After double and triple checking to be sure I am actually replying to your post and quoting it rather than editing the original...



I think that this is pretty much universal within the context of the particular system. Let me explain what I mean. An exchange in Italian rapier generally starts from one step out of measure. That is, all sort of things can happen before stepping into measure, but once you step into measure, you do something and then get out (or, if your opponent steps into measure, you counter him and get out). Now consider the smallsword. Since the rules of tempo still apply (and they are essentially the same as the Italian, given that the roots are in Italian rapier), you can look at it the same way. Try things against your opponent and see what he does. Engage his blade--does he disengage the same way every time? Then next time, engage and use the tempo of his disengagement to come into measure and attack. I can't speak to the Spanish (maybe Eric Myers or even Puck will chime in), but I'm guessing that before you take that second-to-last step forward (the last step being the one that delivers the strike), you must first have some sort of advantage so that your last step will be performed as your opponent tries to counter the advantage you gained in the previous step.

It should be noted that even in the Italian tradition, gaining the sword (engagement) isn't a prerequisite to coming into measure. The prerequisite is either some sort of advantage or a gambit (i.e. a disadvantage taken on purpose so as to induce the opponent to do something you think you can counter). An example of the former would be the beat. Marcelli has you perform the beat from one step out of measure as you step forward with your front foot, then immediately step forward with your rear and lunge. An example of the latter would be coming into measure in Marcelli's Prima Guardia (for those of you unfamiliar with this guard, the hand is turned into terza-quarta, the arm is withdrawn so that the elbow nearly touches the body, and the blade is parallel to the ground--thus, it is difficult to engage, but opens the entire high line). When Marcelli goes into his Prima Guardia, he wants his opponent to attempt a beat, engagement, or attack, as he plans to counter it. Of course, the opponent might counter his counter, but that's fencing...

Steve

Steven,

I latch back on this discourse by citing another matter in which you gave me great help: understanding the Prima Guardia of Marcelli

http://salvatorfabris.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=353

Which is rather interesting... As a matter of fact I realized from this thread what my original problem with the aforementioned guard was, with any of the guards now that I think about it: I didn't understand that in the moment that you attempt to gain your opponent's sword you aren't strictly speaking "in guard" (any of Marcell's three) anymore. You maintain the same "pianta", of course, but your blade is held in the manner dictated by the necessity of the engagement.

Is this correct? At this moment I still can't understand if I'm rambling off-course or just stating the obvious

This is, strictly speaking (and in this case), true. However, Fabris would define which guard you are in by your hand position, so instead of thinking of it as being "not in a guard", I think that it is better to think of this more in the manner of Giganti. He says (paraphrasing) that every motion and position is a guard, if you understand what you're doing. More generally, every position that you assume has a set of properties relating to your offense and your defense and you must understand them in order to use that position effectively. Sometimes, a position (i.e. a guard) does not close any lines or cover any targets (such as in the case of Marozzo's Coda Lunga Distesa), but if you understand all of the implications of that position, then it can still be very strong and defensive (in the correct context).

Just like every other guard, you can consider an engagement to the inside as a guard with a specific set of properties: the primary one being that your inside line is closed and your outside line is open. Additionally, the relative position of your opponent means that there is a specific tactical situation: he must change lines (i.e. perform a cavazione) to attack. In the event that your opponent makes a cavazione (without attacking) to free his sword, the properties of your guard haven't changed, only the tactical situation. In the first situation (where he is subjected to your engagement), you are protected from your opponent just by virtue of your relative positions. In the second position (after a cavazione to your outside), he has an open line to attack, and you must move some part of your body if you wish to defend.

The absolute best explanation of these concepts is in Fabris' treatise--you'll find examples of some very strange guards. Yet, if you carefully read the explanatory text and consider the relative position, tempo, and measure (and these are all discussed by Fabris in each description) you can see how it all fits together.

Hmmm...I think I've rambled enough.

Steve

I was a bit disturbed by the fact that Marcelli might countenance
"guardless" states, so I went back and looked and found a passage that
echoes Giganti:

"It is useful here to understand that each motion of the point and
each position of the sword are guards, and all are good for one who
does them well. One must only avoid the bad and dangerous postures
which many do, such as those who hold the sword in the air and look
like they want to fight with the sky, or those who hold the point so
low and look like they want to challenge the earth." I.2.II.67/20.

He goes on to describe a few other such "guards," then gives some
principles for composing a good guard.

It's interesting that Fabris gives similar advice and, IIRC, says something similar about a guard which he says is "better to guard behind you." When you consider all of these guards, you see a fair number of guards from the Bolognese school (and other earlier schools) of swordsmanship: Guardia Alta, Porta di Ferro LArga, Coda Lunga Larga, and Coda Lunga Distesa, etc...

I love how consistent the Italian rapier tradition is throughout the entire 17th century. Yes, they have differences of opinion on the finer points, but they are fundamentally one system.

Steve

Yes. Interesting. I'm only about halfway through Altoni, and probably have to go back and start reading him from the beginning before I finish, but if memory serves, his "middle middle guard" (Guardia di Mezzo Mezzana) is for him the foundational guard, from which the others can be derived. (Given the guards he describes, I view Altoni as possibly being "proto-rapier", since the point is always in presence, and the hand never passes back behind the plane of the body). That guard reminds me of both Capoferro's terza and Marcelli's prima, in that they regard them as being able to defend equally well (with the necessary adjustments, of course) to the inside and outside. When, with a kendo background, one also considers the chudan no kamae, one is tempted to explore generalizing the following even further:

"From Marozzo to Pessina and Pignotti, and from Labat to Cle'ry, authors of fencing texts of all time periods have dealt with, and written about, the same material. In this respect, it might be said that there has been only one book on fencing ever written, and this has been continually refined and amplified by successive generations of fencing masters." (Gaugler, The History of Fencing, concluding sentences).

Pallavicini holds a very similar view.

Altoni is an interesting text. I consider him perhaps the first writer of the proto-rapier (as his treatise might have been written even before that of Agrippa). In many ways, his treatise is quite a bit further along that path than the contemporary Bolognese treatises, and while the Bolognese tend to start sword-alone actions with thrusts, for Altoni, it is practically a rule of his art. Have you read Docciolini? His treatise is basically fifty years of development of Altoni's system--he has the same guards, but none of the Assalti, and he also has the "Imbroccata" guard. I guess we'll have to move to the Florentine swordsmanship forum if we continue down this road...

Steve

I've just started!
Once I've finished with Docciolini (and refreshed myself on Altoni), that is my plan. I recall your saying that when you read Docciolini after having read Altoni, it was like having deja` vu all over again (Yogi Berra's words, not yours), and my interest in Docciolini began with Pallavicini, who seems to rely on him quite a bit. I've already detected that Altoni and Docciolini share the "T-stance" (feet forming an isosceles triangle) as opposed to the "L-stance" (feet forming a right triangle) of canonical rapier, but as you say, this is for the other forum (and for me, a bit down the road, as I have to finish my prep work).

As always, all the discussion has been more than enlightening. Thank you, all of you! I feel a little less stumped and confused than I was before: Marcelli is very clear, methodical and consistent, but sometimes he is so forceful while expressing his opinions that he can lead a poor beginner completely astray.
I was altogether too smitten with the concept of three and only three main guards that I completely missed the complexity of the system taken as a whole.

Don't worry, there will be a lot of things that you don't understand at first, but will become clear with practice. It's not that there is a hidden 'Da Vinci Code' in the text--it's the problem of describing a physical discipline with text. As always, the key to learning a physical discipline is (correct) physical practice. That is why solo drills are so important--not only do you ingrain correct habits, you also gain a physical understanding of what you're doing that is pretty much impossible to convey with words.

Steve

An intriguing thread. I look forward to any further discussion on Altoni or Docciolini on the other thread, though I wont be able to contribute very much!

I sense the need for a new history of swordplay to be written - it sounds like it could be a nice, big, fat multi volume thing



Thanks, Chris. I'll be thinking about this carefully next time I bout. Especially with rapier. When doing G. Silver with Stephen the nature of that kind of play would seem to make things a little different, but it is an observation that is probably fairly universal. Personally, my instinct is to use the time of the adversary to feint an action in time rather than just launch into a straight attack. I am probably a little to cautious, though. OTOH the tendency of trying to 'run before you can walk' seems pretty much the norm of historical fencing and helps to contribute to over cautiousness. I had to drill in foil for a year before my first bout. I never understood why HF should be so different.

Cheers,

Joseph

I agree, but it needs to be written to engage the reader's imagination, to pull people into the world of swordsmanship, not to impress other eggheads with the number of footnotes included in the text...


It shouldn't be any different (good observation--have you been reading my rants?). One of the major problems in WMA/HF is that people think that they are ready to "mix it up" after only a few days or weeks of practice. Does anyone really think that if they had showed up at Marozzo's or Fabris' school that they would be bouting any sooner than after several months of practice? It should be even longer now...

The feint in time is an excellent use of the opponent's tempo. In fact, Marcelli tells us explicitly to feint in a tempo of the opponent (which makes perfect sense, if you think about it; if you feint out of tempo, you are just giving the opponent a tempo in which to counterattack).

Steve

Yeah - a long period of preparatory practice is a good thing. On the other hand, once ready to bout, people need to be ready and willing to take advantage of either a passive opponent, or of an opponent's tempo.

Still, one needs to learn to walk before running. Thus, learning to make a thrust by cavazione well, first, is a pre-requisite to being able to make a cavazione in tempo, let alone a feint in tempo, and if the fencer isn't willing and able to find the opportunity to make a thrust by cavazione, the other more complicated actions are going to be impossible - especially since learning to make a thrust by cavazione gives the fencer an understanding of how long it takes to do the action, and from what distance to the opponent the action can be done. Without that information, the tactical situation can not be analyzed to resolve when a cavazione in tempo is a good idea.

What bothers me is where you see fencers engage in endless strings of 'beat....wait.....do nothing' 'beat...wait...nothing' 'extend....nothing' 'cavazione....cavazione...cavazione...' and then eventually, one decides for no apparent reason to attack from immobility, and the other has a kneejerk response and counter attacks. This isn't fencing, this is either causing or letting multiple dangerous situations occur, ignoring them while hoping for the best, and then finally giving in to impatience and having a freak-out attack/counterattack. Despite what they might think, there is nothing tactical occuring here, except perhaps the tactics of incomprehension or worse, willful ignorance.

Instead, the beat, cavazione, and so on, if used as probing actions, need to be immediately ready to follow up with something else. A beat is pointless unless its followed by forward motion like a feint or simple attack. Same for cavazione - a circular cavazione does nothing but free the blade - if you can use it to provoke a response, you can, and must, use that response against the opponent. The problem is that so many fencers are looking for some mythically perfect opening, or some such drivel, and they're flat scared to commit fully to an attack once they see a useful tempo - and that isn't fencing either. Safety first, absolutely, but not to the point of being frozen in fear of the unknown' The whole point of fencing offense is to cause certain predictable responses in the opponent that can then be exploited. It doesn't matter whether it is in active first intention offense, or controtempo, its still about causing predictable responses. Unfortunately few fencers seem to really understand even at a basic level, the things they can do to more likely cause a certain response than others. These same fencers, content in not attacking because the opening wasn't perfect, usually forget that they're probably creating tempi for their opponent to use against them, and that they may be exposing themselves to greater danger by not attacking, than by taking a decent chance without wasting 10 minutes making 1/8th speed half-steps at a time, and making a snails pace attempt to engage under the incorrect impression that they're somehow safer doing so, than simply making the action quickly and smoothly so long as they're not overdoing the change in measure versus the elapsed time.

its late, I'm exhausted, so I may not be making a lot of sense.... I'm going to bed now, and if it doesn't make sense....well, darn. :p

Edit: edit to point out that it isn't that you can't jockey for position, and look for an opening that you like, rather than one that is just decent, but you've got to manage (exploit and change) measure while you do it (get in, quickly see if something you like develops, and if so, use it, otherwise get out of range and try again) rather than stand in measure and hope for the best. It's not that you should ever hurry to get a touch, but rather you should never linger in measure unless you're actively attacking or defending/counterattacking.

Charles,

speaking as a novice, I recognize in your words many of the problems that I'm facing. You need a lot of drilling because there's a lot to learn, and as I'm just beginning to grasp, the Italian rapier system is the sort of edifice that can't really stand without all of its elements firmly in place. Let's just say that I hope I will one day develop enough sense of measure to just stand and drool undecided outside of the reach of my adversary and not within

On the other hand, your post made me think about the thrust by cavazione (it's the cavazione as an attack as mr. Leoni wrote earlier, isn't it?), and its correct technique. That's it, how are you supposed to gain his sword in milliseconds while you are already thrusting it forward on the other side? Is this because the opponent should be with his point a bit off because it was pushing yours out of presence?

First, if you've found his sword initially, you ought to be able to attack in a straight line without the cavazione. I see a lot of people who find the opponent's sword and then cavazione to attack, which defeats the purpose of engagement in the first place and creates an opening where there didn't need to be one.

If your sword has been found, and you execute a cavazione to attack, a few things should happen: you should keep your blade between your opponent's blade and your body (forming opposition), so you may have to bend your body or step somewhat obliquely to do this; as you begin the cavazione, your blades will have a point of intersection in the opponent's debole somewhere, and your lunge will drive your hilt to that initial point of intersection, which creates the leverage advantage of finding his sword; this should also keep your debole free of his forte and hilt.

Your forward motion is what allows you to find his sword as you lunge.

Think of a cavazione more like a spiral and less like a circle and the blade movement for an attack makes more sense.