What happens when each fighter comes against the other body to body (corps-á-corps)? Is all fencing stopped, or is some minimal amount of bumping and jostling permitted? What about what really could happen in a fight, where grabbing and pulling of clothes occurred as well as tripping, face knocking, arm locking, wrist twisting, hair-pulling, eye-gouging, biting, hilt-striking, etc.? Is this all ignored or are fencers at least instructed in how to safely engage in or prevent their being grabbed, pushed, tripped, or caught in a head-lock? Are all these things merely assumed to be universally negated by the application of "proper" fencing skill with the single sword, or is the unpleasant reality considered?
12. Is grappling and wrestling ever taken into account?
Historical accounts of both grappling and wrestling in Renaissance-era sword combats and duels abound. These skills were common among fencers of all classes into the 17th century and beyond. But such skills were dropped from later forms of private combat within the code duello. In your fencing, if two combatants do close upon one another does all action then cease? Or if a seizure or disarm should be employed, does action again cease or are the fencers able to explore the counter-techniques of grappling and wrestling as a defense against an armed adversary? What happens if you are disarmed or drop your blade? Would you know how to continue with any chance of success?
13. Are dissimilar tools utilized?
Except in arranged duels of honor, seldom were weapons carefully compared before fighting to ensure uniformity of length, weight, sharpness, balance, or other quality. Does all your fencing occur between two equally-paired weapons, or do you appreciate the experience of facing a shorter or longer blade, a lighter or heavier blade, a wider or thinner blade? What about weapons of different hilt styles, such as those that can aid in parrying and trapping?
14. Is there any recognition of the difference between the effects of attacks upon different parts of human anatomy?
Wounds to the limbs do not produce the same results as those to the head or body, and those to the face are not the same as those to the torso. Does your simulation recognize the effects of wounds to different portions of the body? Does your fencing take this into account and teach appropriate tactics or does it treat all hits as causing the same degree of "incapacitation"? Does it even allow for targeting of the whole body in the first place, or does it impose artificial restrictions upon the freedom to strike at any vulnerable part of an opponent’s anatomy? Further, does your fencing always cease action after a single hit, or are the combatants ever allowed to continue on to make successive hits within an exchange of actions?
15. Does it encourage or rely on the exercise of test-cutting?
It is easy to make claims about what different sword forms could or would do without ever actually trying it out. It is also easy to misinterpret the different degrees of "cut" that can be made with different techniques of assorted blade types on a person. Whether foyning-fence or cut-and-thrust fence, can you really make assumptions without personal experience in using sharp blades on test targets? Does your fencing incorporate the practice of hitting with a true edge using the correct physical mechanics to actually cause maximum results? Are different swords and different target materials utilized for cutting practice? Or is cutting with a real sword considered something "obvious" and "easy" that requires no real effort?
16. Does it teach you to draw your weapon?
Fighting with swords was not always about facing-off with an opponent until a third party verbally started things with an official instruction. Being able to unsheathe your weapon in a quick and efficient manner (as well as possibly stifling the opponent’s) was at one time a skill to learn. Does your fencing take into account the drawing of a weapon or of even wearing a belt and hanger, or does it all occur only after blades are drawn and combatants face off at a set distance? Combat did not all occur as formal duels but more often as sudden ambushes and violent assaults. Do you ever even practice attacking from different distances and even from a running attack or is it always started from the same standardized range?
17. Is mock-combat approached as if it were real?
In reality we only have one life to risk and there are no "points" to "score" in earnest fights for survival. To serve its true purpose of preparation for real encounters, mock-combat must be conducted with an attitude that appreciates the inherent danger and consequences of fighting. Do you approach it with the understanding that the penalty for failing to defend is your death, or just the loss of a match? Is there a realistic degree of hesitation or apprehension in fighting because you are aware of the lethality of techniques as well as the need for actions to be performed safely in order to prevent accidental injury to your partner? Or in contrast, is your fencing so safe and so focused on scoring that you are free to attempt any attack on an "opponent" regardless of how exposed or vulnerable it would leave you in real combat with sharp weapons?
These questions above show there can be far more to fencing than the duel of single sword against single sword. Modern fencing, like many other combat sports today, is approached as a "non-lethal combative." Quite obviously, there are techniques a fighter, as opposed to a sportsman, wants in his arsenal that the other does not, and vice-versa. The former seeks skill for theoretical real life and death encounters, the latter, for winning within the agreed rules of a game.
We might further consider that whenever historical fighting methods –that were devised for real weapons to actually kill and maim –are applied for purposes of sporting play, there is a significant and profound change that must occur as a result. The ancient goal of training to learn to defeat real opponents with martial efficiency and deadliness is replaced with the idea of scoring points by following agreed upon rule restrictions.This surely leads to a misunderstanding and misapplication of the overall method for properly handling a weapon lethally, in favor of what works in the sport. When practitioners have to study the instructions of the old masters in light of what they are “allowed” to do “under the rules”, it changes the entire outlook of how and why they practice their swordplay in the first place.When you practice with a true martial spirit, handling weapons and moving as if to kill or be killed, it changes your outlook and your understanding.It is profoundly different than practicing to win a game –even when such games are hard-fought emotionally charged athletic contests. The significance of this difference within the modern reconstruction of historical European martial arts cannot be understated.
These same criteria above can also be applied to determining whether or not your fencing is a martial art or a performance art, in other words, whether it is either display oriented or combat oriented. Does it have as it goal the execution of a ballet-like series of choreographic movement patterns or the development of spontaneous execution of techniques with adversarial-counter timing? Is it applicable only to the conditions of solo presentation routines, or can it be applied effectively against an opponent in free-play?
These questions address concerns relevant to historical fencing study. Considering these questions helps to approach the subject of historical fencing from the context of a true martial art, an earnest combat skill –its original purpose. In conclusion, it is clear there is much to consider that is simply outside the purview of traditional (i.e., classical or modern) fencing study and this reflects the perspective the ARMA takes toward the subject in its own practice. One of the best questions to consider in your fencing then, is: If you had to fight a real duel in say, three months, would you train differently than you do now?If so, why not train that way already?
I am a leading authority on historical fencing and one of the world’s foremost practitioner-instructors of Medieval and Renaissance fighting methods. http://www.thearma.org
Techniques and Tutorials 
(0 vote)
