The hazards of being the demonstration partner...

Hello, everyone. Just a quick note to let you know that workshops are currently being planned for between mid-summer and fall. These include an unarmed combat and Art of Choreography workshop currently being developed for the Film Factory in Kelowna, a knife defense workshop for Urban Tactics Krav Maga in Richmond and a German Longsword workshop in Victoria, plus others. We’ll keep you posted as to exact dates and other germane information.

Now as you can see, I don’t reply much to questions in the comments section. This is mainly because most of them appear to be about my blog format, etc. So let me just mention again – I just write the content. My partner Joanne set up the format and we use a pretty much standard WordPress platform. So with regards to any other questions, please remember that I have the computer skills of a gerbil.

Now if anyone has any questions about HISTORICAL BLADED WEAPON COMBAT, or any requests for subject matter for future articles, that would be greatly appreciated. Meanwhile, new articles are being compiled.

Best to you all, and thanks for reading our stuff.

Posted in The "Street Defense" series | Leave a comment


Well, you must admit that this is unusual. People have often asked me what my favourite weapon is and my response has always been “Whatever I have in my hand when I’m attacked.” It’s axiomatic that you don’t always get to choose with what you defend yourself and I suppose if two farmers ended up contending in the hay field, this might be an option. (I assume that the rather high-end clothing in which the combatants are depicted is just an artistic convention)

First, a little background on the commissioner of this work:

Paulus Hector Mair (1517 – 1579) was a civil servant in Augsburg. An active practitioner of the martial arts, he was also a passionate collector of Fechtbucher and set about to compile a sort of Grand Treatise – a collection of all the knowledge of the accumulative fighting arts of his day. To help with this ambitious project, he commissioned Jorg Breu the Younger as artist, and engaged two experienced sword practitioners who were charged with testing and validating all the techniques prior to their being painted. This process (since this monumental work included two volumes, the first encompassing the Longsword, Dussack, Staff, Pike, Halberd, the sickle, the sythe and wrestling, and the second volume expounding on the Dagger, the Spanish Rapier, Battle Axe, mounted combat and tournament combat, plus judicial combat and fighting in armour – shield, spear and longsword) took roughly four years to complete. Three versions of this treatise plus one later-published and lesser explicit manuscript are known to exist.

Unfortunately, this process consumed most of his personal and family fortune. Equally unfortunately, Mair apparently had a somewhat extravagant lifestyle which included lavish and frequent entertaining. This led to the imprudent embezzlement of city funds, and when this was discovered, he was hanged for theft at age 62. Not the most glorious of endings.

However, his manuscript is the most inclusive single source of contemporary combat styles, a sort of one-stop shopping for the practice of fighting skills of the day.

So: the sickle.

First, physically, this was never intended to be a fighting weapon. As a result, there are certain limitations in its design. Obviously, it has a point, but its position doesn’t allow for the maximum concentration of force such as is inherent in the comparable Japanese sickle, the Okinawa Kama. It does, however, have rather nasty ripping ability. Some of his techniques definitely depict a point attack to the face.

The edge, naturally, is restricted to the inside curve of the blade. It is because of this curvature (and the relatively light weight) that the sickle doesn’t cut very well percussively. To cut at all, at least in terms of inflicting a cut of any significant size, it’s necessary to strike, then pull back towards yourself, inflicting a tearing wound or pulling the weapon upwards in order to involve the upper third of the inside edge nearest the point. Another way would be to strike with the central area of the inside edge (which would allow maximum impact) and forcefully rotate the weapon towards or away from yourself, depending on the target being struck, in order to involve the greatest degree of moving edge contact. There are a few pictures that depict what appears to be a cut being delivered by the back of the sickle. This, of course, would be futile since the sickle’s back is similar to the spine of a single-edged sword and not really capable of being sharpened.

Naturally, it is also capable of hooking, which, as the treatise demonstrates, can be used to stop and re-direct a blow by targeting your opponent’s sickle-arm, executing a hook behind the neck to drag him towards you (which could easily involve the carotid artery utilizing a left or right rotating drawing action) or hooking him behind the knee and pulling him off balance.

There is also a rather horrendous depiction of directing the sickle in between his legs and inserting the point up the rectum – definitely an attention-getter.

Mair also advocates a stance that leads with the right foot with the sickle in the right hand. He also describes several techniques in which one uses the left hand to seize your opponent’s sickle arm to block a blow, and to deflect it way. He also advocates, in some positions, to hide your left hand under your sickle-arm, and also to displace your forward foot to the outside of your opponent’s forward foot, or, in some cases, depending on your opponent’s stance, to hold the sickle low in the manner of some Dussack positions with the left hand on the left hip. He also advises passing forward on the left foot for defense-attack combinations as well as combination left-right foot passes to press your attack once the incoming sickle arm has been seized or deflected to the left or the right, depending on the nature of his attack. He also instructs that if your opponent has managed to hook your weapon arm and pulls, to follow the pull by passing forward.

In some circumstances, he advises to control your opponent’s weapon arm from the elbow on the outside of the arm. Many of his strikes are to disable the weapon arm, including one that cuts the triceps muscle just above the elbow which would disable the entire arm.

There are also depicted techniques which place the left foot, after executing a pass, in direct contact with your opponent’s forward right foot on the inside, ostensibly to hinder further movement.  And, as one might expect, there are techniques showing the use of the sickle to directly parry and hook your opponent’s weapon. This particular technique should be executed more as a deflective beat to prevent your weapon, due to the curvature of the blade, from becoming ensnared on the opposing blade which would inhibit a quick and decisive counter attack.

I could go on, but this site isn’t specifically intended to teach technique, especially something so esoteric, but to expose to aficionados of historical Western European combat techniques to both mainstream and unusual combat forms. This is certainly the latter.

Examine the pictures included in this post with regard to the text I’ve provided. And if you are going to attempt to reproduce any of the techniques, it should go without saying that you must proceed slowly, use dull or edgeless reproduction weapons with completely rebated points and should wear a fencing helmet and full neck protection.







Posted in The "Street Defense" series | 2 Comments





In this treatise, we will examine the VIER LEGER – the Four Guards of German Longsword play as described by Sigmund Ringeck, whose text, KUNST DES FECHTENS, is dated to the first half of the 15th century. We know very little about the man except that he was once employed as the fencing instructor to Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria. It is thought that he was a member of the lower knightly class, but barring empirical evidence, this is unsupported supposition.

Ringeck’s treatise draws on an earlier work by Hanko Doebringer whose 1389 text contains our earliest known reference to the great master Liechtenauer.

First, let’s define what we mean by the term “guard.” In this context, it is a specific position for the sword from which you launch and end attacks. It only “guards” a portion of the body by virtue of the fact that it would be illogical to attack an area where the sword is already present.

Some of the guards, such as Ochs (the Ox) and Pflug “the plough) are obviously conducive to thrusting, whereas the other two, Von Tag (from the Roof) and Alber (the Fool) are more conducive to delivering a strike, especially the former. 

As I stated, a blow should begin from one of these positions and end in another, in other words, from one position of strength to another. When practicing, you should see which thrusts and strikes are most conducive, or most powerful from each specific guard position, and how changing one strike to another – say the Zwechau (transverse or cross-strike followed immediately by a Zornhau (the Wrath strike) produces a position that most  naturally lends itself to assuming one of the Four Guards.

I would state two things here. First, you must not consider any Guard a static position, whether it’s a beginning position or coming at the end of an offensive move or moves. The sword should always be in motion, one attack following another, with appropriate defensive moves as the flow of the fight necessitates. You are admonished to press your advantage, to maintain the VOR (the Before) and if forced onto the defensive, the NACHT, (the After) to regain the VOR as soon as possible.  Liechtenaeur also advised that a blow should not start from the left side, so this should inform your choice of positions.

So here, translated directly from the German as accurately as I may, are the Four Guards which Ringeck considered the core of his system, which he warns, in the forward to his work, “Vier leger allain davon halt und fluch die gemain – Ochs, Pflug, Alber, Vom Tag – sy dit nit unmer. Ist das du von kainem leger nicht halten solt den alain von den vieren die hie genant worden sind.”

“Four guards only hold and disdain the common; Ox, Plow, Fool and From Above should not be unknown to you. You will not assume any guard except the four above mentioned; how to do that is explained here.”


“The Fool. Stand with your right foot forward, the sword point toward the ground in front of you with straight arms.”


“The Plough. Stand with your left foot forward and hold your sword with crossed hands below your right side, above your knee, with the point aimed at his face.”


“The Ox. Stand with your left foot forward and hold your sword just below your right side of your head. Let the point be pointed toward your foe’s face.”


“From Above. Stand with your left foot forward and hold your sword on your right side next to your shoulder. Or hold it with arms stretched above your head.”

These are the positions as described by Ringeck in his text. It must be noted that other German masters had variations on these positions – Vom Tag, for instance, is pictured in other Fechbuchs as having the flat of the blade resting against the shoulder with the cross-hilt at upper chest level. The Plow is also pictured as being held with the quillons of the sword parallel to the ground and the thumb coming over the quillon from underneath and being placed against the lower flat of the blade just above the hilt.

Ringeck’s treatise also includes other secondary guard positions such as Nebenhut – the Low or Near Guard. But positions like it and Shrankenhut – the Fence Post, are considered specializes positions and not part of the Veir Leger.

Naturally, this short essay barely touches the subject, but I hope that it gives the basic necessary information and prompts you to your own research,


Posted in The "Street Defense" series | Leave a comment

Recent and Upcoming Events.

Me and animal actor Damu the wolf from the Windsong Project.

Just a note on recent past and upcoming events involving The Ring of Steel.  We appeared as guest speakers and demonstrators at the 2nd Vancouver WebFest where Joanne and I presented a furious rapier and dagger duel in full costume. I co-sat a Q&A with stunt coordinator Kirk Jacque on fight direction and set safety, and Joanne and her assistants presented a flying demonstration with her beautiful falcons and hawk, then set on a Q&A with other participants about the use of animals on the set.

The WebFest was a great success and we look forward to participating in future festivals.

We will also be appearing as sword and falconry demonstrators and lecturers once again at the Victoria Highland Games on the weekend of May 16 – 18th in Victoria, BC.

Stay tuned for an illustrated article on the four guards of the German school of Longsword!

Posted in The "Street Defense" series | Leave a comment

And now, on the theatrical side…

Myself as Ritter Hans Kirschner in the soon-to-be completed “HIGHLANDER: DARK PLACES,” smoking a Turk. My role was shot entirely on green screen, which, with the proper compositing and CGI team, saves us from the time and expense of location shooting, a significant concern for lower budget projects.

Posted in The "Street Defense" series | Leave a comment


In the near future, stay tuned for an article and pictorials of the Vier Leger (four guards) of the classic German school of Longsword, and an interesting piece on the techniques of Grain Sickle fighting – yes, SICKLE FIGHTING – by Mair. (see illustration as a teaser)

Posted in The "Street Defense" series | Leave a comment

GEORGE SILVER: Professional Italiophobe

“Heh, you Italians – get off my lawn!”

George Silver definitely had some issues with the Italian schools of fence. Let’s take a look at them using Silver’s own words.

George Silver wrote his treatise “Paradoxes of Defence” in 1599. In it, he puts forward what was to him, in any case, a cogent argument against the rapier. His contention was that it was an ineffectual, indeed, effete and effeminate weapon.
“These apish toys could not free Rome from Brennius’ sack nor France from King Henry the Fifth his conquest.”

Well, true to a point. But no one in his day was about to fight with a Gladius Hispanica which probably might not have fared well against an English backsword. And it also ignores the fact that the victories of Henry V and his predecessors against the French at Agincourt, Crecy and Poitiers were largely due to the employment of the longbow, not the sword. Nor had anyone ever suggested that the rapier was a weapon of war. Indeed, one of the theories of the origin of its name is that it derives from the term “espada ropera,” or a “sword of the robes,” which seems to strongly imply that it was a civilian rather than military weapon. Further, a close reading of Silver’s Italian contemporaries, Di Grassi and Saviolo, make no mention of the rapier being a weapon of war. It is also a fact that during Silver’s day, the face of battle was becoming increasingly dependent on the firearm and the pike.

There was also an implied upper-class snob appeal of the rapier. The times were changing and Silver apparently wanted no part of it. In addition to the rapier being perceived as a predominantly Italian weapon, there was also openness to adopting new ideas including the concept of what constituted honour and what it meant to be a gentleman

Cultural and societal influences notwithstanding, there’s also a great deal of commentary on Silver’s part that speaks to either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Italian swordplay.

His contention is that the cut is superior to the thrust (although he does recommend that the thrust be used) – a reasonable conclusion considering his own weapon of choice. But it ignores the medical fact that a thrust that penetrates internal organs causes massive bleeding. It is thought that more people succumbed to hemorrhage or septicemia after the duel was over than were actually killed on the spot during the fighting itself.

Another of his contentions is that were you to measure the distance of a cut and compare it to the distance of a thrust, they are one and the same with regard to distance travelled. He also contends that a cut can be delivered faster than a thrust. He uses, by way of illustration, two duelists, both with rapiers which “not be crossed of either side.” One makes a cut, the other a thrust and “the measure of the distance or course wherein the hand and hilt pass to finish the blow” shall be “in distance, all one.”

I have occasionally wondered whether or not he was referring to the distance between opponents rather than the distance traversed by the sword, but I see no real evidence to support this.

First, geometrically speaking, the distance of an arc and a straight line cannot be equal in length. Ask Pythagoras. Second, with regards to speed, a cut from presentation of the guard to completion requires, at the very least, the rotation of the wrist, whereas a thrust can be delivered by simply dropping the point and possibly by the simple extension of the arm.

As for deadliness, this is a relative thing. As the Roman historian Vegetius observed, it requires only two inches of penetration to kill. But a sufficient blow hitting an artery is equally as deadly – in fact, not considering traumatic shock which adrenaline in a heightened physical state promotes and can help to temporarily mitigate, a pranged artery often kills faster than a perforating wound where death can often occur much later due to the aforementioned septicemia. But in either case, accuracy is necessary.

Silver is also skeptical that “they never teach their scholars, nor set down in their books the perfect length of their weapons, without which no man can by nature or art against the perfect length fight safe, for being too short, their times are too long, and the spaces too wide for their defence and being too long, they will be upon every cross that shall happen to be made … the cross cannot be undone in due time.”

Well – first, there is no “perfect length” since humans don’t come in a single standardized size. And there actually are Italian texts that refer to the optimal length of a rapier blade as it relates to drawing the sword or as a proportion of the human body. The only reason sword blades – and here, we are speaking of military swords of a later period – became of a standardized length was because they were being mass-produced for the army and no consideration of any variation of length from sword to sword could possibly be accommodated.

If Silver is suggesting, (and personally, I don’t think he really is) that blades must be of a “perfect” – perhaps uniform length in order to be ‘safe” bespeaks of a rather dangerous inability to adapt to your opponent. And as for being unable to reposition a blade quickly and efficiently when swords, either accidentally or by design, cross blades, Silver seems unaware of the Cavatione, or disengage  or the Cavatione Angolata, the cut-over– moves commonly taught and practiced in his day. Or at least in Italy…

Silver also disdains the rapier on the grounds that its blade or hilt is incapable of withstanding a good downright manly blow from a heavier sword. Well, I’m here to tell you that, so long as the weapon is of good quality, yes, it can. I’ve practiced with both swept and cup-hilts against very fine replicas in design, weight and balance, of backswords and broadswords. But it also seems that George had never been exposed to the concept of the void, or simply stepping back out of distance. Many Englishmen of George’s class (which, incidentally, was not Upper) regarded any back-stepping as shameful. The Italian master Vincentio Saviolo, however, had a somewhat different take, saying “There is a difference between retiring orderly and running backwards, for to hit and retire is not discommendable.”

Silver himself has some interesting comments on the concept of measure, breaking down a lunge into several parts, one of which is “lying spent,” the time between the full delivery of the lunge (and ostensibly the hit) and the act of recovering the lunge. This seems to indicate a (hopefully) very brief period where the body is left fully exposed to retaliation. If anyone has a different interpretation of this period of tempo, I would appreciate correction.

Surprisingly enough, George does like the Spanish system of rapier play, the Destreza, although he believes it is a system “wherein a man with small practice in a very short time may become perfect.” Although its fundamentals might be considered to be “simple,” anyone with any real knowledge of the Spanish system must surely understand that it’s anything but.

I could continue, but Paradoxes of Defence is widely available, including on the Internet. Read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Now – does all this mean that Silver was just an ornery old crank whose methodology was without merit?

No, not in the slightest. First, Silver was a very credible practitioner who was more concerned with the sword as a weapon of war or a tool for serious self-defense, not a dueling weapon. Indeed, it was his contention that not only the introduction of the rapier but the Italianate ideas accompanying it were leading to frivolous and oft fatal dueling. And when it comes to “traditional” English weapons, George offers sound advice.

Silver admonished Englishmen to “cast off these Italianted, weak, fantastical and most devilish and imperfect fights” and return to “their own ancient weapons.” In other words, he wished the old ways preserved, regardless of whether or not they had any current validity in the society that was evolving at the time. And, of course, he was also trying to state a patriotic case for the validity of his own teachings against what he saw as dangerous competition.

For better or worse, George and his contemporaries ultimately lost. In 1624 the Monopolies Act struck down the warrant granted to the English Masters of Defence and within about ten years, many of them were out of business for refusing to adapt to the changing times.

Now for those who might think this article is about fomenting against George Silver and his Italiophobia, there is a greater issue here with regards to validating historical sources, including from contemporary documents. Were you to have read Silver without also reading Bonetti, Saviolo, etc, you would be presented with a very slanted (and in some instances, utterly unfounded) impression of the Italian methods of fence of the day. You might even be tempted to disregard studying Italian swordplay altogether, and this would do you a great disservice. Silver is, after all, just one man and his opinions are tempered with his own agenda. Similarly, Johann Joachim Hynitzsch, writing in the late 1600’s, accuses Nicoletto Giganti of not only publishing Fabris’ second book under his own name in 1622, but also contends that Giganti is ignorant of the art of fence. However, since he gives no examples of this alleged ignorance, his accusation lacks credibility. As for Silver’s criticisms of the Italian school, some of them evince a false historical perspective while some others are simply demonstrably wrong.

As always, when reading critiques of other masters and systems by their contemporaries, you should always ask “is there an alterior motive for this criticism,” or at the very least, “is there physical validity to the criticism?”



Posted in The "Street Defense" series | Leave a comment


From the Fiore text.

Blocking a Murder Strike.
Match these positions with the descriptions in the text.
From Talhoffer: Note the hooking action into the inside elbow.
A thrust from Upper Snake

I’ve often seen fight scenes in movies depicting two knights, fully clad in articulated plate armour, slamming the mortal hell out of each other with swords. This, needless to say, is about as effective as flogging a rhino with a broom handle. Swords are designed to concentrate kinetic energy into a tapered edge and they do this very well. Unless, of course, your target is a metal surface that includes a lot of curved surfaces designed to slip blows away. There are faster, more effective ways to dull your edge: might I suggest a rock…

Armour, however, does have weak points, some of which are the result of the suits’ need to articulate to allow a full range of movement. These areas are generally not practical to attack with the edge. But the point is another matter.

 Half-swording is the technique of using a longsword (and also applicable to the single-handed sword) where the right hand retains its position on the grip while the left hand moves up to grasp the blade. Where it grasps the blade is determined by the technique you have decided to employ. The upper hand positions can be in the middle area of the blade, (which is good for powerful thrusting) the lower third (also good for thrusting with the pommel braced against the body, or to defend against thrusts) or the upper third of the blade. (which is good for the precise placement of the point at close range)

The hand can be pronated (knuckles facing up) or supinated, (knuckles facing down) again, depending on the position of the sword and the technique to be employed.

 The targets for fully armoured combat are the visor, the armpit (which, because the opening in the cuirass needs to be sufficient to accommodate the arm’s full rotation from the shoulder, and is often protected with chain mail sewn onto the gambeson – the padded jacket worn under armour) the inside of the elbow joint, the throat, (if protected by a chain mail aventail or camail) the groin area. (which is also often protected by a curtain of mail, and which target includes the high inside thigh at the top of the cuisse)

 Let’s take a look at a few positions found in the FLOS DUELLATORUM written by Fiore Dei Liberi in 1409, arguably the most extensive treatise on combat of the period, containing techniques on longsword, single sword, horse combat, wrestling, etc. There are three versions of this text: the Novati/Pissani-Dossi, the Getty and the Morgan. Let us examine his five main half-sword guard positions.

 THE SHORT GUARD (sometimes call The Snake)

 Here, the sword is held at the level of the lower abdomen with the pommel just above the right hip. The right hand is grasping the blade in the forte, supinated, about eight to ten inches from the quillon. (cross-hilt) This provides for a powerful thrust backed by the entire body. The pommel could conceivable be braced against the abdomen. Fiore’s text notes: “I have a sharp point to penetrate harnesses.” Here, I would suggest that the “harness” in question is a hauberk of mail or a brigandine, which is leather sleeveless vest inside which are fastened small metal plates. A thrust against a steel breastplate would not be effective. The left foot is the forward foot.


 In this guard, the sword is held overhead, just above the helmet, both elbows bent, the left hand grasping the blade immediately below the weak (the upper third) in a pronated grip and the point angled down about 45 degrees. This position provides protection against cuts to the head and upper body and also, as Fiore put it, “levels out great thrusts,” where a thrust to the body can be deflected with the upper blade. The left foot is forward.


 Here, the hilt is held at or just slightly below hip level with the elbow lightly bent. The right hand is holding the blade supinated at the middle of the blade, close to the chest (the left hand being about level with the solar plexus) and the point angled up about 45 degrees. From this position, powerful thrusts can be made and the body defended by warding off thrusts with the upper portion of the blade. The left foot is the forward foot.


 The body is turned away from your opponent so your chest is facing to your left with your right foot forward. The sword is held across the front of the body with the hilt being held low, just below the level of the right hip, and the left hand grasping the blade in a supinated grip just below the upper third and held slightly below or level with the left breast, the point angled 45 degrees upwards. This position invites thrusts which can then be turned aside by pivoting from left to right, then dropping the point onto a target and increasing your thrusting power by passing forward on your left foot.


 The right foot is forward, with the sword’s hilt being held at roughly hip level just above the right thigh. The left hand holds the blade in the lower portion of the upper third in a pronated grip. The blade crosses the lower abdomen. The hilt is higher than the point, which angles down so that the point is just above the level of the left knee. This position is good for defending against thrusts or cuts, a strong position from which to close for grappling, and can easily be raised to Upper Snake or Arrow to present the point for thrusting by passing forward onto the left foot while the sword is in motion.


 It goes without saying that the German school of longsword employed half-swording or Halb Schwert technique. Such methods were taught by the great German master Liechtenauer, and turn up in the treatises of Ringeck, Talhoffer, etc. Naturally, many of the guard positions and applications are the same as found in Fiore, albeit with German names. Therefore, Upper Snake becomes Ochs, (the Ox, since the presentation of the point resembles the animal’s horns) The Arrow resembles Pflug, (the Plow) the Bastard Cross is similar to a modified Alber, (the Fool)except unlike the Alber position where both hands are retained on the grip, the Halb Schwert position has you more or less facing your opponent chest-forward, with the left foot leading and the sword held across the body at groin level with the hilt just off the right hip and higher than the point, and the Short Guard is a modified Vom Tag (From the Roof) where the sword is held, left foot forward, with the right elbow pointing straight back, the hilt held at a level just in front of the right armpit, and the upper hand gripping the blade in the middle with a pronated grip and the point angled slightly up.

As with the rest of the German school, the concepts of the Vor (Before) Indes (the Inbetween) the Nach, (After) techniques of winding, binding and “travelling after” all apply.

The German technique also includes Schlachenden Ort, (the Battering Point) which describes the use of the pommel in … well… pummeling your opponent. That is, after all, where the phrase comes from.

Ringeck, in his KUNST DES FECHTENS,  in the section dealing with Versetzen (deflections) documents a method for employing the grip and pommel in an interesting fashion. Holding the sword in half-sword grip, after your opponent has deflected your thrust, you can drop your point, setting his blade aside to your left, and, stepping in, deliver a pommel-strike to the left side of his head which can then be followed up by hooking the  lower portion of your sword’s grip around the back of his head (hooking from your left to right) and pulling down with your grip hand, elevating the point high with your left (essentially creating a lever action) and, using your forward leg as a fulcrum, pull him off balance, possibly even throwing him.


 Before we close this essay, here’s an exercise you can do with a partner.

Start with your left foot forward and the sword already gripped in half-sword position, angled across the front of the body as in the above description of Alber. (this position makes the exercise simpler)

Your opponent cuts straight down on your head, the German Zornhau or Cut of Wrath. Bring your sword up straight in front of you to parry the blow in the middle of the blade, well away from your upper hand.

Now, you will notice that the cross-hilt of your sword (the quillons) is presented so that turning the wrist slightly will bring the quillons into a position where the arms point straight up and down.

From this position, stepping forward on your right foot, and maintaining the height of your defensive guard, (ie: above and in front of your head) turn from the hips to knock your partner’s blade to your left with the quillion, stopping your action so that your pommel points directly at his face, and with the sword’s hilt inside the line with your left shoulder and with the cross-hilt vertical.

Now, with a fast punching action (if you were doing it for real – I would hope it goes without saying that you will do this slowly and totally without contact) drive the pommel into his forehead. In real life, you would not follow his head as it rocks back – the nature of the blow would be more akin to a jab than a punch.

As his head snaps back, exposing his neck, turning the body from the hips from left to right while simultaneously stepping back with your right foot to your original left-foot-forward position, guiding the upper portion of the blade with your left hand, slash the false edge and point across the right side of the neck (taking the carotid artery) and throat. (again, no contact!)

From this position, if you haven’t over-rotated to the right, it would be further possible to follow up the slash with a thrust through the throat.

Any practice of technique, especially if done without an instructor present, must be done wearing the minimum of a fencing helmet with a throat gorget. Gloves would also be advisable provided they do not fit loosely. Practice must be done slowly and precisely. The safety of your partner is in your hands and must never be compromised.

 So – Half-Swording – in a very brief essay. Needless to say, this barely scratches the surface of this useful technique. But the purpose of this and other essays is to create an introduction and basic understanding that will hopefully encourage further personal research.

 So… go forth and play nice.







Posted in The "Street Defense" series | Leave a comment

Additions to Spanish Rapier

Spanish rapier, Thibault school.

I have known Maestros Ramon and Jeanette Martinez for some time now and solicited their comments and corrections my essay on the Destreza. I have studied Spanish rapier play for some time now, but don’t consider myself an expert. Ramon and Jeanette are; indeed, they are internationally recognized as such. Here are some corrections and clarifications they gave me, for which I am vey grateful and which I now share with you. These are all direct quotes from Jeanette’s letter:

“The so-called term “Magic Circle” never existed in any of the Spanish writings on Destreza. However, the term “Mysterious Circle” only exists in Thibault’s magnum opus.”

“The term “esgrima vulgar” is not referring to “common fencing”.  The common school of fencing was termed “Destreza Comun”.  “Destreza Comun” refers to the common methods of swordsmanship that were followed in Spain prior to the foundation of “La Verdadera Destreza” of Carranza.”

“As you cite Pedro de la Torre, Jaime Pons and Francisco Roman, we cannot know exactly what they practiced or taught as none of their written works have come to light. Therefore, we cannot make commentaries on what they practiced.”

“Esgrima Vulgar” is known mainly through the writings of Narvaez in where he catalogues some thirty or so vulgar techniques.  “Esgrima Vulgar” were the methods/techniques/tricks  that were mainly utilized by the ruffians, bravos and street hoods of the period. Practitioners of both “esgrima vulgar” and “destreza comun” were none-the-less very dangerous adversaries.”

“In regard to Thibault; he was not part of the main stream of the Spanish school as he had his own take on swordsmanship. Narvaez for instance did not at all appreciate the work of Thibault and in his last work (published posthumously) called him the “Dutch author” and said that “he was putting out a mal-digested form of destreza and that his book should be submitted to the sepulcher of neglect”.  Therefore, when discussing La Vedadera Destreza Thibault should not be considered as having a prominent place.”

“You are citing Alvaro Guerra de la Vega. Unfortunately, your translation is not quiet accurate. For instance you use the translated term “short-cut” for what I recall is the Spanish term “atajo”. The term “Atajo” is a loaded term (with many levels of meaning and comprehension) that at present times has been vastly misinterpreted with the resulting inaccuracies followed by misapprehension.”

This is what I want this site to be – a discussion – an exchange of informed opinion. One of the things I wanted to do was to expose readers from the novice to the seasoned practitioner to a large venue of historical weapons technique. I’ve been studying the use of historical bladed weapons for 43 years now, but I really only consider myself to be well studied in a few – German Longsword and Italian rapier, for instance. As a professional fight choreographer, it’s necessary for me to be a generalist with as much specific knowledge on a wide range of weapons as possible. This, of course, also includes non-European weapons which have only a limited place in this site by way of comparisons. The Martinez are specialists, exponentially more knowledgeable in the Spanish system than myself, including the fact that my command of Spanish could be only charitably described as sketchy. Jeanette’s contribution to this essay is greatly welcomed and has increased my own knowledge of this wonderful art for which, again, I thank her.

I don’t know it all, ladies and gentlemen, and that’s not false humility – no one does. To declare that you know everything there is about even one art is to declare yourself either delusional or a fool. If a week goes by without my learning something new, I consider it a wasted week. I sincerely appreciate the complimentary comments this site has received but I would genuinely also appreciate input – new information – corrections, etc. This is how we all learn.

I would encourage you all to visit their school site: and also



Posted in The "Street Defense" series | Leave a comment


Example of a hand parry with reposte from the Angelo text

Parry of Prime (1) from the Angelo text
Parry of Seconde (2)
Parry of Tierce (3)
Parry of Quarte (4)
Parry of Sixte (6)
Parry of Septime (7)
Parry of Octave (8)

I thought I’d follow up the sabre parrys with this piece as soon as possible so the readers have a reasonable repertoire for defense positions for both cutting and thrusting weapons. After all, the basic precept of fencing is to hit without being hit.

I’ve written several pieces on the Smallsword so I don’t plan on reiterating any of those points here; it’s quite simple to go back and review them if you wish.

The primary thing to remember is that the Smallsword is a thrusting weapon. Therefore, its defensive parrys differ considerably from a weapon that must deal with cuts which generate a large amount of kinetic energy. There is only one exigency in Smallsword defense (at least when facing another Smallsword) – divert the point from its target. This means that Smallsword parrys can be closer to the body in terms of the body profile. The modern fencing foil has its nascence in the period of the Smallsword, being created as the Smallsword’s practice weapon.

You’ll notice in the photos that the wrist is turned out but the point is still in line with the center of the body. This is to facilitate a fast reposte or counter-thrust. It is a truism in fencing that making unnecessarily large movement with your weapon in defensive actions not only opens up other areas of your body for a second-intention attack, but also slows your counter-action, your weapon having more distance to move to accomplish a reposte. You will also notice that the point does not drop or elevate significantly, partly for the same reason, but also because it’s unnecessary when defending against a thrust rather than a cut.

Since Smallsword is a thrusting weapon (although point-cuts created by a fast turn of the wrist, similar to the Spanish mandoble were certainly used) offensive moves tend to be small and fast, utilizing a disengage to bring the point in line with a target, or to defeat a parry. Beats on the blade or gliding actions with pressure against a perceived weak presentation of the opposing blade are also used in offensive actions. Therefore, a counter-disengage is quite common to begin a parry, which can be accomplished with either finger or wrist action. The circular parry, coming over your opponent’s blade from either the inside or outside line, was also common. Generally speaking, a disengagement underneath your opponent’s blade would send deflect it in the upper parrys of tierce, quarte or sixte whereas coming over the blade would send the attack into the lower parrys of seconde, septime or octave. Again, the idea is to keep the motion small, the sword action being sufficient to simply divert the point past your body. This, of course, includes your sword arm. Also note the position of the hand since the difference between, say the parry of 3 and the parry of 6 is that 3 is held in pronation (knuckles up) while 6 is supinated. (knuckles down)

You will also notice that the body is not in a position where the chest is turned out to the extent we see in modern competitive fencing. One of the reasons for this is that the left hand was still being used to deflect thrusts to facilitate keeping the sword free for instant response. The Smallsword, lacking a cutting edge, was also capable of being seized by the off-hand. And, on some occasions, a small dagger or poniard was still being used in the left hand, although this was not in any way common practice. The lantern was also used in training for defending ones’ self at night.

 Some masters advocated using your cane or your scabbard, held near the middle, as a parrying implement although I’m not sure, in a spontaneous situation such as a robbery attempt, that getting the scabbard free from the belt could be accomplished in a timely fashion.

 It should also be mentioned that I have not depicted a head parry which was similar to a parry of quinte, since this is not an effective method for defending against the point. However, Smallsword schools recognized the possibility of having to defend against someone with a cutting weapon. Indeed, it is the opinion of some scholars, that the thick forte at the base of an early form of Smallsword, the Colichemarde, was to facilitate defending against a heavier weapon such as a Spadroon or sabre.

 I have also not illustrated the parry of prime, since it is essentially the same as the prime parry depicted in my sabre parry essay, and I have included a picture of it from the Angelo text. This parry can be somewhat problematic since it’s a rather broad movement and also drops the point significantly. While this wouldn’t restrict a cutting weapon’s reposte, it is a difficult position from which to re-assert the point for a thrust.

 Defense was also accomplished or augmented by body movement such as the inquartata and other voids.

Finally, I would strongly advise a fencing mask when practicing these techniques (which should also be practiced slowly) especially since any thrusting weapon is particularly dangerous where the face, throat and eyes are concerned. Play sensibly.

Posted in The "Street Defense" series | Leave a comment