While Dr William Gaugler's The History of Fencing promised to be the long-awaited successor to Egerton Castle's Schools and Masters of Fence (1885), it has proved a disappointment to the historical fencing community.

My first impression upon opening the book was surprise at the fact that the amount of space devoted to each century seemed to be in inverse proportion to the importance of fencing in that century.

There are 29 pages on the 16th century, the same number on the 17th, a mere 19 pages on the 18th century, 205 pages on the 19th century and 148 on the 20th. As well, not only does Dr Gaugler begin, as did Castle before him, with Marozzo, but we have only the barest mention of anything that went before. Anyone without a knowledge of the scores of great masters who went before Marozzo, masters whose work Marozzo undoubtedly drew from, could be mistaken for thinking that fencing sprung fully formed from the brow of Zeus (as it were) in 1536.

To add to this we are told in the Preface that "Since all contemporary schools of fencing in the western world are derived from Italian and French sources, focus in this work is on treatises published in those countries. Rapier play in the other two early schools, the German and the Spanish, in fact, closely resembles the Italian model." (p. xv)

Quite apart from the fact that this statement has taken us from The History of Fencing to "The History of Those Bits of Fencing From Which Modern Sport Fencing is Descended", the statement is wrong. While German rapier play drew heavily on Italian, Spanish did not. In fact the teachings of the Spanish school of rapier play are remarkably different to those of the Italian, as anyone who has studied both will attest.

The main body of the book is separated by century; I'm not sure why as it introduces artificial boundaries within reasonably static periods of fencing and fails to recognise the true periodisation of fencing history, that is by weapon.

On the subject of weapons, one would expect in a history of fencing to see at least some discussion of the weapons, how they changed and how these changes affected fencing styles. Instead in the first chapter we are limited to the following:

"The simple type of rapier shown in the illustrations to Achille's text has a short grip, large spherical pommel, crossbar, and long, slim straight blade that tapers to a point." (p.2)

In the second chapter we receive another tidbit:

It should be noted that the author is one of the first Italian masters to mention in his text both the practice rapier (smarra) and the foil (fioretto). The introduction of the lighter practice weapon, that is to say, the foil, is, of course, important, since it contributed to the development of the fast and complex fencing technique we employ today... (p. 47)

Later on we are told that "In many respects Francesco's Regole della Scherma represents the final major work on Italian rapier play. Within a century modern Italian foil technique is taught in virtually all fencing schools from Milan to Palermo." (p.56) Yet at no point have we been told what a rapier or a foil is. Anyone unfamiliar with historical fencing will almost certainly assume that the word foil refers to the modern sport fencing implement. A rapier foil is a quite different beast to a modern foil. Dr Gaugler should know this, and should have been aware of the confusion the name would cause.

Throughout The History of Fencing there seems to be an almost conscious effort to avoid the issue of weapons and their effect on style. Without examination of the physical characteristics of the weapons, many of the developments in fencing style seem inexplicable. In this sense the book is a retrograde step from Castle's Schools and Masters of Fence (1885), which, despite criticising the use of long, heavy rapiers, at least correctly identified the limitations that a weapon heavier than a modern foil or epee placed on the practicality of certain techniques. A reader unfamiliar with even the basics of fencing history could be forgiven for believing that the weapons used in fencing have remained fundamentally the same since 1536.

Within each chapter are sections on individual fencing masters. The basic teachings of each master are summarised. A great deal of this material is useful, particularly as much of it comes from untranslated Italian manuals. However, the material from each manual is treated in isolation. Only rarely are techniques compared with those of other masters and interpretation of any kind is rare.

The one occasion on which Dr Gaugler ventures into analysis is in the section on Camillo Palladini (pp.10-15). Dr Gaugler interprets a fencing phrase. He states:

When the weapon has been drawn from the scabbard to form the first guard Palladini recommends crossing blades on the outside; and, as the opponent moves to thrust in the low line, the point of one's own weapon should be dropped, and a beat in second executed, succeeded by a thrust to the adversary's chest, while stepping forward with the left foot. Two phases of the action are shown in drawings. In the first illustration both fencers are depicted on guard with swords crossed, points up; and in the second, the action is shown completed with one fencer having run the other through. Today we would describe this action as a beat in second in time (hand position in second) and thrust to the outside low-line with a cross-step forward.

The two illustrations in question do not appear in the book but they are included (alongside the identical text) in an article by Dr Gaugler in the In Ferro Veritas Online Journal Vol.1 No. 3. The first illustration show the two fencers in a low or terza ward with rapiers crossed. The second illustration shows the losing fencer having dropped his point and commenced a disengage to the inside line.

The victorious fencer has his hand in seconda (palm down), his forte against the forte of his opponent, his left leg forward and his point in his opponent's belly. My first reaction upon seeing this was to ask "If this is indeed as a result of a beat then why are the two blades in contact?" A beat "succeeded" by a thrust is also a defence in double time, the beat being one time and the thrust being the second.

Double time defences are extremely rare in rapier fencing and are almost never used where a single time defence is possible. Based on the data available to me I made my own interpretation of the technique. My interpretation of the sequence was that the victorious fencer had counterthrust in single time, doing so in seconda in order to provide opposition to his opponent's initial thrust.

The losing fencer had thrust and the victorious fencer simultaneously counterthrust with opposition while passing forward and to the left with the left leg (this takes him outside the line of the losing fencer's attack). An almost identical sequence is described by Vincentio Saviolo in his manual of 1595 (page 20 verso — also 14 verso because some of the pages, including this one, are double numbered).

Saviolo described the technique as an "imbroccata in the manner of a stoccata" or in other words a blow delivered with the hand prone, nevertheless striking below the opponent's rapier hand. I have successfully used this defence in many rapier bouts and consider it far better than the variant suggested by Dr Gaugler.

Now just to complicate matters, I sent some of my thoughts to Dr Gaugler. Apparently he was greatly offended by my tone which is a pity as Dr Gaugler has much to contribute to any discussion of rapier fencing. Anyway, Dr Gaugler replied, stating amongst other things that what Palladini intended was indeed a beat and he included the relevant passage in which Palladini does indeed use the Italian term for a beat, battere.

I would very much like to examine the entire passage, but let's assume that Dr Gaugler's interpretation was correct. This sequence is the only rapier fencing sequence described by Dr Gaugler. Why has he chosen one so uncharacteristic of rapier fencing as a whole and more importantly, given that he chose so uncharacteristic a move why didn't he see fit to state that it was uncharacteristic?

This brings me to another point. While Dr Gaugler has a great many useful quotes from rapier fencing manuals it is immediately apparent to anyone familiar with the rapier that he has ignored or misinterpreted many techniques not still used in modern fencing. Taking, for instance Fabris (1606), Dr Gaugler appears to cover the contents of each chapter in some detail, but does he?

Principles and techniques still used in modern fencing are dealt with competently. However, in chapter six we come to a principle that is quite different to modern sport fencing practice, that of defence in single time. Fabris spends most of the chapter telling us how simultaneous defence and counterattack is more effective with a rapier than a modern fencing style parry-riposte. Fabris' preferred method of single-time defence is the counterthrust with opposition, a counterthrust which closes the line of the attack, simultaneously parrying an opponent's attack and striking him.

Dr Gaugler summarizes the bulk of this chapter in one sentence, in which he demonstrates that he has misunderstood what Fabris was teaching. "In this chapter he also remarks that 'it is better to parry and riposte at the same time;' in other words, the riposte should be immediate." (p.33).

Dr Gaugler has translated the word ferire to mean riposte which is odd since it is clear from the use of the word earlier in the chapter that Fabris intends it in its modern sense, to wound. In his own Dictionary of Universally Used Fencing Terminology, Dr Gaugler defines a riposte as "the attack that follows the parry" (p.52) and goes on to say that the riposte may be immediate or delayed.

So clearly Dr Gaugler assumes that Fabris is recommending a modern-style parry-riposte despite the fact that the bulk of the chapter is explaining exactly why Fabris thinks that this technique is flawed. In chapter eight Fabris tells us about parrying with the hand. Dr Gaugler makes no mention of this important technique. In Chapter 13, Dr Gaugler translates the word passare as advance rather than its modern meaning, pass.

This is despite the term being defined as a pass in the English language manual Pallas Armata (1639). A pass of course is a foot movement where one foot moves past the other, as in a normal walking motion. It is as fundamental to rapier fencing as the lunge is to modern sport fencing. Part Two of the manual, dealing with rapier and dagger and Book Two, discussing for the most part advanced uses of thrusts with opposition are not even mentioned. The uninformed reader would have no way of knowing that Fabris' manual contained anything other than an incomplete collection of imperfectly explained modern fencing techniques.

So much for Fabris. Other authors, like Saviolo (who I have worked with extensively) contain so many techniques foreign to modern fencing that Dr Gaugler simply glosses over their works. In the three pages which Dr Gaugler devotes to Saviolo he doesn't progress past describing the first ward and mentioning that Saviolo advises against the use of cuts. Most of the three pages consist of quotes from that great opponent of rapier fencing, George Silver which is like summarizing the Bible and only including quotes from Pontius Pilate.

The greatest fault that I find in the first two chapters of Dr Gaugler's book are the omissions, and the message that those omissions will send to people with an interest in rapier fencing. While these omissions do not constitute mistakes as such, I believe the failure by Dr Gaugler to adequately describe the fact of, and the reasons for those omissions constitutes a grave error.

To start with, I find the title of this book misleading. On the one hand we have 'The History of Fencing' and on the other we have 'Foundations of Modern European Swordplay'. Putting both of these statements together suggests to me a work which describes the history of fencing and which draws special attention to the roots of modern practice. In fact Dr Gaugler's book does not do that.

He describes selective parts of the history of fencing, down to the level of describing only those aspects of an individual master's work relevant to modern practice and ignoring the rest, thus leaving the uninitiated with a completely false picture of what that master's style was like. Even if Dr Gaugler had once said that there were other principles and techniques not relevant to modern fencing and hence to his thesis; but he doesn't.

For all he says one could assume that nothing different to modern practice existed; and that's just it, people will assume that. People looking for an excuse to think that rapier fencing was simply a dumbed down version of modern fencing will find nothing in this book to suggest that their view is not entirely valid. One single line saying that material not relevant to the thesis was being ignored would have sufficed but now those people who do poorly researched historical fencing have a work by an eminent man which appears to defend their ahistorical practices.

In his Preface, Dr Gaugler states that "I have selected works that, in my opinion, will best help the reader follow the evolution of fencing theory and practice in those two schools." (French and Italian) (p.xv). As Dr Gaugler has not adequately described fencing theory and practice in the Italian rapier school (if it can be described in such a monolithic fashion) then he has failed to do what he said he would. He also says that "I have sought to provide the reader both with insight into technical matters, and if possible, a flavour of the historical period in question." (p.xv) By ignoring those techniques unique to the rapier 'period' Dr Gaugler has failed to give any flavour of the period.

Historical Fencing is a discipline struggling to be recognised as a legitimate pursuit. The vast majority of its practitioners, while well meaning, have little experience and have no access to competent tuition. These people are in desperate need of authoritative secondary source material to assist them. If secondary sources give an inaccurate or biased picture of historical fencing systems this information will be used by those enthusiasts who sadly know no better and historical fencing will be the worse for it. Unfortunately, by omitting material critical to a proper understanding of the rapier and by virtue of the errors present in the material that is included in The History of Fencing Dr Gaugler has, in my opinion, done historical fencing a disservice, by reinforcing the preconceptions that many aspiring historical fencers have about the rapier.

The History of Fencing