Alex's Illustrious Fencing Hall

MadassAlex

In which various methods of technique and strategy are discussed. 

Trying to explain fencing is a remarkably difficult task. First and foremost, various schools of equally valid fencing contradict one-another on a regular basis in terms of what is "best" in technical and strategic senses. Some of this is related to context; a late medieval knight surely has a different perspective on swordplay when compared to a Thai fencer, who is likely to disagree with a Chinese jian specialist. They all, after all, encountered life-or-death scenarios in different kinds of terrain, working against different defenses, and often even with different objectives. 

In my case, I am biased in favour of schools that predominantly favour two-handed swords with long blades, providing me with a disposition towards European late medieval fencing and Japanese fencing in particular. Trying to describe or teach the essence of all fencing might be a fool's errand, but I'm going to try anyway. One of my aspirations is to distill, from sources of diverse origins, the concepts and techniques that are universal or near universal. There are definitely gaps in my knowledge; attaining English translations of Middle Eastern or North African fencing sources is notoriously difficult, and particular Japanese schools of kenjutsu continue to guard their secrets jealously to this day. 

There are several pillars of technique and understanding that must be understood concurrently in order to fence effectively. The major barrier in beginning to fence, or to understand fencing, is that none of these pillars are truly complete without a reasonable understanding of the others. Arguable theoretical, strategic, and tactical concepts are innumerable, but technique might be distilled to the following:

• Posture
• Striking
• Defending
• Moving
• Time

Posture is crucial in both the beginning and at the end of each action. You will hear postures referred to as "guards", "wards", "stances", and any number of other terms. They all suffice. The only important matter is that you take a posture appropriate for your sword and intention, and that you have an effective posture for the resolution of the technique(s) you wish to employ. A posture can be thought of as any position one holds their sword and body in when ready to act, so any position of the body can be a correct posture if one is prepared to act effectively from it. For our current purpose, I'll describe two important postures:

• The sword is raised centrally above the head, point leaning backwards at roughly forty-five degrees. The body is postured straight towards one's opponent, turned forty-five degrees, or something in between. Either leg may lead, but it is recommended that the left leg leads for right-handers, so the right leg can follow the hand's strike and most effectively power the strike. Reverse that advice for left-handers. 
• The sword is held with the point extended towards an opponent's head, neck, or upper torso, arm nearly straight. The body may face an opponent directly, be at forty-five degrees, or anywhere in between -- exactly as above. Likewise, either leg may lead. This posture either intercepts any strike, or can be easily modified to intercept any strike. If you keep distance in mind, it's a remarkably strong defense. 

Striking can be thought of as any technique meant to connect with an opponent or to draw a defense from them. Each technique, for whatever purpose, should begin and end in postures from which one can safely continue to act. Taking the above postures in mind, we can imagine a strike from the first posture naturally ending in the second posture. Striking with great force is usually incorrect; instead, it's best to think of striking as placement of the sword. Correct technique and posture will lend that placement the required kinetic impact. The Liechtenauer tradition of late medieval Germany advises us to imagine taut string attaching the point of our sword to our desired target area, so that our sword always takes the shortest and most direct path; this has the benefit of generating fast strikes, but also ensures that our sword spends much of its time between us and our opponent's weapon. 

Defending may be considered any action taken in order to prevent an opponent's strike from connecting. The only universals in defense are evasions; various schools of fencing advise different approaches to parrying, from the deflective parries typical of Eastern styles, to the Western-preferred method of using the attacking motion itself as a parry. Using an attack in such a way that its resolution defends from an opponent's likely angle of attack is often referred to as a "cover". In a deflection, one intercepts an opponent's weapon with their own, but "gives way" to their opponent's force and allows it to slide off one's own weapon, often supported by an evasive step. This often leaves one in a position where they can safely make a return strike. "Giving way" is the "soft" response to the crossing of swords, whereas enforcing one's own strength is the "hard" response. Note that strength in the crossing is not a matter of brute force so much as a matter of placement and stability. 

Moving is the ways in which one steps and leaps in order to enable or support their techniques of choice. Again, many different fencing schools disagree upon what nature of footwork is best; for instance, some insist upon placing one's weight upon the balls of the feet, others the heel, and others instruct one to fight flat-footed. And once again, it is a matter of context and preference. There are very many different kinds of steps, but I will detail three main ones:

• Linear steps, or the "fencing shuffle". This is what you see when the leading leg steps forward, and the back leg then comes forward to bring the fencer closer to their opponent without changing the relationship between their legs. This can also be employed to move backwards, or to either side. 
• Passing steps, or simply "walking". This is when the back leg passes from behind and becomes the leading leg. Alternatively, when moving backwards, this is when the leading lag passes backwards and becomes the following leg. This is a preferred step type for disciplines that emphasise the use of swords oriented towards the cut. It is much easier to move diagonally with the passing step as well.  
• Swiveling steps, which usually consists of a passing step (especially diagonal) that is rotated upon, modifying one's facing in the process. The rotation will force the leg that has just become the following leg to swerve around; if you stepped diagonally forward to the right with the right foot, then your left foot should glide smoothly to the right as well. 

Time is a relative measure in fencing, in that the (in)actions of your opponent determine your place in time:

• If you act before your opponent, then you are acting in the first division of time. This division of time is usually used for an attack. 
• If you act simultaneously with your opponent, then you are acting in the second division of time. One may use many different techniques in this division of time. 
• If you act after your opponent, you are acting in the third division of time.  Usually, this means taking the defensive. 
  

Different schools of fencing use different divisions of time. All of them, to my knowledge, use at least these three, but some divide these units of time further. Using the above divisions, note that acting in the first division of time automatically places your opponent in the third division of time -- unless you and your opponent both attempt to act in the first division of time, placing the both of you in the second division. When both fencers wait to exploit the third division of time, there is a general tendency for nothing to happen. It's also worth noting that one's reach also modifies how one uses these divisions; with longer reach, the use of the first division of time is nearly ensured, and the opposite is true when one has lesser reach. 

Helpfully, the Gladiatores group have created some videos illustrating some of these principles at a tempo that a learner can be reasonably expected to perceive, plus those period costumes seriously.

Questions, commentary, and shitposting are all welcome. Just so long as the shitposting is related to fencing. Or shitty fencing. Especially shitty fencing. 

Yarrun XIX

Mr Alex, tell me about sword breakers

One-Winged Eagle

How successful would a hypothetical one-armed swordsman be, and do you currently know of any giant eagles that give fencing lessons?

Salix Babylonika

is there an /r/shittyfencing

I hope there is

MadassAlex

Yarrun XIX said:

Mr Alex, tell me about sword breakers

Ultimately, it's unclear whether "sword breakers" were actually for breaking swords or whether the "breaking" was metaphorically describing the defeat of a fencer by capturing their sword in the sword breaker's strange shape. My view is that the sword breaker was not for the literal destruction of swords, as one could only guess the quality of an opponent's blade. Better to rely on known factors. Additionally, breaking an opponent's sword might free them of the trap, when you might well be better off keeping their sword locked out of use. 

More generally, one would use a sword breaker as they would use any dagger in the off hand, but with the benefit of a shape that may trap an opponent's blade. The general purpose of the off hand dagger is to ward opponents away from making close actions; they will be less inclined to enter close for a grapple if you're easily and obviously capable of punishing them with a weapon as stupidly and murderously lethal as a dagger or knife. This keeps the fight at a more controlled distance, which plays into the preferences of rapier wielders, or the wielders of hybrid swords with rapier-like qualities. 

Any dagger may be used to parry, but they're better at parrying thrusts. Thrusts are kinetically weaker than cuts, so a dagger can easily deflect them. A cut from a sword inclined towards cutting is going to make parrying with a dagger riskier, or at least cause one to require more control in the parry. This is one reason one might take the buckler alongside a rapier rather than a dagger; the buckler will successfully defend against a broader variety of attacks. It ultimately depends upon whether you want the literal defense of the buckler, or the manipulative strength of the dagger. Either way, sword breakers are basically just daggers that contribute more permanence to the parry. 

The dagger's own offensive potential, in its context as the sibling of a longer weapon in the primary hand, was opportunistic. Knife or dagger combat is a different beast compared to the sword and dagger wielded simultaneously, and I do mean "beast". A prominent German master-at-arms, Hans Talhoffer, writes at the beginning of his chapter on dagger combat, "And so we come to the dagger. May God help us" (I am paraphrasing somewhat, but that's the cut of the gib). To this day, there are few forms of fighting so brutal and ruthless as knife or dagger fighting, because the weapon can deliver extremely debilitating and lethal attacks very quickly, and in very quick succession. By comparison, a contest of swords is more deliberate and forgiving. 

MachSpeed said:

How successful would a hypothetical one-armed swordsman be, and do you currently know of any giant eagles that give fencing lessons?

1. It depends. A second hand, even empty, is very useful if combat comes to very close quarters; this is where grapples and throws come into play, and without both hands, one can only use a limited repertoire of these techniques. On the other hand, a sufficiently deliberate and mindful fencer can do most of what is necessary with only one hand. Most swords, after all, are one-handed. In many cases where such one-handed swords weren't paired with some kind of shield or additional weapon, the second hand would not be used in practise due to distance management. 

So, hypothetically? Quite successful. It simply depends on how good they are. Which I guess sounds like a cop out, but those are just the breaks here, given how many different ways there are to be good at fencing. 

2. I do not currently know of any, but if I come into knowledge of one, I will be sure to inform you immediately. 

Yarrun XIX

so knives are basically the coolest weapon then. Thanks, Alex!

Alduin

what's your opinion on kylo ren's crossguard lightsaber

MadassAlex

^^ Knives are, uh, quite something. Although that's a well-natured baitpost based on knowledge of my preferences and personality, I feel obligated to respond seriously. Each of us is much, much more likely to face the threat of a knife than the threat of a sword, so I want to be clear:

In the case of a contest of knives, running is the best option. This is true even if one is proficient with a knife, because a knife is so quick and difficult to defend against once it has entered its striking range. If you absolutely must defend yourself from someone wielding a knife, then you want some longer object to attack them with. Failing that, one defends from a knife by blocking the aggressor's forearm -- if you can capture their wrist, you're in good form, but you may want to aim a tad lower to account for error. You can also use your own forearm as a bar to cross theirs, which will account for more error; imagine doing this forearm cross block, then sliding it so that your hand can grab their wrist. Then you counterattack without mercy, because there is absolutely no room for hesitation here. 

I guess the severity of this post is kind of out of tone for this thread, which is about a series of disciplines that are most commonly used by recreational martial artists today, but the above information may be crucial if someone here has an unlucky encounter. Naturally, the "run" part is obvious enough, but a knife can also be produced from nowhere very quickly. As the topic has emerged, I think it's just pertinent to lay out, with absolute clarity, the degree to which knife combat is to be avoided. Which is "whenever escape is plausible".  

So that's knives. 

^ Highly favourable. 

One-Winged Eagle

I heard from someone that all one-handed swords, though of different makes and lengths, were roughly of the same weight. Is this true? And is this also true of two-handed swords?

MadassAlex

Sword weights can vary quite a bit, although most are within the 1kg-1.5kg range -- one-handed or two-handed. If you count the implements used in sport fencing as swords, the lower range is 0.5kg, and the massive doppelhanders used by some Renaissance-era soldiers can clock in at 2.5kg. 

That said, the standard one-hander is probably going to sit at around 1.2kg, and the standard two-hander closer to 1.5kg. The heaviest single-handed swords are rapiers, often weighing in at about 2kg; they are very long indeed, and have complex hilts, but their low point of balance (being quite close to the hilt) allows them to be wielded in a nimble fashion. 

So your informant was mostly correct. While there are outliers, most swords sit in a similar weight range, irrespective of their culture of origin. Your outliers are mostly specialist equipment, such as in the case of the rapier, very large two-handers, or modern sporting sword equivalents. 

Alduin

how is the crossguard saber good

MadassAlex

'Cause it has a crossguard. 

If you hold a hand in front of you, as though holding a sword with its point vertically upright, you'll find that your hand has roughly 180 degrees of horizontal rotation. Each quillon of a cross will therefore rotate up to (nearly) 180 degrees with the rotation of your hand. Between two quillons, this is 360 degrees of coverage around your hand with rotation. 

Since the cross is aligned with the edges of the sword, cutting towards an opponent's attack nearly inherently places their blade within the angle of your blade and your crossguard. On top of that, there are numerous, more specific techniques that exploit how a crossguard closes off space beyond your blade.

glennmagusharvey

Acererak said:

how is the crossguard saber good

there's a fate/ pun somewhere in here

One-Winged Eagle

There's a Fate fucking pun with every fucking thing that is ever called "Saber." Do you know how many fucking things are called "Saber?" A whole fucking lot.

Incidentally, Alex, does it bother you that straight swords in fiction are called "sabers" because it sounds cool? Because it bothers me a lot. However, the English translation that I prefer for 刀 (dao) is "saber" and I wonder if that would bother you.

Yarrun XIX

MadassAlex said:

^^ Knives are, uh, quite something. Although that's a well-natured baitpost based on knowledge of my preferences and personality, I feel obligated to respond seriously. Each of us is much, much more likely to face the threat of a knife than the threat of a sword, so I want to be clear:

In the case of a contest of knives, running is the best option. This is true even if one is proficient with a knife, because a knife is so quick and difficult to defend against once it has entered its striking range. If you absolutely must defend yourself from someone wielding a knife, then you want some longer object to attack them with. Failing that, one defends from a knife by blocking the aggressor's forearm -- if you can capture their wrist, you're in good form, but you may want to aim a tad lower to account for error. You can also use your own forearm as a bar to cross theirs, which will account for more error; imagine doing this forearm cross block, then sliding it so that your hand can grab their wrist. Then you counterattack without mercy, because there is absolutely no room for hesitation here. 

I guess the severity of this post is kind of out of tone for this thread, which is about a series of disciplines that are most commonly used by recreational martial artists today, but the above information may be crucial if someone here has an unlucky encounter. Naturally, the "run" part is obvious enough, but a knife can also be produced from nowhere very quickly. As the topic has emerged, I think it's just pertinent to lay out, with absolute clarity, the degree to which knife combat is to be avoided. Which is "whenever escape is plausible".  

So that's knives. 

^ Highly favourable. 

that was actually a half-serious post

what i should have said is 'I find the fact that knives are so dangerous as to be taboo in the art of swordsmanship (as opposed to swordsmanship lacking art) amusing'

not that i'm unglad that you responded in such a way

Princess Alice

I keep misreading this title as "Alice [something something] Hall" and it's really offputting for a moment

MadassAlex

MachSpeed said:

There's a Fate fucking pun with every fucking thing that is ever called "Saber." Do you know how many fucking things are called "Saber?" A whole fucking lot.

Incidentally, Alex, does it bother you that straight swords in fiction are called "sabers" because it sounds cool? Because it bothers me a lot. However, the English translation that I prefer for 刀 (dao) is "saber" and I wonder if that would bother you.

Strictly speaking, a sabre can be straight, but all are single-edged. Naming mishaps don't bother me too much, mostly because I consider describing the intention behind a sword's use is most important in a name. So calling a Chinese dao a "sabre" is perfectly reasonable, in the sense that both the dao and sabre are cutting-oriented, one-handed swords. To my knowledge, the most substantial difference between a Western sabre and Chinese dao is that the latter is broader in the blade (but then, not even always). 

Likewise, using the term "sabre" to describe swords in popular media is something I find generally acceptable, as long as the weapons described are cutting-oriented. We don't often see a Jedi thrust, come to think of it. 

MadassAlex

Re: Star Wars

This guy is a pretty ace fencer, for what it's worth. 

Salix Babylonika

I feel like there's a pun in "ace fencer" but I don't know what it'd be.

MadassAlex

Something to with tennis, no doubt. 

Salix Babylonika

I think it might just be that "Ace Fencer" sounds like a star wars name to my ear

Obā-san

something about it screams "anime about tennis" to me

MadassAlex

Jane said:

I think it might just be that "Ace Fencer" sounds like a star wars name to my ear

Aiess Fhen'sar

Today is Tomorrow said:

something about it screams "anime about tennis" to me

In which a kendoka, having been pressured into kendo training by their parents, discovers a passion for tennis and applies swordplay teachings to the court. 

So For Honor (where the fuck is the "u" America, seriously) seems interesting on the grounds of its fencing. 

From the knight's perspective, I can see both Ochs (high pointing) and Pflug (low pointing) being used as stances. Apparently, the game mechanics give you three stances, which are activated with the right stick while locked on to an opponent. R1 and R2 (or equivalents) generate attacks from these stances, while the stances also act as passive blocks in the direction they're held at; so if you're using your right-sided stance, attacks entering on your right side will be deflected. 

Pretty neat, but it seems kinda lip-servicey to fencing systems in terms of its attack speeds, which attacks are generated, and the width of attacks. Some compromises are necessary in any video game, but I find myself wondering if I will be able to thrust from those thrusting stances.

I will probably not be able to thrust from those thrusting stances. 

Alduin

what do you think about sentient swords

MadassAlex

Something along the lines of "Shut up and I do what I tell you".

glennmagusharvey

Jane said:

I think it might just be that "Ace Fencer" sounds like a star wars name to my ear

for some reason I'm thinknig Ace Ventura

Fossilmaiden

Worst movies everybody has watched.

Sredni Vashtar

I thankfully have not.

Alduin

YO, ACE IS IN THE HOUSE

Tre

Sredni Vashtar said:

I thankfully have not.

same

Sredni Vashtar

Thoughts on the klevang?

Research.

MadassAlex

"Klevang" (or "klewang") wasn't a sword type I was familiar with, and going off what I can find, it's difficult to say anything absolute.

This is wikipedia's idea of a klewang, but some other examples only partially resemble that, and the Dutch/American sabres that borrow its name are completely different! So we'll put those to one side for a moment and see what we can see. 

This example is different from the first one, but we've got some very similar design elements. The blade thickens as it nears the tip, and the hilt has this kukri-like curve with no hand guard. The blade length on this example is said to be 24", and most others I can find approximate that. Wikipedia lists the blade length as 40-70cm, so our klewang can be made as a combat knife or as a longish sword. 

It's an interesting combination of elements. Its forward-weightedness forces its centre of balance forward as well, empowering cleaving cuts. This might also explain the relative lack of a blade tip, since such a forward-weighted sword doesn't behave so nicely when one tries to keep it pointed at an opponent. That's an available option, as always, but the sword's balance type will make it awkward. The curved grip interacts with (probably among other things) striking technique; when you flick your wrist forward to make the cut, a curved grip provides the option of beginning that motion with your blade learned towards an opponent despite no difference in your hand's own grip. It probably also interacts with the forward-weightedness, but that's a finicky enough interaction that I'd have to wield one for a while to work out what it's trying to accomplish. Perhaps it generates push cuts by reversing the method most curved swords use to generate draw cuts? Or maybe the pommel is trying to push some of the back weight in front of the hand?

What we're looking at here is almost an axe wearing the clothes of a sword. Without a hand guard or substantial length, it has no particular defensive advantages, but its weight distribution is going to make its cuts unusually powerful. It's a close quarters weapon used for taking the initiative, and I can see how it developed given how confined Indonesian terrain can be. It's relatively short length and lack of a hand guard is also convenient for carrying, allowing it to be convenient for self defense or as a secondary weapon.

The specifics of its use are probably contested by various schools of thought in Indonesia, which are likely to follow similar broad-strokes methods but have specific variations for nerds to argue about. I can't really provide any insight on those grounds, having never taken any specifically Indonesian martial arts that might bring me closer insight. Based purely on its physical characteristics, though, I'd say that this is a weapon that wants to make repeated cleaving strikes at close distance, with its idea of defense being a good offense. The use of its shield would nullify its defensive disadvantages, so I would suspect it was traditionally paired that way.

I'm happy to elaborate on anything that isn't clear, as long as it's a topic I have the capacity to elaborate on. This is a weird one, coming from an entirely different design angle when compared to the standard swords of north Asian, African, European, etc. swords. So plenty of martial knowledge can be applied across those continents, but swords like the klewang are really contrary to that kind of martial logic. Surely, Indonesia's types of social organisation and climate influenced such a weird sword. For instance, clothing is very much a form of armour, and the warmth of Indonesia probably caused its people to wear thinner clothing when compared to a European -- so European swords put more thought towards controlling an opponent so as to make a more damaging strike, but to an Indonesian in thinner clothing, perhaps any strike is just about as good as any other?

Alduin

Were any European swords used for dueling capable of slashing attacks or was it just thrusting?

Also what kind of sword is the Iron Sword in Skyrim

MadassAlex

Even really thin rapiers can slash, as long as they're edged in the first place. Unedged rapiers exist, but they're few and far apart. The smallsword, on the other hand, was typically unedged and only suitable for thrusting. That said, the smallsword was also exclusively a dueling weapon, with sabres being the standard military choice in that era (which would roughly be the later 1700s and throughout the 1800s).

It's worth noting that the concept of a "dueling weapon" was something swordsmiths rarely heeded beforehand; the rapier might be weak in a pitched battle, but it's an excellent choice for the narrow streets of a city, whether one-on-one or otherwise. Standard dueling equipment is largely just whatever is standard military or self-defense equipment within that era in that place. There are exceptions; German dueling customs during the late medieval period sometimes had participants use intentionally unwieldy shields: 

And with a standard sword of the era:

 By and large, though, the weapons used in a historical duel would be the standards of the era. 

Salix Babylonika

I believe that's a Klingon Bat'leth, not a shield.

MadassAlex

I was (for once) avoiding technical jargon in order to convey more succinctly, but I can't fault true information. 

Sredni Vashtar

Thanks for the analysis.

The Dutch used the klewang as a sidearm in the aftermath of the Aceh War, so your suggestion that it makes the most sense as a secondary, close-quarters weapon makes a lot of sense. I got a sense from the design that it would have more of an offensive quality baked in, and that, in addition to the secondhand colonial legacy, suits the character I had written as carrying one to a T. I really can't think of a better fit for an unhinged scrapper with a vicious streak.

MadassAlex

I agree -- "vicious" is about the right word for the klewang, and just about anyone who uses it well.