A Fechtschule in late 16th-Century Germany

The Encounter

Reconstructing Ancient Martial Arts

Sword and Buckler Fighting among the Lost Crusaders

Renaissance Sword Techniques in A.D. 150!

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Smollett, Tobias. The Adventures of Roderick Random, (1748), Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, (1979) 1981; p. 210.

2. In specific cases, coincidentially similar weapons may imply the use of a similar combative system, thus presenting the possibility of comment-like combat. For example, a spontaneous life-and-death rencontre between gentlemen armed with and trained in the use of smallswords would probably resemble a smallsword duel or even training match in all but the fighter's perception of risk and fear level.

3. We define a weapon here as a) offensive, actively defensive: edged tool specifically designed to effect death, injury, damage, or control in combative situations; b) passive defense: garments or device worn or carried to limit potential damage or injury inflicted by opponent's offensive weaponry.

4. Kegan; p. 145.

5. Period or retro-sports inlude recent efforts to revive and reconstruct historic fighting systems.

6. Former World Foil Champion Allan Jay wrote: "As a 'steam foil' international, I well remember that a French or Italian foilist had only to shout 'hé la' and a hit was scored against his opponent. Not only this, but with four judges, it was virtually inevitable that at least one judge was of the same nationality as one of the competitors in the pool. In this event, it often occurred that the decision of one or more judges was dictated by the interests of his fencing compatriot." In his Preface to Crosnier, Fencing with the Electric Foil; p. 11.
 

The Encounter

According to the preceding considerations, I have enhanced existing classifications by adding a few new categories, first and foremost the concept of objective and subjective risk, as well as the concept of projected intent. (Projected intent is the subjective individual interpretation or assumption of what the antagonist's intentions are, which correlate closely with the perceived risk he poses.)

The two main distinctions in combative edged-weapons systems are antagonistic and agonistic scenarios. In antagonistic scenarios, the opponent is considered hostile, posing a real or imagined threat to life, bodily integrity, or status. In agonistic scenario, the level of hostility is low. The opponent is either a competitor (sports fencing) or even a collaborator (theatric fencing).

I. Antagonistic combat

All antagonistic fight scenarios are carried by highly divergent intents or motivations:

  1. to achieve absolute dominion over the opponent
  2. self-preservation

Both intents coexist simultaneously, a) with or b) without implicit adherence to a set of rules that is characteristic of Comment combat scenarios. Intent can be conscious and unconscious.

All antagonistic combat scenarios share one single objective: To end the combative situation as quickly as possible by neutralizing the opponent.

Neutralization of the opponent can be achieved by

  1. killing him
  2. precluding further continuation of combat due to
    1. physiological incapacitation
    2. conditional/regulatory incapacitation (First Blood, doctor's decision)
  3. disarmament
  4. forcing the opponent' capitulation or flight by
    1. exerting psychological pressure (resulting, for example, in dodging or "Kniesen" during a Mensur)
    2. cumulative non-incapacitating injury
    3. a combination of mutually perpetuating psychological stress and physical injury (duel Nadi vs. Contronei)Antagonistic scenarios can be segmented into the following sub-groups:

A: Combat for absolute dominion and/or survival

"In the midst of extreme violence, there is only action. Remember, we aren't talking about a sport here, where you can have the luxury of a referee, strategy from the corner, and rules to protect you."
Greg Jones,
Predator Training

"If your bayonet breaks, strike with the stock; if the stock gives way, hit with your fists; if your fists are hurt, bite with your teeth."

M.I. Dragomiroff,
Notes for Soldiers, c. 1890

The fight for dominion or survival is entered either as an aggressor or defender, implying voluntary, or directly or indirectly coerced consent. Combative activity can take place between one (or several) attackers and one (or several) defenders, or among attackers and counter-attackers (melée). It can occur either spontaneously (rencontre and ambush) or with premeditation (ordeal).

A perfect–if fictitious–example of antagonistic combat is given by Tobias Smollet in his picaresque novel Roderick Random: Apart from a remnant of habitual courtesy, this fight has it all: The seeking and taking of unfair advantages, the use of different, unmatched weapons, as well as the utter lack of regulation or target restrictions:

"As soon as I set foot on terra firma, my indignation, which had boiled so long within me, broke out against Crampley, whom I immediately challenged to single combat, presenting my pistols, that he might take his choice: He took one without hesitation, and before I could cock the other fired in my face throwing the pistol after the shot. I felt myself stunned, and imagining the bullet had entered my brain, discharged mine as quick as possible, that I might not die unrevenged; then flying upon my antagonist, knocked out several of his foreteeth with the butt-end of the piece; and would certainly have made an end of him with that instrument, had he not disengaged himself, and seized his cutlass, which he had given to his servant when he received the pistol.

Seeing him armed in this manner, I drew my hanger, and having flung my pistol at his head, closed with him in a transport of fury, and thrust my weapon into his mouth, which it enlarged at one side to his ear.

Whether the smart of this wound disconcerted him, or the unevenness of the ground made him reel, I know not, but he staggered some paces back: I followed close, and with one stroke cut the tendons of the back of his hand, upon which his cutlass dropt, and he remained defenceless. I know not with what cruelty my rage might have inspired me, if I had not at that instant, been felled to the ground by a blow on the back part of my head, which deprived me of all sensation."1

Scenarios:
Battlefield combat (melée), combat of champions; rencontre.

Motivation/Intent:

  1. achieving domination by neutralizing the opponent or as many opponents as possible as fast as possible;
  2. self-preservation by neutralizing the opponent or as many opponents as possible as fast as possible

Projected Intent:
Opponent is perceived as lethal threat to one’s own life; the assumed intent usually coincide with a full or even exaggerated personal identification with the highest possible risk level.

Conscious awareness of risk and level of consequence:
Full or latent awareness of death or serious injury.

Fear Level:
High

Stress Level:
High

Objective risk:
Death or serious injury

Combative systems:
Coincidental, mainly dominated by spontaneous, primary response, dictated by coincidental offensive or defensive weaponry, environment, state of mind; can be preconditioned to a degree by drill and experience.2

Taboos:
None, encounters are uncontrolled and unsupervised, often unwitnessed; each fighter attempts to achieve any advantage over the opponent, including control of time and space (ambush), physical characteristics (size), or weapon-immanent advantages (cavalry riding down infantry.)

Weapons:3
a) & b) mismatched or coincidentally matched

Level of skill:
coincidental, large variants

B: Comment combat

Comment combat (from the Germanized French word "Comment", meaning "set of rules") implies voluntary or indirectly coerced consent. Combative activity usually takes place between two individuals or detailed groups of individual. It occurs with premeditation, with equality of risk and foreknowledge of the consequences4. Comment scenarios contain the possibility that the physical outcome of the fight could be assumed to have been achieved by the intentional absence of one of the combatants.

Scenarios:

  1. Legal institution: Ordeal
  2. Social institution: Duel
  3. Prize fight with sharp weapons
  4. Ritualistic combat: Mensur

Motivation/Intent:
To kill, control, or disable the opponent while adhering to a clearly defined, enforced or implied code of behavior

Projected Intent:
Opponent’s is perceived as lethal threat to one’s own life or bodily integrity.

Conscious awareness of risk and level of consequence:
Full or latent awareness of death or serious injury.

Fear Level:
High

Stress Level:
High

Objective risk:
Death or injury

Combative systems:
Equally matched, dictated by offensive and defensive weaponry, environment, state of mind; preconditioned by drill and experience. Strong ritualistic element. Specific combative systems are specializations of practice systems.

Taboos:
Enforced or implied notion of "fair play", i.e., adherence to set of rules; selected target areas are protected by defensive weaponry

Weapons:
a) & b) intentionally matched

Level of skill:
intentionally similar

II. Agonistic combat

Competitive combat implies voluntary consent. Combative activity usually takes place between two individuals or detailed groups of individuals. It occurs with premeditation.

The critical difference between agonistic and antagonistic is the attitude toward the opponent, who is perceived as partner (in Olympian scenarios) or non-hostile or even friendly competitor.

A: Competitive combat

Scenarios:

  1. "Olympic": sport/recreational combat: sports fencing, competitive kendo, SCA pageants & "wars". Olympic scenarios focus almost exclusively on competitive "winning" or assertion of superior skill level.
  2. "Olympian": conditioning combat: practice for Comment, dominion, or competitive combat (kendo, "Pauken", singlestick, Medieval & Renaissance tournament), period or retro-sport5. Olympian scenarios, named after the immortal denizens of snowcapped Olympus, are the sand-box games of the active fencers. They take place on a low level of competitiveness, and with near complete absence of consequence. There's usually nothing at stake, and nothing to be gained except for the individual's reaffirmation of being good at something.
  3. Playing the prize.

Motivation/Intent:
To competitively assert superiority of skill ("winning") and achieve control by scoring a predetermined number of clearly defined objectives while adhering to a clearly defined, enforced, or implied code of behavior. Potential of "winning" by default or by external manipulation.6

Projected Intent:
Opponent is perceived as competitor for control

Conscious awareness of risk and level of consequence:
Remote possibility of injury, complete absence of hostile intent; no disadvantageous physical consequences are tied to the termination of the encounter (Exception: the "broken head" in public singlestick competitions or the German Fechtschulen)

Fear Level:
Low

Stress Level:
Low to medium

Objective risk:
Remote, controlled possibility of injury

Combative systems:
equally matched, dictated by convention and environment (which is standardized and replicable by clearly defined spatial dimensions); preconditioned by drill and experience.

Taboos:
Enforced notion of "fair play," i.e., adherence to set of rules; selected target areas are protected by defensive weaponry

Weapons:
a) and b) intentionally matched and standardized, specifically designed to eliminate risk of injury; consensual disarmament, e.g. by restriction of defensive & offensive repertoire ("covering target" in fencing)

Level of skill:
intentionally similar

B. Theatric combat

Scenarios:

  1. stage combat (unbroken sequence)
  2. film combat (broken sequences)
  3. re-enactment fencing

Motivation/Intent:
To create a premeditated, replicable, choreographed effect for the spectator

Projected Intent:
Opponent is perceived as non-competitive collaborator, not as opponent.

Conscious awareness of risk and level of consequence: Remote possibility of injury, complete absence of hostile intent; no disadvantageous physical consequences are tied to the termination of the encounter.

Fear Level:
Zero

Stress Level:
Low

Objective risk:
Remote, controlled possibility of injury

Combative systems:
Selective elements applied in sequence or out of sequence to create effect in a controlled and specifically designed environment that has been arranged and choreographed to achieve the desired effect.

Taboos:
In absence of hostile or competitive intent, risk is minimized. Safety of the opponent is a paramount concern.

Weapons:
Intentionally matched or mismatched, specifically designed to eliminate risk of injury while creating desired effect.

Level of skill:
Intentionally similar

While these categories still require further expansion and fine-tuning, they already allow a much closer comparative evaluation between edged weapons combative systems. This may be less entertaining than musings about who’d come out on top in a match of Nadi vs. Musashi, or cutlass vs. foil. But I believe they allow for a more accurate classification and evaluation of systems.

Note: This is a short excerpt from The Secret History of the Sword. To order from amazon.com, click here.

 

Home • Reviews • Biography • Sample Chapters
Links • Order the book • Contact the author