Why Study Classical Fencing?|
Art Or Sport?
IFV Classical Fencing Method
"Sparring" is one of the terms in common usage today that is very annoying
because it creates a distorted modern view of how training should be
perceived and conducted. The use of the word "spar" completely obscures any
attempt to understand the frame of reference of the swordsmen, fencers,
warriors or combatants of the past which is key in gaining knowledge of how
weapons and practice weapons were used. To further elaborate on the
inappropriate use of the word "spar" and/or "sparring", I summit the
For the earlier periods of the Renaissance and Medieval eras the terms (which are found in Spanish and Portuguese texts of the period)"ensayo" or "ensayar" meaning "rehearse" or "practice". For the medieval period there has also been misuse of terminology and one of the most blatant examples is the term "pas d'armes". "Pas d'armes" has been used to describe weapons practice when in reality the true meaning of the term has absolutely nothing to do with training or practice. A "pas d'armes" is an elaborate ritualized form of combat which was done in the fifteenth century that involved staging, acting, and a storyline that put the combat within a context. A single challenger declared his intention to defend a narrow pass such as a bridge which was depicted in the set up of the scenery or represented by the lists themselves. The challenger would defend this area against all comers. The term (Assalto)"Assault" is used by Achille Marozzo in his treatise "Opera Nova" 1536 for the practice of specific techniques in the form of prescribed sequences.
In the 16th and the 17th centuries the Italian term for sword-practice is "L'Esercizio della Spada" (The exercise of the sword) and "Esercizio di Armi" (Exercise of Arms) weapons practice, both these terms were used to describe training and practice. In 17th century France the term was "l'Exercise des Armes" meaning the same thing as the Italian term "Esercizion di Armi". In addition within the 17th century the term "assault" was used to describe or in reference to the actual practice of fencing within the schools. Liancour mentions the "Assault" in his treatise of 1686. Although he does not mention exactly what the assault is he gives us an indication by telling us "that the foil used for practice is lighter then the foil used for the assault".
William Hope also in the late 17th century used the term "Assault" and devoted and entire treatise to the practice of the "Assault" in the school. The title of his book; "The Fencing Master's Advice To His Scholar: Or A Few Directions For the more Regular Assaulting in Schools." 1692
Monsieur Labbat in the 17th century used the term "Assault" to clearly
differentiate it from the lessons.
"Lessons and Assaults are only valuable when the Application and Genius make them so"
Labbat 1696 (English translation by Andrew Mahon 1734)
The term "assault" continued to be used into the modern era in France, Italy, Spain and England. For example; In the Italian schools the term "assalto" was used as can be seen in the writings of Rosaroll Scorza and Pietro Grisetti.
"The assault is the execution of all of the principles of the art of arms between the combatants: and presents the true image of a combat." Eudaldo Thomase 1823 (my own translation of the original Spanish)
Therefore we can see that the term "Assault" had the same meaning from the late 17th century into the early 20th century. It meant an encounter between two fencers in which all of the art, science and skill that has been learned is brought into use to demonstrate mastery and superior swordsmanship. This is where fencers put into practiced the lessons that they had learned and their purpose was to best their opponent. In the schools of arms there were codes of rules that were enforced which regulated "Assaults", it was never anything goes.
The modern definition of "Assault" is; a bout between two fencers in which any hits are not officially counted.
(As an aside this brings us to the modern term "Bout" which is an encounter between two fencers in which the hits are counted as part of a competition.)
Let us take an even closer look at the term "Sparring"
In "The Badminton Library" 1893 in the volume on "Fencing, Boxing and Wrestling" the chapter on Boxing is titled "Boxing and Sparring" In this book the author distinguishes "Boxing" from "Sparing" in that the later is done with protective gloves and the former is done bare knuckle which he states is true boxing. It can be observed from this that it is clear that there is specific meaning to the word "spar" which was accepted and understood in that era.
My late father was a boxer (active in the late 1920's and early 1930's)and I have several acquaintances that box and continue to box. I have asked just what is the exact meaning of "sparring". All have answered in pretty much the same manner.
In "sparring" the boxer or fighter is not attempting to defeat his opponent, he is in fact working on perfecting a certain type(s) of technique(s) that is part of his overall repertoire. This is one of the reasons that prize fighters work with a variety of "sparring partners" because each presents a difficulty that the fighter must learn to overcome by working a specific technique over and over again. In "sparring sessions both of the participants are not working at all out speed or power but on refined execution and honing of skills. These sessions are not "bouts".
"Sparring" had always meant the practice of pugilism until the advent of the Oriental Martial Arts popularity that began in the 1960's and really emerged in the 1970's with Bruce Lee's popularity. The OMA not really having a term that translated well and that fit into the English vocabulary borrowed the term "sparring" to describe the type of practice that Westerners following OMA engaged in, taking within its meaning not only pugilism but many other of the OMA including weapons practice. In this venue somewhere along the way in the assimilation of the OMA into western culture the term "sparring" became misused and came to have the meaning of engaging in fighting sessions.
This is where the distorted conception of what "sparring" is originates from and unfortunately it has been introduced into European Fencing and Swordsmanship. It has been my observation that this conception has been re-enforced by many who have had their beginnings in martial arts practice in the Oriental Martial Arts (as taught and practiced in the West) and who are now engaged in European Martial Arts of the Medieval, Renaissance, and later periods. These individuals whether by intent or ignorance have brought in a type of frame of reference into European Martial Arts which does not fit into western practices, mentally, psychologically, philosophically nor spiritually. This is where the real danger is, in that if those who practice European swordsmanship and Fencing do not wake up, the mutant that will emerge will be a distorted hodge-podge of ideas, teaching and training practices that will bear little if any resemblance of what I hope all of us involved in Historical and Traditional Classical Fencing are working toward preserving and resurrecting.
There are much more historically and traditionally appropriate terms that
should and must be used be used.
Let us take a closer look at the exact definition of "Sparring"
*Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary Of The English Language 1996
As can be clearly seen the term "sparring" is not the same nor does it have the same connotations as the term "assault" and is therefore inappropriate to use in reference to swordsmanship/fencing.
There are and have been appropriate terms for the training and practice of swordsmanship/fencing.
The Italian word "Schermo" means; Screen; protection; shield, to use as protection; to ward off a blow with ones hands.
*Eskermir, Eskermir, Eskermiss-to fight with a sword, fence)of Skarmush, from Old French, Eskarmouch from Old Italian Scarmuccia, of German origin.
*Skirmish-2. Any brisk conflict or encounter.
*Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 1996
*Scaramouch*Late fourteenth-century term for encounters between groups of soldiers, which has come down to us as "skirmish". The French "escaramouche", from which was created the Middle English "scarmuche", a fencing engagement, was spawned by the Italian "scaramuccia"
*Forgotten English; by Jeffery Karcirk 1997
So far we have looked at 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th century terminology a period of approximately 500 years and the term "Spar" or "Sparring" for the practice of swordsmanship/fencing does not appear.
In a school of arms a student would be taught all of the technical aspects
Instead of the word "spar" or "sparring" it is correct to say "Fencing", "Assault", "exercise of arms", "practicing", or even "Skirmishing" as they all have historical precedence. To sum up I believe that the term "spar" or "sparring" is incorrect, misused, has no historical precedence, and does not describe what is being done. Which in turn leads to negative, incorrect connotations in today's practice of traditional fencing, historical fencing or historical swordsmanship.
All involved in European Martial Arts, especially in European Swordsmanship and Traditional Fencing must at all costs avoid bringing into our respective practices incorrect use of terminology and philosophy that leads to an inappropriate mindset. Otherwise we will perpetuating the image and character of what has become known as "the martial artist bully boy chest beating board breaker" who is also shunned by all who practice the Oriental Martial Arts traditionally. I urge everyone to kill this monster in its infancy before it contaminates our beloved art and science.
Swordsmanship/fencing and the study of weapons and combat has for centuries been called the "Noble Science". It should not be allowed to be debased by those who can not, or choose not, to rise to the art & science. Nobility and tradition are to be upheld and not looked at with contempt.
"I hold that the principal and true profession of the Courtier must be that at arms; which I wish him to exercise with vigor; and let him be known among others as bold, energetic, and faithful to whomever he serves"-
I hope that this will be of assistance in the understanding of the nature of how training was conducted centuries ago.
[ Return to Top ]
The Naked Truth | If I Had a Hammer
The Sabre's Edge | Swordfight at the OK Corral
How to Defend a Monopoly | A Propos d'un Accident
The Dubious Quick Kill part 1 | The Dubious Quick Kill part 2
Review and Commentary | Duels with the Sword | Starting with Foil
Liancour's Tercentenary | The Manuel d'escrime of 1877 | The Military Masters Fencing Program
Analysis of the Patton Fencing Manual | The Red Court Fencing's Royal Connection
| The Practical Saviolo part 1 | Saddle, Lance and Stirrup
Demystification of the Spanish School 1 | Demystification of the Spanish School 2
Demystification of the Spanish School 3
| A Brief Look at Joseph Swetnam
| Ithacan Retains Title | Third Time's a Charm
Cross-Training Not Cross-Purposes | Riposte Direct | Use of the Word "Sparring"
Chivalry Makes a Come-back | Teachings of Marozzo |
IFV Inc is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt not-for-profit educational corporation.