Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword (24 page)

The truth was that I was never really interested in fencing, I was interested in fighting, and learning how to use the sword as a weapon. Fencing is a sport.

Originally fencing was used to teach the use of the sword for the duel. It rapidly became a sport/pastime, and a very upscale one at that. It was a gentleman's sport, and more emphasis was placed on how you behaved and moved, rather than winning. In the early days, there were a lot of sneering remarks aimed at those fencers who were considered "just stabbers" who had no form, but merely attacked repeatedly. This could be a just criticism in a sport, but in actual combat it would be a meaningless remark. Real combat is only concerned with whether you win or die.

When I first started playing with saber, it was explained to me that the saber was used mainly on horseback, and so there was a convention of not attacking the legs. However, the weapon was much lighter than any antique saber I had encountered. It weighed about 12–13 ounces compared to two and a half to three pounds for real sabers. The blade was more like a buggy whip than a sword blade, but Professor Morenus did not allow cut overs to count (this is where the blow was parried, but due to the flexible blade the attacking sword would still bend over and touch). Much of the work was done with wrist and fingers, and I didn't know anyone who could do that with one of my real swords. I still don't. When many fencers actually pick up a real saber, they are shocked by its weight and consider it useless. For sport fencing, it is.

The epee was developed as a training weapon for the dueling sword, and I feel that in many respects it would work pretty well. But the blade is too light, and the conventions and rules prohibit many of the things that did occur in real fights. Since the whole body is a target, that does reflect a much more realistic approach than the other two forms. Even so, counting a hit to the calf the same as a hit to the chest or face is not realistic.

In the old days there were squabbles about who hit first, and the contestants had to rely on the sharp eye of the judges. To rely on the honor of the contestants was simply not practical. Not for reasons of honor, but simply because in many cases the heavily padded individuals can't tell who hit first. Many times he wouldn't even know that he was hit at all!

The introduction of electronic scoring stopped that and, in my opinion, ruined fencing and removed all pretense of it being a martial art. For those of you who may not be familiar with it, the sword is equipped with a wire that registers a hit and time. When two hits are registered, the point is awarded to the first hit. The result of this innovation has been ignoring defense completely.

The last match I witnessed was several years ago and between two world-class epee fencers. They both stood at the end of the strip, both tapping their blades on the floor, a picture of intense concentration. Suddenly they both leapt forward and clashed, both blades bent under impact, and both turned to the scoreboard to see who had hit first. The whole match consisted of this sort of "swordplay."

Another result of electronic scoring is the "coupe." (I have heard that some places have banned this, but I can't say for sure.) The coupe is a flick of the blade that will merely touch your opponent. However, it will close the circuit and register as a hit. Using a real sword, all you would have achieved is
possibly
a very small nick.

Now, I may be old-fashioned, or I may just be old and wimpy. But my idea of a successful sword fight is for me to stick my enemy, and for him not to stick me. It certainly doesn't include getting stuck by him, even if I hit a fraction of a second quicker. I recall reading of one historical duel where the adversaries were so angry that they rushed upon one another doing nothing but stabbing. They were both successful and both fell dead. A bystander remarked that they were "two silly people, skewering each other on the first pass."

As of this writing, there is a great deal of squabbling regarding swordplay. There are new kids on the block, holding up as a shining beacon the fight manuals of old, all claiming to provide the secret of historically accurate swordplay. There are many other groups, all of them trying to come up with swordplay that is more realistic, and closer to being a combat art. Except for a very few, most realize that safety is an important consideration. The need for safety does, however, always interfere with the goal of being as realistic as possible. This is the nature of the beast, and I have no desire to change it. Failure to employ safety rules could easily leave me bereft of readers, which I would hate. With this in mind, many groups are achieving a modicum of success. I haven't seen all of them, so I won't make any comments regarding any of the individual groups, but I wish them all well.

Then there are sport fencers who will assure all and sundry that sport fencing is the apex of swordplay and it is what all swordplay has been aiming at for several hundred years. Lest that sound a little harsh, let me quickly say that there are plenty of swordsmen in both camps that have a full appreciation of the realities of actual swordplay and fun, whether the fun be sport or re-enactment.

I have read that Aldo Nadi was the greatest fencer who ever lived. I am not able to comment on that. But I have also read that he had two duels to first blood, and lost both of them. When the tips are off, and you are looking at a man with a weapon who desires to hurt you, many things go right out the window.

Many will think that I look down on fencing. I don't. Fencing is a highly disciplined and rigorous sport. It requires great reflexes, balance, coordination, and endurance. And it has all sorts of rules, and the rules provide enjoyment to the participants. It has nothing to do with killing people and it does not teach you to fight.

Fencers fight in a straight line. This makes sense when you are a fencing master with a fair number of students. You can't afford to have them circling each other, they would get in each other's way. But in real life you
would
circle, and would try to take advantage of any features of the terrain that might make your opponent stumble, or distract his attention.

The foil, the epee and the saber are all lightweight weapons designed with the two purposes of being fast and not harming the opponent. Now, they can really hurt when used as a whip, much as a radio aerial will if ripped off a car and used in a street fight. The bad news is when the whippee closes with the whipper. In short, a small sword is about as light as you can reasonably get with a sword blade. It is deadly, but it has its weaknesses.

Still, learning to fence can be fun, and it will familiarize you with having a sword in your hand, and with moving while learning to defend and attack. It is an excellent sport, but it will not teach you how to fight with a rapier or a small sword. There are other groups out there who will do a better job. But also remember that they have rules as well. Rules are necessary for safety's sake and that must be of paramount importance.

There are several books recounting many of the duels in the past, describing fights with rapier, small sword, sword and buckler, polearms, etc. They are entertaining and informative, but they do not go into the necessary details for the reader to fully understand what has taken place. "Wounded many times," "fighting furiously," "desperate encounter": there are general terms given, and the reader is allowed to use his imagination to picture the duel. It can be fun, but not an effective teaching tool except that you realize that it is a killing that is being recounted.

A look at the differences between fencing and fighting can be instructive. In fencing you are taught to stand with your sword arm and leg presented to your opponent. The off hand is held well back, and is often extended backwards when the individual lunges. This is an interesting stance, and is pretty much the same as used by individuals in pistol duels. The body is presented sideways, as it furnishes less of a target, both for sword and pistol. There is one problem here: almost any hit that penetrates the torso will usually be fatal. When being struck face on, there are areas where the blade or ball might be able to pass through without giving a fatal wound, but sideways, it is very difficult to find a path that would not hit a vital organ.

Fencing stance.

In the old days, men fought face on, with the sword arm and leg only slightly extended. The off hand was held generally about shoulder height. This allowed the arm to be used in blocking a thrust, slapping it aside, grabbing the blade, or even punching the opponent (obviously, I am talking about single weapon combat). Some rapiers were made with a thick center ridge, with actual edges. These swords were not good for cutting, as the ridge would prevent any deep wounding. However, it could make grabbing the blade somewhat problematical. This was offset by the use of mail gauntlets.

Whit Williams of the Reinhardt Legacy Fight Team in fighting stance.
Photo by Adam Lyon.

The main gauche was an important weapon in both dueling and in rough brawls and confrontations. Since there were no rules on wearing the dagger, people pretty much let personal preference dictate where it was worn. Some wore it behind the back and pretty much horizontal, others had it canted and wore it on the right side. This allowed both sword and dagger to be drawn simultaneously. (This was another reason for the demise of the long-bladed rapier: it took way too long to clear the scabbard.)

It is generally agreed that the dagger was used to parry with, and the sword was the attacking weapon. However, in play I have had a great deal of success using the rapier as the parrying weapon, closing and attacking with the dagger. This will catch many by surprise, but after they have fought with me several times, it becomes a fight of taking advantage of any opportunity that presents itself.

There is one neat trick that I have had work for me several times in play. If a dagger gets too close to the rapier, or the rapier to the dagger, it is possible to move against one or the other forcefully, and tie up both blades. This only lasts for a fraction of a second, but it is enough to land a blow with the dagger. Obviously this will work in reverse, tying up both weapons with your dagger and striking with the sword. There is a more unpleasant reverse of this, when your opponent ties up your blades.

Generally, the dagger was held with the thumb on the flat of the blade, and any other position was what the individual preferred. It could be held at shoulder height with a bent elbow or fully extended. There are historical drawings of fighters holding the dagger in an icepick grip with the point down. There may have been individuals who could fight this way, but I am not among them. I can say that I never lost a bout when my opponent was holding his dagger like that.

Hollywood has often shown Our Hero fighting a Dastardly Villain with rapier. He makes a sudden, very mysterious move, and the villain's sword goes flying off into space. Ah, would that it were so! But there are two disarms that are effective, and amazingly simple. One is to parry a thrust to the left side, and as the blade passes beside the body, the left arm is locked to the side, while the forearm is brought under the blade then up and out. This forces the man to relinquish the sword or risk having his fingers broken. The other is even simpler. A lunge is parried, again to the left of the body, and the the left hand is shot out, grabbing the swept hilt or the cup, and yanking it out of the man's hand. There is a counter to this, where the other fellow replies by grabbing the hilt of his opponent's sword. There has been some speculation that this is the way the swords were intended to be exchanged in the climactic duel in Shakespeare's
Hamlet
.

Rapiers became slimmer and slimmer, usually cup hilted, usually Spanish, until they were nothing but long thin rods of steel. These are pretty fast, as it was found that the lighter the sword, the faster it became. (It followed the same silly path as rapier length did, so that today you have fencing "swords" that weigh 13 ounces or less.) This quickly led to the development of the small sword. In the hands of a knowledgeable swordsman, it can be quite deadly, especially when facing an opponent who has only a single heavier weapon. However, let your opponent add a small shield, cloak, or dagger, and things change.