This book fills me with nerd rage. It’s such an arrogant and ill-informed Victorian age view of the history of fencing. The author is so thoroughly caught up with the nineteenth century idea of progress that he cannot see anything beyond what he wants to see. Sadly, the book is still the best history of fencing from the Middle Ages to the present day. Here’s a sample:

It seems, therefore, paradoxical that the management of the sword should be better understood now than in the days when the most peaceable man might be called upon at any time to draw in defence of his life. (p.3)

Yes, paradoxical indeed. How can someone who has a good chance of living or dying by the sword not understand the weapon and its use better than someone for whom the downside of losing a sword fight is buy the after-match drinks and cucumber sandwiches? After all, we all know people who play paintball make better soldiers than veterans and those who watch medical documentaries on the Discovery Channel make better brain surgeons than those who have studied for five-plus years. Perhaps the paradox has another solution – you’re wrong, you dumb fuck.

Castle is caught up in a kind of straight-line Darwinian idea of the history of fencing which progresses from “unschooled brawling” of the Middle Ages to the mathematical precision and refinement of Castle’s time. For him, there is nothing to be learned from the past other than as the source of a long list of foolish and muddle-headed errors to be avoided. Castle’s review of the different periods and weapon styles including the longsword, sword and buckler, rapier and small sword show nothing more than the man’s bias against any form of swordplay which is not modern sport fencing. His portrait of national fencing styles is nothing more than Victorian-era racism. His understanding of the schools and masters he reviews is woefully inadequate at best and more often just plain incorrect. It is obvious that he has not done more than flick through the fencing treatises he had access to from Alfred Hutton and look at the pictures.

Unfortunately, there is no other history of fencing which has the breadth of this book. Castle looks (like a one-eyed football referee) at the significant turning points and periods of fencing and the change and development of the sword as a battlefield then sporting weapon. The greatest misery of this book is that there is nothing else like it around to dispel the  prejudice, half-truths and lies perpetrated by this work. More than anything else, this book explains the attitude towards historical swordsmanship shown by the average modern sport fencer.

Regardless, this book is a must for the bookshelf of anyone with a serious interest in fencing, sword and swordsmanship.

Related posts:

1. Review: Flat Earth
2. Review: Pegasus Bridge
3. Review: The Knight in History

The only actions that I can make work from these postures (other than initiating the Six Strikes sequences) are defensive: parrying with the hand in 4th position, the hanging party, and enveloping and beating away to the right. This, however, may say more about my lack of skill than Sainct Didier’s text.

High Posture

Stand with your left foot forward and your right hand (holding the sword) in 2nd position a little higher than your right shoulder pointing at your opponent’s head (specifically, HdSD says at your opponent’s left eye). Your left hand is held before your chest to ward away any thrusts. This posture is predominantly defensive and is most often used by the Provost as a way of starting a sequence in which he defends the lieutenant’s attacks.

Medium Posture

Stand with your left foot forwards and your right hand (holding the weapon) in 2nd position at the same level as your right shoulder pointing at your opponent’s chest. Your left hand is generally held blow (hdSD uses a number of terms referring to the left hip region) to ward away thrusts.

There is an occasional variant in which you stand with your right foot forward. In this case, the left hand is generally positioned under your sword arm.

Low Posture

There are two variants Of this position which are called out specifically in the text. In the first, your stand with your left foot forward and your sword hand held low on the left (the Italian 3/4th position?). Your left hand is held before your chest.

In the second variant, your stand with your right foot forward and your sword hand held low to your right (the Italian 2/3rd position?). The left hand is again held before your chest.

It is suggested in the text that these are the more aggressive positions to adopt.

Les Trois Desgainements

Henri de Sainct Didier also spends a number of pages describing three methods for drawing the sword at the start of an engagement. Each of his lesson exemplars starts with text which says “after having drawn the sword in one of the three ways.” These methods are obviously important to what he teaches.

(I really should try to get some video of the draws. They’re dead interesting. Stay tuned.)

Premier Desgainement

1. Feet together; hand on hilt
2. “Throw” right foot back then …
3. … draw into medium guard (hilt as high as shoulder).

The Provost changes the last step to drawing into high guard. The left hand is held either before the face (for medium guard) or before the chest (for high guard).

Second Desgainement

1. Feet together; hand on hilt
2. “Hold the right foot a little in the air [...] carrying the guard of the hilt as high as the shoulder”
3. Pass the sword above (around?) the head and “strongly extend” the arm into medium guard.

The Provost changes the last step to drawing into high guard. The left hand is held either before the face (for medium guard) or before the chest (for high guard).

Third Desgainement

1. Feet together; hand on hilt
2. Lift the right foot and hold it “a little in the air”
3. Draw into medium guard (“faisant le premier desgainement“) with the hand in fourth position.

The left hand is held behind the back or at least to the rear.

What can we understand from the instruction to keep the right foot a little in the air (“un peu à cartier en l’air“)? Surely this is not some form of Karate Kid crane stance with a sword?

Related posts:

1. Henri de Sainct Didier – Triangle and Square
2. Henri de Sainct Didier – At First Glance
3. Learn to Duel in 30 Days – Part Two

Title

This book is at once incredibly interesting and hopelessly broken. It is seriously let down by its misleading subtitle and back cover blurb as well as by meandering aimlessly through its subject matter. Nevertheless, it’s a fascinating look at the development of science and the persistence of belief in the cold hard light of fact.

Despite claiming to be the history of the idea that the world is flat, it does away in the first chapter with the myth that any educated person in the west has thought this in the last two thousand years. Most of the text concerns various nineteenth century cults of personality who fought against man-made science dominating and eroding faith in divinely inspired biblical literalism. The bible states the earth is flat (actually, it doesn’t) and only wiked human pride says otherwise. The flat earth debate was the creationism of its time.

The examination of the psychology of the flat earth societies in Britain and America should be recommended reading for anyone interested in the development of science and modern thought. During the nineteenth century, science gradually transformed from an amateur to a professional pursuit. It was here rather than with Bacon in the middle ages that the scientific method was developed and determinations made of what was worthy of serious study and what was beyond the pale.

Then the book switch tack again to look at modern groups such as the Flat Earth Society of Canada. I would love to be a member of this bunch were they still around. After a heavy drinking session in the late 1960s, four university students started this group to point out the contradiction between people today claiming that scientific rationalism governs daily lives yet almost all people rely on received authority for their knowledge of the world as much as did their medieval ancestors. For instance, everyone knows the world is round but, with resorting to recent photos from space, how many could put forward even a single proof of it?

The one thing that the book does well is to put the lie to the claim of the media that they must present at least (and usually only) two sides to every issue. Giving equal air time to the crazy only gives them legitimacy and a sense of entitlement. It promotes doubt and uncertainty where none exists – take the current debate about climate change, for example. To my mind, this puts the responsibility squarely back on the shoulders of educators to teach critical thought and the foundations of scientific thinking.

The book is really an oblique investigation into epistemology – the study of how we know what we know – looking at the conflict between the direct “common sense” evidence of our senses (eg: the earth is stationary orbited daily by the sun) and more complete explanations which better explain all observational data.

Related posts:

1. Review: Pegasus Bridge
2. Review: Schools and Masters of Fencing
3. Review: The Trial of the Templars

Swordplay is compared to sport. In Sainct Didier’s view, a good jeu de paulme (the handball forerunner of tennis) player has the physicality necessary and general concept of movement (fore-hand and back-hand) to make a decent fencer. Is this only a comment on the degree of athleticism needed to become a skilled fencer or is there a more general equivalence suggested?

“Faut noter que les armes, & la paulme sont are cousins germains,& qui scaura bien iouer a la paulme, facilement & tost (sic) scaura bien tirer des armes.” (it should be noted that arms and tennis are first cousins and whoever knows well how to play tennis will know well how to throw arms about.)

He speaks at length in the supplementary material in the text about the similarity between handball and swordplay making these points:

• The maindroit and renvers are the same action. There’s no estoc in handball.
• Movement is the key. Standing still during a bout or a volley is a sure road to defeat.
• The fencing equivalent of keeping one’s eye on the ball is to watch the point of the sword rather than watching the eyes or gaze of the opponent. (I’m not sure I agree with him here; it goes against most modern martial training.)

Sainct Didier also makes the claim that the similarity between fencing and handball is plainly evident to practitioners. The enormous effort he goes to in the text to point this out, he says, is to encourage beginners and students to cross-train.

In the text, all encounters start with the opponents standing facing each other with their swords in their scabbards. The first action in all sequences is to draw and pass backward with the right foot. This serves not only to put one in guard but to put one out of striking distance. (The first action of all sequences is to attack by passing forward into distance.) To my mind, this is either the start of a sporting bout or indicates that all fights in Sainct Didier’s world start in polite company in the court. I can’t see in the text a concept of a street fight or a fight against unequal weapons or numbers of opponents. Combat in the text comes across as quite a mannered and genteel affair, regardless of the level of potential lethality.

I suggest that Henri de Sainct Didier is writing lessons plans to teach his students how to be accomplished young gentlemen rather than masters of combat. This is swordplay for courtiers, not warriors.

Related posts:

1. Henri de Sainct Didier – At First Glance
2. Henri de Sainct Didier – Guards and Draws
3. Henri de Sainct Didier – Triangle and Square

“Before means pre-empting your opponent with a strike or thrust to an opening. Then he must defend or parry. Be flexible in your defence and aim your sword against one opening after another so that he cannot get through with any of his own techniques. [...] When you do not succeed in the before, then wait for the after. These are the defences against all techniques he uses against you. So, when you must displace him, make it simultaneous and strike immediately from the bind at his opening.” (David Lindholm)¹

In the Vor

While the text sounds on the surface like it’s talking about nothing more than attacking first so that the opponent must re-act to your actions, it actually says something slightly different. It suggests that the initial strike is solely to draw out a response from the oppoent and, as a consequence, creates an opening for you to target in a second-intention attack. Tobler’s translation is perhaps clearer on this point.

This is almost a verbatim definition of the theory behind breaking an opponent’s guard. Feint to provoke a known (or likely) response then make a prepared attack against the open quarter.

In the Nach

The description of the nach includes defnding at attacking simulataneously. Parry the opponent’s strike and strike him or her at the same time or at least in the same tempo. This is much more than a simple recognition that the opponent is dictating the fight and that you need to recover the initiative. This is outlining a single-time response: a parry/riposte in one action.

It also serves as a great introduction to the five master strikes, the next section of the text, which used both both attack and defence. “You should learn to defend only with these strikes” (Christian Tobler).

In conclusion, rather than simply outlining the shifting play of initiative in the fight, the terms vor and nach encode much more. They define the core philosophy of the German longsword style: second-intention attacks (after forcing an opening through a feint) and single-time defences.

¹ Here’s the same passage translated by Tobler for comparison. “Vor means pre-empting him with a blow or a thrust against an opening before he can hit you, so that he must versetzen (parry/displace). So, be flexible in your defence and aim your sword at one opening after the other so that he cannot get through with his own techniques. [...] If you do not succeed with the vor wait for the nach. These are the defences against all techniques he uses against you. So, if you have to displace him, make the displacement simultaneously and from the bind strike immediately at his nearest opening.” (Christian Tobler)

Related posts:

1. Tactical Advice in Meyer’s Rapier
2. Meyer’s Rapier: Provoker, Taker, Hitter
3. German Longsword Demonstration

A right-handed fencer is assumed throughout.

The first he calls triangle step which concentrates on simply stepping off-line as both a defensive measure and a means of gaining a mechanical advantage in the attack. Triangle stepping appears to apply to both the attacker and the defender.

Triangle: A triangle with the vertex pointing left (1) and the baseline facing the opponent. The lower point is labelled (2) and the upper point is labelled (3).

The attacker, from drawing the sword, stands with the left foot on the (1) of the triangle. As described in the text, the rear foot is stationary and used as the pivot point while the front foot moves to achieve tactical position.

• To attack the defender’s inside line (left), step off-line to the right (right foot -> 2) and thrust in 4th position. This allows you to put your body weight behind your blade and ride the other guy’s blade straight into him.
• To attack the defender’s outside line (right), step off-line to the left (right foot -> 3) and thrust in 2nd position. This allows you to put your body weight behind your blade and ride the other guy’s blade straight into him.

The defender, from drawing the sword, stands with theleft foot on the (1) and the right foot on the (3) of the triangle.

• To defend against attacks to inside (left), meet them with right foot forward. This means that you are meeting the attack in front of your chest and applying some body torque to ward it away.
• To defend against attacks to outside (right), meet them with the left foot forward. This means that you are meeting the attack in front of your chest and applying some body torque to ward it. This seems more like Meyer’s triangle step than the attacker’s stepping. The diagrams in the text do not show the defender’s movements clearly.

The second exercise is called by Henri de Sainct Didier “Quadriangle” or square stepping. The aim of this manouveur is to work around to the outside of the right handed fencer and thereby gaining the more advantageous position.

Quadriangle: A rectangle numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 such that the numbers 1 and 2 are on the right side, and (3) and (4) are on the left side from the point of view of the attacker. The baseline is numbered (1) and (3). The numbers (2) and (4) face the defender.

Using the Fifth Strike as the exemplar, the sequence is as follows:

• Lieutenant: Stand on guard with left foot on (1).
• Provost: Stand on guard with left foot forward.
• Lieutenant: Thrust in 4th, pass forward with right foot to (2)
• Provost: Pass backwards with the left foot and defend as per the triangle, above.
• Lieutenant: Cavazzione or Left Ox under. Keep right foot on (2), move left foot to (3)
• Provost: Defend as per the triangle to an attack to the inside.
• Lieutenant: Cavazzione or Right Ox under. Keep left foot on (3), move right foot to (4)
• Provost: Defend as per the triangle o an attack to the outside.

There is no manouver equivalent to the quadriangle for the defender. Square stepping is for the attacker only. The defender resorts to triangle stepping for defence.

Related posts:

1. Henri de Sainct Didier – Guards and Draws
2. Learn to Duel in 30 Days – Part One
3. Sainct Didier’s Transitions

We’ve got a new game. We start by playing hide-and-seek around one of the outdoor chairs with him behind it and me in front. We try to anticipate over which side of the chair – left, right, over or under – the other will pop out from and say “boo!” (or squeal – he’s not that vocal and sometimes when we’re playing neither am I).

I’m not sure what the trigger is but suddenly he makes a break for it and runs across the yard. Of course, I chase making roaring dragon noises. He breaks left and right in an effort to lose me. If I catch him before he makes it to the fence, I pick him and swing him round. He squeals and laughs and giggles as I carry him back to the patio. And we do it all again.

Why am I telling you this? Because if you’re like me, you need to be reminded to enjoy every moment you have.

Take time to pay attention to the little things: running about with your kids on the spiky newly mown grass, hearing them squeal with delight, the breeze which takes the edge off the sun’s heat, the tinkle of the wind chime hanging from the corner of the roof. These are one of a kind events. While there may be many similar occurrences, the ones you are experiencing now are individual and unique. Once they’ve happened, they disappear never to be seen again.

Now I think I need a nap, too, because this afternoon we’ll play with his spacemen … or his blocks … or read books … or dig in the sandpit … or ….

Related posts:

1. Warning: Here Be Baby Photos

In the description of the Third Strike, the Lieutenant cuts from the right (maindroit) to the Provost’s left shoulder who counters with a simple parry in fourth position and thrusts. Then Sainct Didier uses an interesting phrase to allow the Lieutenant to counter the thrust and cut at the Provost from the left (renvers).

“ledit Lieutenant desrobe son espee en passant un avant-main par dessoubs la garde de l’espee du Prevost, et luy tirer un renvers ou bien arriere-main d’hault sur l’espaule gauche du Prevost”

This technique appears to be used in all six sequences and from both the left and the right. When passing the attack from right to left, the Lieutenant uses a forehand “avant-main” action and when passing the attack from left to right he uses a backhand “arriere-main” action.

It needs to accomplish two goals. First, it needs to defend against the Provost’s thrust. Second, it needs to prime the Lieutenant to cut from the opposite side. Thus it can’t be a simple cavare or cavazzione. To my mind, it seems like it’s straight out of Meyer rapier.

Joachim Meyer, in similar circumstances, advocates transitioning through the Left Ox posture when changing the attack from right to left and transitioning through the Right Ox posture when changing in the opposite direction. Used here, the Ox posture meets both criteria. It effectively parries the Provost’s thrust and readies the Lieutenant to attack on the opposite side.

Related posts:

1. Henri de Sainct Didier – Triangle and Square
2. Meyer’s Rapier in One Post
3. Henri de Sainct Didier – Guards and Draws

First, the secrets. These can be of two general types, although I generally would not mix the two in a single player group. It just doesn’t seem to work.

There are secrets of story – the character was present or, better yet, instrumental in some monumental action in the background of the role playing campaign or gaming session. This type is best used in conspiracy or thriller styled games. For example, one of the investigators tracking an alien serial killer in the 1950s was present at Roswell and shot all the crash survivors but one, earning its emnity forever.

There are secrets of character – something in the character’s past or something the character must keep hidden. If this secret is exposed, the character loses everything. Jail time, lynching or worse is the consequence of revelation. For example, being interested in social justice in an LNP-led Queensland.

That’s all pretty standard stuff, you say. And you’re right. The trick is in how you use it. It’s a fundamental axiom of roleplaying that the only monster which can frighten a player character is another player character.

Here’s what to do.

Have all the players write their character’s secret on a slip of paper. When they’re all finished, get them to pass their slip to the player on their left. This immediately achieves two thing: each player character can be bully one character with revealing his or her secret and can be bullied by another.

It also raises a more subtle set of interactions. Every character knows that his or her bully has a secret which is known by a third player character. The third character may be prevailed upon to deal with the bully meaning that every character has a potential ally if only the means to create and cement the bond can be found. It leads to some very strange bedfellows.

This may not seem like much but it works a treat. Give it a go.

Related posts:

1. Back in the Game – Part 1
2. Back in the Game – Part 2
3. Lessons from AusCon II

Agrippa’s Treatise on the Science of Arms (1553) doesn’t quite make the cut for Club 1570 (my personal interest in later sixteenth century sidesword) but he remains an important factor in the understanding of the world and mindset of fencers of the period. An civil engineer by trade, Agrippa broke with the so-called medieval traditions of fencing still extant in his life. He de-constructed the art of the sword and rebuilt it as a science on firm geometric principles. Some believe that his work may be the inspiration for the geometry of the Spanish sword art known as La Verdadera Destreza. I need to revisit Agrippa’s work at some point. I’ve learned a lot since I wrote these posts and I can see there’s plenty more to learn within the text.

So, in lieu of actual content, here’s the links:

• Camillo Agrippa, Part the First
• Camillo Agrippa, Part the Second
• Camillo Agrippa, Part the Third
• Camillo Agrippa, Part the Fourth

Related posts:

1. Camillo Agrippa, Part the Fourth
2. Camillo Agrippa, Part The First
3. Camillo Agrippa, Part the Second