I have realized that I have been turning Facebook to a salvatorfabris.com forum (instead of letting people be just/more social out there . Therefore, let me now do this right. The question has arisen as to what one should do while facing a certain kind of SCA fencers (certainly not to say that all SCA combatants are the same, as I am excited to fight with, and learn from, another kind of SCA fencers any time).
We have already heard on Facebook from Karl (Jacobs) as to what method one must employ against a Bestial Man according to Capoferro, from Chris (Holzman) as to how to face Reckless and Choleric opponents according to Alfieri, and from Steve (Reich) as to what Giganti recommends and at what Fabris hints in similar regard.
But I wonder if anyone else (who perhaps does not even do the Facebook thing) would like to contribute their thoughts. I could also post what you, guys, had already sent, unless you want to do it yourself at this place. And unless you perhaps wish to expand on it here...?
As Chris pointed out, unlike the historical Bestial Men, Cholerics, even Reckless opponents, SCA fencers do not have enough respect for the blade, which obviously cannot kill them in the current sport. Therefore, while I am eager to hear the historical recommendations, where one should in any case begin, another issue may be involved.
My original thought with regard to this certain kind of SCA fencers was to avoid them, which I have been diligently doing for a number of years now. However, I have now gotten an assignment due to which I soon expect to have to face a whole bunch of what one student called Mad Aggressive Sword-swingers…

Here's a tactical suggestion taken from personal experience and classical fencing theory: Use countertime. Not respecting the blade has been a historical problem inherent to safe practice weapons. Often, this takes the form of people counterattacking into your attack without respect to time or line. Use this fault against the poor fencer: Draw the counterattack with a false attack, then work against their counterattack with a prise de fer or beat. The trick is that you must have the timing down: the counterattack must be a smaller time time of attack, and countertime must be smaller skill. This is easier to explain in person, so if I'm in Chicago again, I'll show you.

This idea is arguably expressed as early as Agrippa, though, of course, early modern "countertime" meant a counterattack and he didn't have a word for countertime in the modern sense. Referring to Gaugler's History, I don't see any references to the modern sense of countertime before the 1840s. (This can be confusing if one is not clear if one is speaking of modern or early modern terminology.)

This tactic works well with all weapons, including the spadone.

I think this type of opponent (which certainly isn't limited to the SCA - you'll find them in modern fencing and even classical fencing if their instructors don't clamp down on the behaviour) is close in technical performance to those that Alfieri describes as Reckless or Choleric. The underlying basis of the behavior is different however. The problem with these descriptions is that we really need a different category with similar 'symptoms', called the Gamesman.

Just so everyone can see:

Translations by Chris Holzman, 2009. I'll note that these are rough - they've had one pass through, so they may be a little choppy, but I think they're clear enough.





In some ways, the wild sword swinger looks like these. But underneath, he's probably not angry. Ignorant maybe, but typically not angry. He is, instead, the Gamesman.

The Gamesman knows no fear, has no inner voice that controls his impulses. He is in some ways, more like the Phlegmatic in temperament, because he analyzes the fencing situation according to the rules of engagement, not according to the rules of combat. It doesn't concern the Gamesman that he might be hit. Sure, he might lose a bout, but it doesn't present the spectre of pain, letting in bad air, or a slow (or fast) death. There is no innate fear of the blade or point. Not even fear of a hard blow, as most fencing organizations have legislated against rough play. This is doubtless for the best, as we all have lives outside of fencing, and severe injuries in fencing are unnecessary. There is no fear in most places of allowing measure to collapse - in the SCA or modern fencing, nobody is going to perform a disarm, throw, dislocation or break because you've strayed too close in an ambush. Nor are you going to be exiled from polite society under the dueling code for getting too close and punching someone with the guard. The writers who dealt with the duel often called the loss of honor a moral death worse than the physical one. Either way, back in the day, one had some reason to behave according to some reasonable basis of common sense. The gamesman doesn't have this.

Instead, the gamesman analyzes the situation, understands that if distance collapses too much, the weapon length is unwieldy, and that they're going to be put back on guard. The gamesman understands that he's fast, and that so long as he touches first, or touches 'better', that is, a head or body shot in exchange for being struck in the arm or leg, he has 'won'.

These types are hard to deal with. It's not to say the didn't exist back in the 16th - 19th centuries, I'm sure they did - but now, instead of being motivated through anger or fear that was pushed too far and became reckless, they're instead calm, cool, and analytical. Like the Phlegmatic, they are very hard to handle, but now they are relentless attackers.

Cav. Settimo Del Frate, who wrote the book on Maestro Radaelli's sabre and foil system, that Maestro Radaelli used as a textbook in his fencing master's school, provides some advice that I think is very useful. To paraphrase, he says that instinct is the force that, seeing a blow, causes us to parry. He also says that fencing is about using that against the opponent. The gamesman, however, is going to be largely immune if he thinks he is faster. Still, Cav. Del Frate would have us also understand the following. Actions on the blade are preferably to actions without blade contact. The most effective feint is the thrust to the face. He would have you, against a relentless opponent, hold the opponent at distance break up the opponent's plans with cuts to the cuff and the point to the face, in order to provide time to figure out what you want to do. This I think can be adapted.

Still, what has to be accepted is that the gamesman has no use for the art, he simply wishes to touch, and there are no real dangers to dissuade him upon failing to touch, or being touched himself.

With a single rapier, I love using a passata sotto against this type of person. If they are blindly charging me I can just remove my target and happily let them impale themselves upon my sword.

With rapier and dagger I usually find the situation easier to deal with. Pick any historical plate that offers an invitation with the dagger. I don't often see much subtlety from this type of person and they will often make a committed attack to the area that you are inviting to. Parry with dagger, hit with sword. I've had several SCA or Ren Faire tournament bouts where this sort of thing happened. The entire bouts lasted about 5 seconds.

There is a great video of a seminar at some event or other that specifically talks about this; from the point of view of a tall fencer who keeps getting bull rushed and how to deal with it, as well as why the "short" guy shouldn't do it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=iULUFdj36h8

I like the Gamesman description...

I think that in order to suppress this Gamesman behaviour, you have no choice but to change the rules of the game. The rules of the game must ensure that this behaviour is not advantageous or at least does not work consistently. Specifically, the winner must be someone who has proved that he knows how to defend with his sword, not just score hits. And it all boils down to how double hits are treated.

I do believe that it is interesting to train in defending oneself against these types. Because then you know that your defense is sound and works because of you, not because the opponent is afraid.

The problem is,

The basic tenet of historical fencing is that it relies on the assumption that both contendents try their best to avoid getting hit. The moment either one games the system to just touch the opponent regardless of consequences, the discipline changes into "assassinate at all costs."

Of course, there is a point in everyone's training where one needs to come up with a game-strategy of his own to deal with this type of sword-wielder (I wouldn't call him a fencer, and neither would our predecessors). Although, kill you they will, if you are not 100% at the best of your game--some of these guys are true "naturalists" with no art but lots of raw instinct for the kill.

This is to be treated as nothing more than a game: in many cases, if the elbow-cops, the athletic cup, the breast protectors, the gorget, the Terry Tindall mask, the knee-pads and the triple-reinforced fencing jacket come off, and we were just using (long sigh) points d'arret, then things would be different. Anyway, I'm just dreaming now.

My advice: be brutally pragmatic, just as our forefathers were. Giganti advocated a due-tempi beat and riposte, saying that it ain't pretty, but you gotta do what you gotta do. Naturally, it depends on the sword-wielder in question, but here are some things I would do (and have done).

1 - Fence one step out of measure, always

2 - Employ large voids--not only la Fabris, but also a la Bolognese

3 - Let due tempi and hand-parries be your friends

4 - Cut, cut, cut. To the arms and to the face mostly, best if while also voiding as per point 3.

5 - As Ken said, when you can, use the countertime, but best if with large voids and/or with hand-parries. These guys have no sense of opposition--the only part of their sword they care about is the point, especially when it's trained on you.

Great post, Chris.

My only small point would be to ensure readers understand that the 4 humors described by fencing Masters refer to *good fencers* with different dispositions (although some slightly more advantageous than others, depending on the author). This is different from the *reckless* fencer that Antonie describes--this is truly someone uninterested about his own safety.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I'm not going to quote since I agree with all you've said. I think the problem you've pointed out is that the truly modern reckless fencer/fighter/swordswinger/gamesman simply doesn't care. There's not even the tiny kernel of concern in that persons mind that even the most reckless (assuming they're not literally insane) fencer would have had back the day of our Authors.

I agree completely with you regarding points d'arret. I think they would set a very different tone than the bird blunt business currently used. Even on an epee, with a good jacket and mask, points d'arret are not something I have any desire to get hit with - considering their ability to shred jacket sleeves and gouge arms. They would quite likely instill some measure of the necessary caution into all but the most oblivious of opponents. Even though, for example, Pallavicini advocates a little tied on blunt, one suspects such worked a bit better back in his time, because everyone involved was rather more likely to at least know someone who knew someone, who'd hurt or been hurt in some sort of bladed combat than we are today - and understood that what they were doing and training for was not a game. Today, the fact may be that we need a little outside reinforcement to remind people, and points d'arret could provide it.

I'm going against the grain here but I'm not completely convinced that pointes d'arrêts or other such building up on the physical pain is the solution. The problem is not really that these fencers don't care about being hit, rather that they rejoice on the hit they give you more than the hit you give them hurts them. The fact that it's a matter of points or a matter of scratches only marginally changes that: there are people that want to hurt you first and foremost and the threat you pose is then conveniently ignored. If you up the physical pain you just select the more macho types and you end up with the dog brothers. Nothing short of irreversible damage will be necessary (and even that might arguably not be enough).

These people do that because they are not confident in their defense and know that their attacks are strong enough to put their opponents in difficulty. The rules must force them to learn how to defend properly. Once they have learned that the interest in gamesmanship vanishes, because they'll take satisfaction in clean hits and proper defense.

Points d'arret provide some deterrent value - a fact that is pretty well known amongst the older crowd of fencing masters and those who fenced with them. They're not going to turn the utterly complete reckless fool gamesman into a timid fencer, but they will inject a note of caution for nearly everyone else. The perfect solution to the gamesman is to simply not fence him. The national and international fencing federations have been fiddling with rules since the 19th century, and nearly every rule change has managed to make things worse - even when in good faith intended to make things better, from the standpoint of realism in fencing. The problem with 'rules' is that they create a gaming atmosphere. I should be able to fence with most people, with a mask, light jacket, and weapon, and have no concerns about idiocy (as opposed to double touches through accident or misjudgment). Those that I can't, I simply shouldn't fence, because I'm not going to learn anything of use from the experience, and neither will they.

The problem, really, is not with the fencers - it is with the people who are instructing, who aren't clamping down on such behaviour with an iron fist and who are allowing people with such attitudes to fence bouts in their schools.

This has become my approach. I have long said that practicing historical techniques against fencers who are only interested in touches has limited utility. It's not altogether in vain, but I would rather spend my time practicing against someone who is trying to be a good martial artist.

I very much appreciate everyone’s advice and contributions.
I have fought in my first SCA tournament (or, in my very first ever tournament in fact--should we not be counting the “Let Us All Beat Upon Antonie farewell tournament” at the VAF) on October 3rd. This was before Tom’s advice was posted as well as before I got to watch the videos pointed out by Martin Kocajda. No worries about that, as I will have other tournaments, and the rest of my life, to try again. What I want to say is that I now have a few observations of my own based on this my recent experience, but posting them will take somewhat of a longer story. Right now, could I ask a couple of quick questions to better understand a few issues?

1.) By fencing one step out of measure, do you mean letting the opponent close the measure for me while he is attacking, which is the time when I will be able to reach him? (As keeping out of my measure at all times would never allow me to “kill” the opponent, which I do need to accomplish sooner or later. Keeping out of *his* measure sounds nice and safe, but given the fact that I am much shorter than most while my sword is not that long either, that would again really mean keeping also out of *my* measure.)

2.) How do we do “large voids a la Bolognese”? (To be done in addition to such voids "a la Fabris.") Should I guess, would that be by stepping to the side using “Triangle Steps”?

Thank you,
Antonie

Oh my god, why?
Steve
PS The advice given is all good, it is however, as they say, not going to work against a rules lawyer/gamesman. And, my thought has always been "cattle prods" might be the answer.

This question is really not that hard to answer, postulating that no two mad-dog sword-wielders will act the same exact way.

1 - If your goal is to learn to fence historically, don't bout with them--at least, not on a regular basis.

2 - When you do, do what it takes to win a point while *making* a point. Due-tempi parry-ripostes with the riposte being a cut are excellent examples of this.

3 - If you just want to pit art against gamesmanship or brute suicidal aggression, do so, but bearing in mind that for the most part the arts we learn were written to deal with other fencers, not with random sword-wielding assailants, hand-snipers (in the case of rapier especially) or flick-enamored foilists.

4 - Adapt your tactics to what you observe. This is a pretty universal rule. We all have our favorite tactics, and once the opponent gives away his preferences or inclinations, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with antidotes.

Tom

You can quite easily stay a step out of measure doing dui tempi (ie good old parries) by employing the sport fencing technique of retreating as you perform the parry. It's not something you focus on if you're doing 'proper' Fabris, but it will keep you out of the way of an oncoming bumrush while giving you time/distance to get in a good riposta.