian sabre.

The primary defensive usage of military sabres was by way of covering: The defender would interpose his blade between himself and his attacker with the result that any cut made and received would land on his sword - This was a favourite technique of cavalrymen, especially if attacked from the left side - Of course, poorly made weak cuts could be parried and riposted, much in the manner of transition rapier play, but the parrying of strong cuts was a very risky business. That very little parrying was expected from military sabres is attested by the sketchy handguards found on so many.

I'll end by adding that point usage with a sabre, whilst fencing, is a very difficult business. In part because, as you pointed out, many do not allow the necessary alignment of the point with that of the arm, and in part because of their poor balance (for this kind of play). Sabres tend to have their point of balance (BP) well forward from the hilt, so as to make them effective cutters. In contrast, fast point re-alignment requires a much more more rearward BP. As well, effective point play usually requires a `on guard' position that leaves the sword arm vulnerable (to `time-cuts') .

Nevertheless, experts endowed with unusually strong sword-arms and fingers, and being well versed in point play with foils could fence well with a sabre, as for example Sir Richard Burton ad Cptn Hutton, though this was the exception rather than the rule. The English fencing historian Egerton Castle devoted a fair bit of space to this topic in his book and to which I refer readers interested in this fascinating subject. Unfortunately, IMHO, Castle was not as clear as he could have been and failed to sufficiently distinguish between the various cutting weapons and as such must be read with care - Nevertheless, he is very informative and remains one of the best resources to date in English.

Cheers
Chris