Godinho One-Lesson Crash Course

I previously published an abridged lesson I used for a grading. It was really an abridged version of this. I decided I needed to condense it more depending on students (so to be more accessible). Since I posted up the abridged copy, here’s the full one.

Godinho One-Lesson Crash Course

Purpose of this course:

This course is to try and squeeze in the most relevant material of Godinho to one lesson. Participants should come away from this course with enough knowledge to look like they are fencing Godinho’s style. The course assumes some basic fluency in the principles of fencing. People having done this course should be able to fence in a way that superficially looks like my interpretation. This course needs to be delivered fast if it is to keep to one lesson. There is a lot of ground to cover.

Introduction: Explain that Domingo Luis Godinho was a Portuguese fencing master and wrote his book in Spanish. He was a contemporary of Carranza so almost predestreza in that the monopoly on Fencing in Spain had not been won. To this end Godinho saw what he did as virtuous and artful fencing, even if his kind were labelled vulgar after. This describes to the student his significance. They can also talk about what weapons he uses (sword, sword and shield, sword and buckler, sword and dagger, sword and cloak, double swords and montante), or his attitude towards bracer (brazal) which he hated. An explanation should be made that his sword resemble what we commonly refer to side sword, as was common in Europa in that period, not just in Iberia. Should be explained as a disclaimer that much is not clear about Godinho.


Stance and Established (Firmado):

Godinho does not say a whole lot about his stance, or what being established means. My idea is that as Godinho states that all guards are finger-nails up or finger-nails down he is not too particularly about height of sword or arm extension. You should ‘definitely’ explain what you mean by finger-nails up and down for clarity), relating them to Fourth and Second if need be. The recommendation I have adopted for Godinho then is to have the arm somewhat extended, so there is room to thrust and do blade actions but it is not entirely withdrawn. I also correspond fingernails-up to an inside posture, and fingernails-down to an outside posture. The alignment of the body then to me should look somewhat Meyeresque, being aligned with the body and shoulder but squared enough to use the off-hand so as to perform mandoplado (slaps). The firmado (established) I initially believed to simply be an extended and ready posture, but I have come to like the interpretation of it being a distance or measure, as brought up to me by Jessica Silvallana.  To this end, I would advise that people should take small non-commital steps until moving into effective combat distance, where their blades are crossed at the weak or maybe even in the middle.

How to move:

Despite having a chapter labelled how to step, Godinho still is not clear on how he moves. As explained to me by Lois, in Spanish what has been translated to ‘put’ and ‘place’ has a different meaning, which is not clear to someone having read the Tim Rivera translation with no understanding of Spanish. This has been instrumental in how I interpret Godinho’s stepping exercise. My interpretation of his stepping exercise is that the left leg gains, while the right leg takes a more definitive step. The cuts are delivered as cross cuts, and the thrusts are delivered as direct parries (in conformity with his thrust-rules). So what is delivered in this course is that they take small and safe steps with a gain (or half-step) and the take big actions with their right, and they use cuts to keep themselves safe, and parry with thrusts in the most direct way. Combined with the stance and firmado prior this gives a very clear form to emulate.

How to attack: You attack to the enemy’s point so your weapon is strong in the attack (strong vs weak).

How to cut: You cut with a conservative lunge, you cut with your dominant foot each time. This is introduced in this way to contrast it with the steps before. Godinho follows this up right after his stepping exercise so it is clear there is a difference between active cuts and passive cuts. Godinho is not a huge fan of cuts. He has situations where he prefers a cut, but I believe that you should make cuts very conservatively as they are very easy to counter with a thrust. Cuts are tajo or reves, forehand and backhand. Cuts can be given be given with a proper arm motion, like with the elbow, or they can be done with the Wrist which is how they refer to wrist cuts.

How to thrust: Like the cutting exercise you thrust with a conservative lunge. Further parameters are given in chapter 1. You thrust towards the enemy’s point or weak, this has the best chance of negating their attack. You would likely thrust higher to gain strength but its best to target their height as rule of thumb, especially as the true edge, body and step add strength to the riposte. You also thrust finger-nails up to attacks made to your left. You thrust finger-nails down to attacks made on your right.

Summarising the three rules of chapter 1:

  1. Finger-nails up to the left. 2. Fingernails-down to the right. 3. Counters are delivered at same height.

So with all this combined you get an aggressive style where you fluidly move into blade presence and can interchange between cuts and thrusts until you have accomplished your goal.

The content following this has been labelled non-core as while it provides versatility and includes some important motions it is no longer seen by me as the fundamental actions.


Treta (trick): Godinho treats treta as feints. A feint should be a genuine threat if they decline to respond. Easiest way to set up feints is to string cuts or thrusts together, but do so to the opposite side you intend to attack.

Gaining (ganar) testing (tentar) and freeing (librar):

You can test (tentar) their sword with beats, this being made against their weak. You should also engage and ganar (gain) on the middle of their blade to set up actions. Against the strong they have advantage and against the weak they can disengage easily. This means you can free (librar) your sword too if they attack towards your weak. Can relate these to stringere, beat and disengage.

Ripping (rasgar) or breaking (romper): Essentially a molinello/Moulinet. Best done against a thrust as you can use it to be past their point. So this is a momentary hanging position followed by a cut.

Mandoble: use the timing of crossing low to attack high, best used as a way to enter distance against someone with their sword low.

Garatusa: Kind of like an envelopment if it ended with a beating motion. You circle around their sword to thrust the leg or push it away and thrust another target. Example given is starting finger-nails up.

Mandoplado (slap): Simply explain you can hand parry and that he describes it as slapping their sword towards the ground. Advise to use it against thrusts.

Arrebatar (carry/cut away): seems to either be cutting through their attack to attack with a follow up cut, or cutting into their attack to reverse direction and cut into them. Not really explained by Godinho. Examples you can provide: tajo followed by a tajo (full), or tajo into their sword and do a reves from there (half).

Wheeling step (Pie de Rueda): Stepping so your feet cross, wheeling in place. The example given is exactly like an inquartatar or girata ending with forth.

Quibro (bend): void out of the way without moving your feet. Usually by leaning back and putting your weight on your left.

Balanzada: Small step back with your non-dominant foot, and then return with a thrust. My preferred way of delivering the thrust is like a Passade with the left leg.

bolver la mano (turning the hand, also enarcada or curved): Best way I understand this is to say thrust finger-nails up and use the motion of turning finger-nails down to curve around their parry. A more arch like motion could be done by finger-nails up thrust to their right, and using the finger-nails down motion to disengage organically under their sword/parry.











Abridged lesson: Godinho at a glance

This is a lesson I did up for a grading. It was made for me, with notes, so sometimes it more points out things to remind me, rather than explaining things. I guess the use will probably be how I structured it, as this was my attempt to give a single lesson introduction to a class unfamiliar with the material.

Abridged lesson: Godinho at a glance

Introduction: Godinho was a fencer in Portugal who wrote his book in Spanish. Being published in 1599. It represents the only surviving example of the pre-Destreza esgrima común common fencing. Derogatorily referred to as Vulgar. It has been linked to other masters, such as Tim Rivera’s comparisons to references to Pedro de la Torre’s fencing.  Obviously, this doesn’t resemble Destreza or what we usually teach. This is a crash course, kind of fake at Godinho, at least the impression of Godinho that I’ve built. Upfront, I am going to rush through a lot of stuff. Think of it as taster. Questions will get ‘he doesn’t say’ kind of response, Godinho is not clear.


Godinho’s states that all postures are fingernails-down or fingernails-up regardless of height or position. So, I substitute the blanks with my former practice, and am not going to get prescriptive about things. While doing exercises, think about how you’re positioned when standing or moving. We know he hand parries and punch thrusts so that informs us a little.

Stance exercise: Name some generic footwork. Call out footwork, suggest people change between guards, or make an attack with the step.

Firmado (established):

I thought firmado might mean established as in stance, but I think now that is more like narrow distance in Italian fencing (convinced by Jess), the blades having met but not with either party being in a good position.

Lowering your sword:

Godinho frequently refers to lowering your sword. I have interpreted it two ways. First example of lowering your sword is the punch-thrust, yet Godinho refers to these by name. The second example is literal. This would work when performed with the quiebro and balanzada (demonstrate but no time for this stuff). Point out how the hand naturally wants to go into a neutral position, finger-nails up or down.

Lowering the sword exercise: Practice doing the motion (lowering the tip). Practice both if you want. Afterwards explain the possible use.

Ganar (gaining):

Ganar Pacheco said is gaining on their sword with the tip/weak, but Godinho says the middle, making it in practice like an Atajo, so Pacheco is a liar.

Exercise: Instructor and student. Start out of distance. Move until the weak of your blades are touching. Student will then gain. Swap. Repeat but with a thrust.

How to step: 

Despite having a chapter labelled how to step, Godinho still is not clear on how he moves. As explained to me by Lois, in Spanish what has been translated to ‘put’ and ‘place’ has a different meaning, which is not clear to someone having read the Tim Rivera translation with no understanding of Spanish. This has been instrumental in how I interpret Godinho’s stepping exercise.

My interpretation of his stepping exercise is that the left leg gains, while the right leg takes a more definitive step. The cuts are delivered as cross cuts, and the thrusts are delivered as direct parries (in conformity with his thrust-rules). So what is delivered in this course is that they take small and safe steps with a gain (or half-step) and the take big actions with their right, and they use cuts to keep themselves safe, and parry with thrusts in the most direct way. Combined with the stance and firmado prior this gives a very clear form to emulate.

How to step exercise: Guide students through stepping, as in stepping with the cut. A gaining/passata step with the tajo, and a complete step with the reves.

How to cut:

Godinho’s instruction on cutting is a conservative lunge (a lunge is straightening your back leg with a step). He doesn’t explain if you cut your tajo reves with the same leg or alternate. Not going to be prescriptive on what the cut is (but explain my thoughts, circle cuts).

Exercise: Lunge and recover. Try cutting tajos and reves’ with the left leg, and with the right leg.

How to attack:

Related to this, if you do attack, presumably without gaining first, you aim towards their tip. This means that you are in a position to pre-emptively close them out since the tip of the sword is where their threat comes from. Demonstrate/explain don’t do as an exercise.

Summarising the three rules of chapter 1:

  1. Finger-nails up to the left. 2. Fingernails-down to the right. 3. Counters are delivered at same height.

Explain how this works. This can be made into a partnered exercise.

My summary of Lois’ Figueiredo Translation

So Lois Spangler is a member of one of the clubs I train at. I had access to her translation as she did her drafts. Recently she released her translation to the world seen here: http://www.storytrade.net/hema/destreza-sword-and-dagger-in-oplosophia/

Before that, I did this summary up, my attempt to say what figuieredo took many words to say, and sometimes I left it pretty much as it is when I was not sure what he was saying. Anyway, in case anyone else gets value out of it I have posted it here.

I think I did this around 01/01/2020.

If you look at the original, you can see what paragraphs I’ve summarised and how I have summarised them.

Lois’ translation of dagger practical summary: 

Chapter 1: 

Off-hand weapons better defend, cover or safeguard the body.

Offensive and defensive.

Accompany the sword.

Sword and dagger is defensive by artifice and offensive by nature. (only the cape was not mentioned as being offensive).

Sword and dagger is pre-eminent.

Chapter 2: 

Spanish are best at sword, so pick offhand weapons complimentary to the sword.

Don’t teach these companions before teaching the sword. Fundamentals get neglected.

The sword alone informs everything else.

Chapter 3: 

Dagger is first due to its defensive and offensive capabilities, and its quickness and grace.

Dagger wielder is obligated to use the sword and dagger to parry ‘blows’ to the body and protect the (off?) hand.

Dagger cannot be subjected.

If dagger alone parry two palmos from yourself.

The dagger can offend, and is good at this if you’re brave and a Diestro acts safely so they have safe opportunity to offend with the dagger.

Diestros keep themselves safe by parrying, deviating, and subjecting the opponent’s weapon.

Dagger atajos like a sword, and deviates incoming thrusts, and can interrupt attacks in the first two circular motions.

Chapter 4: 

Dagger two palmos in length total. Third part o the sword from the cross to the point is one palmo, which is one third of the sword. Otherwise it gets in the way.

Dagger grasped firmly, thumb resting against the cross of the weapon.

Arm is held straight.

Dagger guards/covers the Diestro’s centre.

Guard not held too perpendicular (so to avoid the opponent gaining the weak), or so straight out that it impedes the circles of the sword.

Dagger held a little inclined over the guard of the sword. So it is not in any extreme positions described previously.

If you are more knowledgeable in LVD: Hold the dagger with the arm folded and resting against the body. So it can be applied as needed. Attacks from this position should be given below one’s own dagger, and cover parts that the sword can’t. Particularly during offline movements of tajos and reveses.

Dagger is intended to deviate the opponent’s sword toward one side or the other, and to perform minor parries, primarily against reveses, which are taken within distance.

The remaining movements are taken by the sword, except strikes and attacks, because sometimes the dagger strikes and attacks, so both are equally offensive.

Footwork makes up for the dagger’s shortness and so the dagger and sword exchange roles in many instances.

Chapter 5: 

Dagger is all strong.

Dagger operates close to the centre.

All its circles are best with the wrist.

There are four ways for the dagger to take on the effects of the sword: 

  1. Dagger over opponent’s sword, dagger in middle of opponent’s blade (5) when the opponent seeks to gain from either side. If opponent seeks to gain along the outside, dagger must be above and the sword below. Dagger acts to achieve two things: To deviate thrusts to the face, and to make the opponent withdraw their sword.
  2. Without moving the centre of the dagger, and in termo proporcionado. Dagger applied below the opponent’s sword, you take the opponent’s weak with your strong from the inside or outside (vulgar treta ganar). Dagger is directed toward the floor (as we’ve all discussed shouldn’t be too literal, enough to intercept). Dagger wrist is below and beside the sword wrist. Implies the dagger should be this far forward to compensate for the weak of the sword (so its point being more forward then the strong of the sword).
  3. Place dagger to any side, as needed. Elect for shorter motions (shorter proportion). Intercept liberations. Basically intercepting their sword where it departs from, like dagger high to low, but more broadly.
  4. Movements made to the outside of the dagger, whether opponent or diestro attacking. The dagger serves to parry, to test (vulgar treta tentar, can be contrasted with arrebatar), and to persuade the opponent’s sword whether it is still or in motion.

All ways of applying the dagger summarised above. Sword is easily deviated by dagger since the dagger is strong.

Diestro responds proportionally to the strength of the opponent, if an opponent musters a lot of force, a diestro knows to resist proportionally.

Do not hold the dagger too tightly or loosely.

They do not deviate further than the limits of the body (not too far offline).

Chapter 6: 

How the dagger enters with the sword, and how its movements are different

Many prepositions the dagger has against the sword, entering with it, helped by footwork, profiles of the body, and angles of the sword and arm: to better expand the movements of the opponent  or impede his effects by understanding the principles, and over atajos offend securely.

Consider movements to strike, and ones that are not for purpose of striking, and look for ones that help to strike. In Destreza some actions only serve to help other actions.

Figueieredo doesn’t want to supply applications that communicate intentions, even if they uncover the place you mean to strike. It is no less risky to be the one who anticipates, than the one who attacks without understanding or equalising force, and adjusting movement with movement.

The dagger enters against the sword on the sword’s weak with the dagger’s strong. Does this united with its own centre (without moving). The dagger is applied so the body can make an angle and intercept the opponent’s disengages.

The dagger can enter in circular movements, the first action is violent, and with the dagger united with the sword the opponent is prevented from forming angles or making deceptions.

The dagger enters with pre-eminence against thrusts (when thrusts arrive straight).
The dagger uses circles, with advantage of the right line. In doing this it impedes the circular movements of the opponent since the opponent cannot know the beginning of the dagger’s circular movement.
When the body advances, striking with the advancing foot, the opponent cannot escape the many circles the dagger can make. The opponent will retreat and liberate which the dagger can foil.

Thrusts start from an accidental movement and has one single start. Everything is interrupted if interrupted at the start of the chain. This is not the case for circular movements, because anywhere the sword ends up it can wound with a little or a lot of force, and a violent motion.

Dagger is ineffective against circular motions of the sword because of its reach. All other actions of the sword can be contested by the dagger due to the dagger’s universal proportion. Circular ‘blows’ can be received on the dagger as long as its in the centre of the blade, without uncovering the dagger arm.



Summary of Late German Rapier

This was not made to with the intent of being public or on this blog, so if the translators and publishers of work featured here want this article taken down they can message me and it will be done.


My focus of study has been the Late German Rapier style as derived from Fabris (with some influence from Capoferro and Thibault).

I have from the beginning focused on the German lineage, and for rapier this has been my primary focus as well. I have been investigating this tradition for at least two years. Not all of it has been internalised or committed to memory but I have read 98% (super rough estimate) of the resources available on this style. The remaining books to read being Heussler, and the last quarter of Bruchius. Another remaining work to read is Wilhelm Kreußler’s treatise but there is no available English translation to my knowledge.

This document serves as a rough summary, trying to catch both what is fundamental and what is novel about this fencing system. In truth, little will look out of place to the Italian fencer, especially one familiar with Fabris. There are some stylistic differences, and as Reinier van Noort has pointed out the similarities, particularly in phrasing and structure place them in their own visible tradition.

Some passing mention will be made to other styles, but principally this document refers to Thrust-fencing (Stoßfechten). Not all authors mention cut-fencing (hiebfechten) or other forms of fencing but all named authors feature thrust-fencing.


Disclaimer: I have lent my copies of Salvator Fabris and Johannes Georgius Bruchius’ work and so I cannot confirm details in them, I read them some time ago and am acting from memory. I do not own and have not read Wilhelm Kreußler’s treatise. I have only recently acquired Sebastian Heußler’s work and so have not read it.

The information on authors is taken from the manuscripts, the forewords/their translators, and Wiktenauer. If no citation provided should be assumed it is from those sources.

Salvator Fabris (1544-1618)

Salvator Fabris was a prolific Italian fencing master who published ‘Lo Schermo, overo Scienza d’Arme’ in 1606 and represented two books. Book One resembles conventional Italian fencing, like say Capoferro, Giganti or Alfieri, Fabris dubbing this book firm-footed. Book two is the book that receives way more interest from modern practitioners due to its novel way of fencing, proceeding with revolution. Fabris taught not just in Italy but outside of it in Paris and (what was then) Germany. Throughout the 17th century he had his works copied and translated. Both books became highly influential in the area. He is often referenced by name, and sometimes plays and paragraphs seem copied, this is particularly the case with H.A.V. Fabris’ book included Rapier, Rapier and Dagger, Rapier and Cloak, and Grappling. He also has disarming actions and half-swording (referred to as two-handing). Fabris is mentioned here as he was essentially the progenitor of the tradition, directly or indirectly.

Sebastian Heußler (1581 to mid-late 17th century)

I cannot say much on Sebastian Heußler as I only just acquired his work. It appears to be a blend of Capoferro and Fabris and the plates certainly remind me of Giganti. The treatise Neu Kunstlich Fechtbuch (1615) looks quite extensive. Material covered by Heußler is Rapier, Rapier and Dagger, Rapier and Cloak, Dagger, and Flag-waving. I felt he deserved an honourable mention because he was one of the earlier names in the tradition and not a small or uninfluential treatise it seems.

Joachim Köppe (16th century to mid-17th century)

Joachim Köppe also spelt Köppen was a 17th century fencing Master. Köppe is mentioned as one of my main sources more out of affection than use. His rambling made reading his treatise more engaging and human, and his attempt to tell Thibault’s practitioners they did Spanish fencing wrong was humorous, as after dismissing it he even provided his own diagram to ‘correct’ them. His treatise ‘Newer Discůrs Von der Rittermeszigen und Weitberůmbten Kůnst des Fechtens’ was written in 1619. It was influential enough to be plagerised by Bruchius, who was then copied by Schmidt. He said he received Fabris’ book from his personally in Paris, and he spends some time arguing with a hypothetical practitioner of Thibault. He protests that his work is not copied from Fabris but written to reconcile the old tradition with the new. Of German Rapier authors, I read Köppe’s work entirely first and perhaps due to inexperience found it difficult to interpret, I always intended to give it a revisit to see if it would make more sense now. I do enjoy emulating his posture and regularly think back to his commentary on stance, moving and measure. Köppe’s book lays out an order of the art covered, seemingly by priority.

  1. Single Rapier, pede firmo (firm-footed).
  2. Single rapier per caminada (proceeding and passing).
  3. Rapier and dagger, pede firmo.
  4. Rapier and dagger, per caminada.
  5. Cut-fencing and longsword
  6. What you do when assaulted or ambushed.
  7. Half-staff. Commentary on long pike and Halberd.
  8. Grappling.

Despite these listings, the translation I have is only of a rapier treatise. Seemingly this translation is the pede firmo and per caminada sections. I am unsure if he ever finished writing these works, or if they were ever translated.

Johann Georg Pascha (1628-1678)

Johann Georg Pascha, also spelt Pasch, Paschen and Passchen was a prolific publisher of materials. Wiktenauer lists fifteen published works.  Pascha’s works are interesting for a few ways. His early works were written without a familiarity with Fabris’ work but still show the influence Fabris has had on German fencing. It was clear that the tradition had already been exported to Germany and had become part of the scene. Pascha also attributes one of his works to H.A.V which is the most derivative work of Fabris in the German tradition. Reinier van Noort and Jan Schäfer both speculate on who is H.A.V, the leading guess being Heinrich von und zum Velde.[1] Pascha’s relevance to me is that he presents a very orderly treatise, that is a bit dry but still concise. This makes it easy to study and work from. His principles on thrust-fencing are laid out in five small pages (of the translation) and then the rest is practical lessons that repeat a little bit, adjusting similar plays for different footwork or actions. Pascha published material on Rapier, Pike, Musket, Flag, Partisan, Hunting-staff, vaulting and grappling. Much of this material seems to have been copied or adopted by Johann Andreas Schmidt, and by extension Jonas Thomsen von Wintzleben.

Jéann Daniel L’Ange (Late 17th century)

Almost certainly, Jéan Daniel L’Ange was not a French-men as his name implied. Reinier van Noort has delved into the family history to find a German fencing family of the surname Lange. In recognition of this Wiktenauer has rendered the name Johann Daniel Lange which is the German spelling of his name. L’Ange’s work was published in 1664 and titled Deutliche und gründliche Erklärung der adelichen und ritterlichen freyen Fecth-Kunst. What I personally appreciate about L’Ange is his book’s shortness. It is organised in how it is laid out, and it is easy to read, and never dwells on a subject or lesson for too long. He also has a very refined use of hand-parrying and a more extensive than most section on disarms. I find his style does not quite lend itself to the rapier I use, having more in common with courtswords and smallswords, which would be my only criticism, otherwise he would be my first preference of source. L’ange’s work is only thrust-fencing, though it includes two-handing of the sword, and multiple disarms and grapples.

Johannes Georgious Bruchius (Late 17th century)

Like L’Ange previously, Bruchius was active on the upper end of the century, perhaps being born a few years after L’ange. The sword depicted in his illustrations looks even more like a smallsword than L’ange’s. I never quite finished Bruchius’ treatise. I got frustrated trying to interpret his Graduren and moved onto other treatises. This seems a shame as Bruchius’ system looks very thorough and complete, and built upon Fabris, Köppe and Thibault. Having lent the work away to a friend, I cannot investigate it much for this summary. He is neither Italian like Fabris, nor German like other authors mentioned so far, but Dutch. His work is titled Grondige Beschryvinge van de Edele ende Ridderlijcke Scherm- ofte Wapen-Konste and was published in 1671. It includes thrust-fencing, and like previously, it has some disarms and two-handing of the sword. Brian Kirk did a comparison of Bruchius with other texts to show how rounded the influences on his treatise are.[2]

Johann Andreas Schmidt (1650-1730)

Firmly in the smallsword era is Johann Andreas Schmidt. Schmidt published his work Leib-beschirmende und Feinden Trotz-bietende Fecht-Kunst in 1713. It appears to have copied from Bruchius (as noted by Reinier van Noort) and Pascha in sections (at least looks that way to me). Schmidt shows how the lineage survived into a much later era, having been still in practice in the 18th century. Technically I believe Reinier van Noort made the argument that this tradition survived all the way up to SiemenKahne practicing in 1945. Schmidt took onboard the mission to instruct German youth to be proper gentlemen, a rant Köppe made himself much earlier. For example, Schmidt suggests were you not instructed to defend yourself against a water pitcher correctly, you would humiliate yourself by ducking under a table to avoid it. Schmidt mostly adjusts the system in posture, as it is now a smallsword and he is very much imitating the French and perhaps the English. He includes instruction on Thrust-fencing, Cut-fencing, Vaulting, and grappling (seemingly copied from Nicolaes Petter). Notably he includes an extensive section on Proceeding (Caminiren) and includes two sets of rules to advise on it.

Jonas Thomsen von Wintzleben (18th century)

Von Wintzleben published a treatise in Danish, but appears to be German, and uses German and French terminology. Not much worth adding to this, as much of his work is comparable to Schmidt, indeed it seems largely copied from it, even in regard to the illustrations. A novel thing von Wintzleben does add is a kind of spadroon/cut-fencing section that is not an exact correlate with Schmidt and includes a decent commentary on cross-cutting, though I will confess I am not quite picking up on the significance of what he states. His work was published in Fegte-kunst was published in 1756.

Wilhelm Kreußler and August Fehn

I will not say much on Wilhelm Kreußler and August Fehn. I have no copy of Kreußler’s text, and I have only recently acquired August Fehn’s, and have not read it. I have heard the two texts are linked and that they are their own off-shoot, not easily linked to the tradition that is discussed in this summary.

Fencing Concepts and Swordsmanship:

A lot of these concepts will be principally derived from Köppe. While Köppe is often verbose, he is also often clear. There is very little deviation of concepts, though perhaps Köppe differs a little in his understanding of binding and engaging. Basically, Köppe is the theory heavy weight of the team. Some images are taken from the paper form of books I have, others are taken from Wiktenauer, Brian Kirk’s Elegant Weapon blog, or simply found on a google image search. Merely to save me taking photos on my phone.


Best handled by Köppe but there is a strong emphasis placed on being aggressive (though not recklessly so). You generally want them to be responding to you, much like Fabris forcing the opponent to act in the first intention so he is prepared to counter whatever action they make.  There is a metaphor Köppe uses in regard to Luck, that becomes a commentary on initiative.

“Luck’s forehead is bestowed with hair, but from, her skin is bare.”

Working from memory I believe this metaphor is repeated in Bruchius and L’ange. The message seems to be, you take luck, you make your own luck. To Köppe, tempo and measure are arriving at the right time, and this creates luck. He can grab lady Luck by her fringe, but if she has gone past, she is bald, with no hair to grab.

Working to initiative, at some part of the book, and I have difficulty finding where, Köppe describes meeting an old soldier as a youth, and this soldier saying he had survived so long by essentially playing a game of chicken. He would just advance at them and make his attack the first attack, and the surest attack. Köppe relays that story with humour but it does seem to reflect his thinking on seizing the fight, at least somewhat.

There is plenty of caution advised in the various sources, especially against a cagey opponent, which if I recall, all comment on. So more talk of how to approach the enemy should be in the engagement/binding and camineren (proceeding) sections.

The Sword (schwert):

This is a lineage over hundreds of years, as Reinier van Noort pointed out, it is the longest recorded lineage practiced within Germany. Naturally, this means that various swords were practiced within the Lineage. This includes Rapiers, Smallswords, Spadroons/broadswords (pallasche?). Sometimes rappier is mentioned, sometimes schwert, but more often than not what is referred to is a Degen. Now this can be a stoßdegen, or a hiebdegen, even I believe a hau-rappier. I would not be surprised if somewhere there was a mentioning of Reitschwert but I have not seen it. Degen mostly means sword. Contextually it means duelling sword, and referred to smallswords, courtswords, and rapiers. I believe it was even used to refer to sabres (Säbel). Sometimes within the same treatise there are different weapons, like L’ange has an example sword for dividing the blade, but the swords are greatly stripped down from this in the illustrations, implying they might be training swords. In Pascha the cut-fencing and thrust-fencing appear to have a slightly different sword, but they are very visibly different in Schmidt and von Wintzleben. In those two treatises, the cut-fencing appears to be performed with more of a Spadroon or Pallasch. The principles in these works are universal, but they usually are tailored for a specific purpose. This is why I believe Bruchius and L’ange make better use of a short-bladed weapon, and Köppe and Pascha make better use of a long bladed weapon. They all depend on a complex hilt to an extent, but Fabris, Köppe and H.A.V more so, a similar argument could be made for Schmidt and von Wintzleben in their cut-fencing. The argument being that the hand is more vulnerable when the arm is extended, or when it is at risk of cuts.

My theory on how best to use the sword you have:

Through practice I have come to believe that if you have a short and light blade, it is far better to have a rear-weighted stance, and the arm somewhat retracted in fourth. Then you can make fast attacks, and quick disengages. Meanwhile if you have a long blade that is somewhat heavy, you want to be in Third and extended so you can calmly gain on their blade and switch to Prima (First), Secunda (Second), or Quarta (Fourth) as necessary (as Fabris himself argued). These guards to be explained later, though for the record they correspond mostly with Italian guards, particularly Fabris.  Virtually all the authors in this text recommend Quarta (Fourth), with an upright to slight backwards-lean and this explanation is why I think that is so. They also start upright and forward leaning, and gradually move further back in their balance, this is seen as early as Pascha. Köppe and H.A.V would be the key exception, having inherited the Fabris style more strongly, maintaining the extension with a forward lean. Bruchius also tends to have a forward lean as well, though it varies. This makes sense as he plagiarised Köppe and admired Thibault.


The authors do not talk a whole lot about the grips and it can be hard to make out how they are gripping a sword in the illustrations, even when they have deliberately provided a close up and detailed illustration of the hand holding the sword. I believe Köppe recommends a tight grip, while usually it is recommended that they grip the sword lightly. I default to placing a finger around the ricasso (I do not have a German word for this, maybe Starke or One when numbering the swords), though this is not clear in illustrations, only sometimes being visible in say L’ange’s treatise. Köppe with his large pappenheimer style rapier very visibly in the illustration holds the sword below the cross (Kreuz), without wrapping a finger around the cross or ricasso. L’ange sometimes has his thumb on the blade or at least the quillon block. His grip can be described as a smallsword grip, and by extension this is true of von Wintzleben and Schmidt. More often it is stressed to not hold the grip too tightly or rigidly, only firming the grip when necessary such as riposting (versetzen/displace) or delivering a thrust (stoß). This means you are more responsive, and they gain less feedback when gaining your blade. Some of these authors subscribe to Fabris’ theory that you should ideally find or engage their sword without contact.

Divisions of the sword:

The sword is divided into three or four parts depending on author, and it should be mentioned they all vary the spelling, including putting e on the end (which usually pluralises a word or changes it into an adjective in German). Köppe divides it into three, Strong (Starke), Middle (Mitte) and Weak (Schweche). This corresponds with Heußler though in practice Heußler will make the odd reference to half-weak (halb-schwech) and half-strong (halb-stark) effectively making it four like some authors. Pascha, Bruchius, L’ange and Schmidt divide the blade into four breaking the middle into half-weak and half-strong. Sometimes the word Gantze/Gantse/Gantsen is used to refer to ‘whole’ or ‘full’ as in fully-weak or whole-weak. The four divisions of the blade correspond to Fabris. As with other authors who divide up the blade, the principle in place is to be able to refer to parts of the blade by use. The stronger parts of the blade subject, the weaker parts are used to thrust or cut. Ideally you have your strong on a weaker part of the blade, often the middle to reduce their capacity to disengage, though like Fabris the ideal is often to have thrust with your hilt coming close to their hilt to completely close out their ability to counter. A word commonly used to describe this is Inteilen (partitioning). Contextually it is like referring to having your stronger part over their weaker part. Like using the word dividing more actively to refer to gaining or graduating on their blade.


L’ange’s division of the sword. Note the difference between it and the swords used in later illustrations.


Köppe’s division of the sword. Note the grip as cited before.

Posture (postura) and stance:

All authors agree that the legs should be somewhat close together, as they all favour a somewhat upright stance. There is a lot of nuance in the differences. Köppe uses multiple latin proverbs and makes fun of people who prance around too upright, and also people who stand with their legs too far apart, accusing them of seeming to sacrifice mobility in favour of looking proud and manly (well before Rock musicians were using the power stance). Most of the authors favour a balanced stance, sometimes with a slight lean back, or a slight lean forward. Often the difference is that Prima (First) is extended with a light lean forward and Quarta (Fourth) is retracted with a slight lean back (though usually more just upright). L’ange and Bruchius I believe point this out for comparison. Bruchius himself seems to have made a compromise between extended and retracted in his stances. I already previously mentioned my theory, so just as a recap, I believe shorter blades favour upright-Quarta and longer blades favour extended Third. Like Bruchius, often there is a middle ground between these extremes in practice. Only Köppe and H.A.V seem wholly committed to a forward lean (like Fabris’ 2nd Book). It could be said all of these are a mellowing of Fabris’ stance. The principles remain the same, mostly upright, feet kept fairly close together so as to make many small steps before making a large step at the right moment. They are all mostly extended in the arm, and they all lunge or pass (passade/passada) into full extension when they strike. All mention deliberate shifting of weight and the counter posture (gegen-postur/contra-postura) though there is also contramotion (counter-motio). For clarity, until Schmidt it is recommended to have your body squared on rather than profiled, there is a process of gradually transitioning to a more profiled stance as the tradition progressed. The logic is that you approach square on and can cover part of your torso with the off-hand, then as you come closer to the opponent you can profile yourself removing one side of your body from threat and achieving maximum extension. Basically, to keep this part of yourself exposed as an invitation until you are actually in distance. In theory you can move faster and more naturally if you are not profiled. Köppe gives the largest explanation of this. Schmidt explains reasons for or against but remains committed to his profiled stance as many fencers had gone by his era.


Köppe explains how to get into his posture, it is much like his picture made to demonstrate the openings (depicted later) but you lean forward and take a tiny step forward, while keeping your hands up and in front of your face. One hand holds the rapier, the other is in that position to hand parry. Köppe’s posture is different to most of these authors.

Openings (blössen):

“There is no Art or Science that does not have her certain matter and peculiar profit, and so it is also with this Art and Science. Thus it is then necessary to understand, know, see and acknowledge the openings of your Body and those of your Enemy. Considering these openings, there are three. The first is on the outside, over the right arm, the second is on the inside of the body, to the left breast, the third is below the belt of the pants, to below the hip. For arms or legs are not counted to be openings, because there deadly wounds are rarely or never caused by thrusting. But in a cutting-fight it is very different, for there the head and other limbs cannot be excluded. How subtly these openings must be observed, each can be taught by his master.”-Bruchius

They vary in how they describe the openings but usually their stance is made in consideration of the openings. The arm or limbs are usually only targeted in the cut-fencing, and even then this is a feint (finte) a considerable amount of the time. H.A.V appears to have copied Fabris’ diagram for the openings, and Köppe has done his own version of it. Köppe’s divides the openings into three, basically three divisions of the body, just different heights. His advice is pretty specific. Only target the body, in his region the head was off-target (and I think this might have been true for Fabris?). Köppe explains that the limbs are harder to hit and can be easily moved, not so much the body. The impression you get is to aim your thrusts towards their upper body, through their sword, and in respect to their hand/hilt height. The head being off-target partially explains why some authors like Köppe, H.A.V and Fabris are willing to set it forward while tucking their lower body away. There is also a logic in that their sword and off-hand are at shoulder height to guard the face. Heußler divides the openings into three, and then three again. Essentially upper, middle, and inside and outside for each height.


H.A.V using Fabris’ openings.


Köppe’s openings looking somewhat comical.


Universally all authors support the off-hand. In the case of L’ange and Schmidt they believe it should always be applied if possible, to allow for a safer attack/thrust. They all give explanations usually riffed from Fabris, though Köppe’s as usual uses a lot more words. This is consistent between them, if the hand is not necessary to support the thrust, then it is at least necessary to cover one of the openings. Referring back to Köppe, there are four real openings, and at any one time one is covered by the hilt, and one is covered by the hand. Bruchius gives an anecdote where he saw someone thrust in the chest, but before it got deep the man grabbed it and pulled it out and went onto win the fight. Often it is mentioned that the hand should be shoulder height, or in front of the face. The hand is mentioned a few times as needing to be very slightly cupped/curved.


For L’ange, applying the hand is part of a correct thrust. L’ange and Bruchius make extensive use of the hand to compliment their thrusts or responses.

Dagger (Dolch):

Unfortunately, I have not read the books with dagger sections like Heußler. If I was to use a dagger within this tradition, I would either work from Fabris’ use of the dagger (both arms extended, points meeting in the high-middle) or I would merely substitute the dagger for my hand, applying it like a hand-parry.


Example of Fabris using dagger.


Honestly, too many names are used for engaging and what Italians would call Stringere to name. I admit my memory is pretty faint in this area but I recall Köppe making a dinstinction between two of these (Ligiren and Stringiren), and H.A.V (and perhaps Heußler) uses his own version of ‘finding the sword’ as Fabris would say. I am going to place a commentary below, but I am actually not sure on any of this, except how Köppe has used two of the words (ligiren and Engagiren).

Ligiren (binding) or anbinden (to bind): This is often used to refer to what the Spanish would call tentar or testing. It serves a similar role to a beat. Contact is made at the weak to feel out pressure and openings. This can also be used to move your blade’s point past theirs, as in to cover it or close it out.

Attaquiren (engaging): Sometimes but rarely this is used literally for attack, attaquiren naturally shares a similar meaning. Also shares a meaning with below.

Engagiren (engaging): Basically, make contact with their blade. Usually with contact but who knows, it can be used like Ligiren

Stringiren (to engage): According to Köppe, this means to make contact with your blades, and strike along it with no hesitation. Could call it a hard subject in his language. L’ange and Pascha seem to use it the same way.
Other authors do not always agree. It is often left ambiguous what differences they set between binding, winding and engaging, and the multiple words for engaging do not help. At least Köppe has set a definition.

There are also words for subjecting and suppressing independent of the ones given here, just to confuse matters.

To provide some commentary, I would reconcile both of these terms in practice. If you can engage their blade, gain strength, subject, and thrust, then that is advantageous, but often enough this means they disengage and you’re in the second or third intention. So it is better to leave the process of actually touching their blade until the last moment, basically manoeuvring it until it has already won and cannot be stopped. By the same virtue it is usually good to pre-emptively disengage to seek greater strength, as long as your distance or measure allows. Finally, the usual example of a good thrust is given through the example of a straightforward engage and lunge.

Measure (Mensura):

Köppe uses Measure to refer to how strong you are on their blade. I do not think this is common outside of him, though in practice with the association of time (tempo) and distance it does not really matter. I will explain the Italian use of the words, which is a lot more common even in the German tradition.

Long measure (Mensura Larga): Distance where you can hit them with a step.

Narrow measure (Mensura Stricta): Distance where you can hit them without a step, like a lean or full extension of the arm.

Out of measure: This is not really mentioned but Köppe does have a few rants about people who never want to come into measure. He usually thinks they are cowards, and that they should eventually lose if they keep retreating. Personally, I am inclined to agree that there is no value in sitting out of measure, it just stalls the fight, and you will not always have the room to evade. I also often can punish someone for perpetually retreating. A retreating offers a tempo if they have gradually lost their distancing.

Motion (Motio):

There is much said on movement. It is given large attention in virtually every work. Köppe as usual has the most to say. I do not want to do it a disservice by saying too much here. it is much like Fabris’ idea of movement (not quite his rules of resolution though). You are upright, and already extended, so you take small steps, moving with your feet more than the rest of your body, then as expected, when you are in an advantageous position you extend, with a lunge, or passing step. They do not seem to favour offline or linear but instead are about using whatever step suits the action, whatever step you need to go under, or over their blade with your thrust. It should be mentioned, Pascha sees the time the enemy is stepping (particularly big steps) as the best moment to strike, for they are not firm-footed or balanced if one or more feet are off the ground. Pascha has half-thrusts (and I think Schmidt does too), and these are sometimes sold with a small movement or step, either a lean or tiny ‘gaining’ step (to borrow a term from others). Köppe strongly emphasises small motions with hand or feet. The impression you get is that the German authors want to make small non-committal motions and only make big actions when it is ideal. If they need to advance straight and under the blade, or offline and over the blade so be it.

Three styles of fencing:

Pede firmo, Passada and Camineren are all given attention by the masters though it varies how much, and the explanations vary somewhat. All three do seem to be considered essential to the practice.

Pede Firmo (firm-footed): Pede Firmo is the subject of Fabris’ first book, basically fairly upright, foot-planted and making lunge and recover kind of actions. This is considered pretty typical and standard of Italian Rapier of the time. Fabris considered this the fundamental style of play before he sells you on his second book with proceeding where these kinds of fundamentals are performed on the fly with a different kind of step. Pedefirmo is the predominate style of fencing in the German tradition, and normally what they introduce first though they give strong attention to passing, and varying levels of attention to proceeding. For example, L’ange is mostly pede firmo and has some passade and only gives a page to proceeding. Meanwhile Pascha is probably 5/10 pede firmo, 3/10 passada and 2/10 proceeding in ratio.

Passada/Passade (passing): This is often used to mean stepping, without a lunge, more then it is used with a clear purpose. Occasionally it is used to describe a step where the rear leg passes the front, but most commonly it is stepping offline with your right or left leg (as opposed to a lunge). This is hyped up to varying degrees. The passada is often highly revered as a form of fencing and movement. Sometimes the passada and caminiren are linked in that you are advised to simply take small steps until you can make an attack with the passada safely.

Caminiren (proceeding): Often this is talked up but less unexplained, or quickly dismissed as something that is merely passada with shorter steps. Köppe gives a fairly lengthy section but does not manage to say a huge amount. Obviously, this comes from Fabris’ ‘proceeding with resolution’ (Resolution actually is literally spelt that way in these books too). L’ange is the curtest about caminiren, giving it only a page and saying it is so vain it must have been invented by a Spaniard. He also suggests that it is good for old fencers and retired soldiers who have bad legs. Pascha adds caminiren variants for his earlier plays. Schmidt of all people, and well into the smallsword period adds multiple rules to caminiren, far more than Fabris did.

To expand on Caminiren it is a type of walking fencing. By moving naturally as if you were stepping you can gain ground with little risk. Since you are using uncommitted steps, and keeping your arm extended, you can move into threaten someone so they are provoked into attacking, but as you instigated this, you can then act in the second intention to thrust and as you did it by proceeding and are already in a good position and posture, you can essentially thrust in ways you would not get away with otherwise. The hardest difficulty I have with this is getting low enough. As seen in Fabris’ illustrations, and argued convincingly by the fencer and blogger Brian Kirk, Fabris keeps his arm mostly aligned with his shoulder height and would lower himself until his arm was at his opponent’s hilt height[3]. This is awfully awkward for someone tall or who has not conditioned their leg and back to this (and hip-hinging only alleviates so much). It does seem to be the physically most efficient way to shut out their attack and advance on someone safely.


L’ange emphasising the casualness of caminiren

The Disengages:

These form a big part of the swordplay. Though they are simple to explain or summarise, they are often given their own plays, and variations depending on footwork, such as the default (pede firmo) or passing (passade) or proceeding (caminiren). The counter to a disengage is both a counter-disengage (cocaviren) or to interrupt it by moving your blade into Secunda (Second) or Quarta (Fourth). The play setting up the last sentence is usually starting with a thrust in Third.

Disengage (caviren, durchgehen) or disengagement (cavation):

To go under their blade.


To go over their blade.

Re-disengage (recaviren):

To go to disengage and then cancel it (go back to where you were)

Counter-disengage (cocaviren) or counter-disengagement (concavation):

As the disengage, you disengage.

Circling (circuliren):

This is when you circle their sword, either to gain measure (strength) or to break it (like a retreating motion). Corresponds to the fencing term envelopment.

Voltiren (turning):

Like Fabris’ Girata the German authors make use of various degrees of turning. The most common being when you step with your non-dominant leg around to void your body, usually with a thrust of Quarta (fourth) and often against a thrust of Quarta. Sometimes this is called the false step (as it steps with the non-dominant leg, sometimes even forwards rather than merely offline). Fabris’ other giratas might be referred to as voltiren, or they may be referred to as another example of passade.



Pascha performing a voltire to counter another.

Fainting (Fitiren, verführen):

Most of the authors give rules for feinting. Köppe and

Schmidt’s are quite extensive, I have not checked but I believe this is often the case. My

favourite would be Pascha’s use of a ‘half-thrusts (halbe-stoß). This is to


Explained in multiple places but very succinctly explained by Heußler as stepping back slightly with the left foot, so you can void an attack. This is much like the Spanish Balanzada (and Quibro) and almost matches Godinho’s description of those actions.

Battire (used by Heußler and others) and Appel (used by Schmidt and others):

Used to refer to a beat, or a stomp of the right foot and usually both. The implication is that an association is built between them making it into an effective feint. My personal experience is that this association needs to be built and does not work if that kind of trigger has not been set. Fabris and others would hate the idea of giving someone a tempo by doing an action like this, I believe it does not mesh with all the authors in the tradition.


According to Köppe there are no guards, and the translation for the Italian Postura should be Stellung (position). Lager, Garnison and Guardi to him are useless unless referring to First (Prima), which is the only time you are waiting or at rest, having just drawn it. Having said that, the others are not so pedantic about this distinction. It is totally acceptable to use any of the words he just described. Guard or Posture both work fine for a English translation.

The guards are often translated into different forms for example Prime or Prima, Secunda or Seconde. Those differences are not that different within German pronunciation but there is also differences such as Tertia and Tertie which are less similar.  For convenience I have again gone with the Köppe spelling for preference/convenience, that is Prima (though he also uses Prime), Secunda, Tertia and Quarta.

As others would note the guards correspond to the convention seen in contemporary Italian sources. They often describe them by where the knuckles, thumb or palm is facing. This means we end up with high and low Secunda and low Tertia and variations like that, who are named such for their hand position rather than their height or extension. It would be too much to show every variation of the guard, so I have picked a few by their relevancy, or novelty.


Fabris showing a poor Tertia


Köppe is not as negative of it though it is not his preferred Tertia and he does criticise it.


Fabris’ Tertia being compared with Köppe’s Tertia and Thibault’s portrayal of Fabris’ Tertia. Image like some others taken from Brian Kirk’s blog.[4]


Köppe’s preferred tertia like seen above.

bruchius Tertia.jpg

Pascha tertia.png

Bruchius and Pascha’s Tertia. Pascha does a more extreme Tertia as a parry too.


Example of L’ange’s Secunda (left) and Quarta (right).

pasca low secunda.png

Pascha’s low Secunda, used to parry a low attack or address a lowered sword.


L’ange’s high secunda.

Bastards (Bastarde): Just as Fabris used the word bastard to describe a guard between two guards, so do most of the authors presented here. They are not mentioned too often, it seems to be assumed you find yourself in these positions naturally in motion between them. Notably Schmidt considers the left bastard (between Quarta and Tertia) the best hand position.


It would be too much to explain all there is to Thrust fencing. It makes up the bulk of their commentary, all their principles are made to inform on it. The plays/variations/exercises are easily in the hundreds, even if you don’t count the ones that are the same between authors.

The thrusts are all named after the hand position (Prima, Secunda, Tertia, Quarta). Initially the examples given tend to be straight forward, engage their sword (with contact) and thrust on the inside or outside, which ever has the true edge against their sword. Sometimes hand parries are added into this, particularly in the case of L’ange, Bruchius and Schmidt. All the repertoire mentioned before is usually added in, such as passada, voltiren, and caviren. A common enough play is to thrust and be driven up and then pass or void low to deliver a thrust now their weapon is committed up and outside of you.

As the authors will often say, the thrusts are delivered above and below the arm. Usually an attack made over the arm is done with a lunge and below with a passada but this is far from always the case. Some like Schmidt recommend thrusting under the sword (like in Prima or Secunda) for shorter fencers and point out that all other actions are easier for someone taller. I suspect if you managed to memorise every play and did a complete reading you would find insight into what distance and footwork you need to counter every situation or engagement. Being in the right distance or responding with the right footwork are far more important than hand position or height of the sword.

Some general advice provided by virtually all the authors included here is that you look to where their blade is and their openings. This is the advice Fabris originally gave as well. An example is if their point aims towards their left, you attack at their right. It echoes the principle of strong and weak and partitioning the blade. How they compose themselves will leave openings and mean the weak of their blade is in another place. You are aiming to target the weak in a way that you can gain strength and close off their retaliation. All these factors are what informs you whether you thrust over or under the arm.


Changing the hand position can be used to gain strength or curve around or disengage. Feints can be made high, low, left or right, with or without a step. Parries can be made high, low, or middle.  A riposte is often considered more virtuous than a parry.


As mentioned before some prefer hand-parrying more than others, but it is often employed to reinforce a thrust or to parry an attack (so you can thrust safely in the same time). Hand parries and voiding, sometimes together, are very important parts of the system.


Often the illustrations of the blade and quillons are deceiving. L’ange is thrusting with Tertia and Pascha is thrusting in Quarta.

Pascha quarta thrust.png

Pascha delivering a thrust of Quarta.


Köppe delivering a thrust of Tertia with opposition, note his hand is not applied but remains reserved for use.


L’ange demonstrating the correct thrust of Quarta using the left hand for further safety.


A very similar action from Bruchius.


L’ange calls this the quarta under the arm. It resembles the flanconade which appears in multiple sources, almost certainly being taken from the French (as sometimes they will themselves will cite).


L’ange demonstrates the gliding thrust. Showing where they start and where they finish.


Another example of the gliding thrust this time going over and in second.


Like other rapier treatises these authors have instances where they two-hand their sword or half-sword. It seems to be an unsubstantiated myth that these kind of actions do not exist in rapier treatises. I started with Fabris and this treatise so I too thought there was some novelty to two-handing the sword but Brian Kirk demonstrated pretty conclusively that these actions appeared in other treatises.[5] Fabris used it to compete with the strength of a spear, and I believe Figueyredo in his dagger section recommends half-swording the sword to compete with the nimbleness and strength of a dagger. The explanation found in the German treatises seems to be if you are tired, so you can parry quickly and strongly this way. In practice I have found it is an excellent position to kind of fling or sling the sword from (which are actions the sources condemn). It becomes deceptively long range, much the same reasoning that justifies one-handed thrusts with two-handed swords in the Italian treatises. The use can sometimes resemble Thibault, such as Bruchius emulating Thibault’s Torneada (Tornado).


Fabris two-handing his sword to compete with a polearm.


Bruchius two-handing his sword after being past their point.


L’ange blocking with two-hands


Pascha two-handing his sword.


Virtually all the authors feature some form of disarming action. Often this is simply just to deflect with the hand. Sometimes it is to grab the hilt and work from there to secure a thrust, even pivoting and pulling much like you can see in other traditions (Spanish comes to mind, and relatedly Thibault). Sometimes they can be quite forceful which is uncharacteristic for rapier treatises. Some treatises are accompanied by grappling sections so it makes sense that they would integrate this knowledge into their fencing. L’ange seems to view his fencing as a system of self-defence rather than for duelling. He is not the only to say this, but maybe the most explicit. Extension of this he has a section on dirty fighting but also many disarming actions that appear quite brutal such as breaking the arm or knee. It seems just as L’ange has advice on drawing your weapon in an ambush, or moving your opponent into the sun, he also has advice on disabling them if you and your opponent end up too close. For a good example of what other authors like Pascha have to author check out David Coblentz Pascha Part 5[6] and 6[7]  videos have some of Pascha’s disarms, though to me they seem a little altered.



Two examples of L’ange breaking measure, first like the Spanish ripping or breaking (called Rompeiren in German). Second is like a conclusion having pulled their weapon after they are committed and over-extended.



L’ange also has instances where he goes for a throw, before or after thrusting them. The trip/throw working for added safety.



Not too often seen in treatises, L’ange is willing to break the arm or leg.


Schmidt’s passade look like disarms such as this one which resembles an action seen in Joachim Meyer as Robert Rutherfoord has dubbed the hidden stucke (hidden thrusts).[8]


Dirty fighting:

Sometimes you will find the odd recommendation to what could only be described as fighting dirty, or on the street. Köppe refers to what you should do when ambushed or attacked. For many of the authors the selection of the sword factors in the ability to draw it in the case you need to use it for defence (not just a duelling environment). This is discussed in regard to ideal length though they usually do not give specifics but generalisations such as not too long to draw or carry. L’ange talks about picking your location if you are to fight with sharps. This includes advice such as moving your opponent so the sun is in their eyes, or driving them up a hill. This seems related to the use of grappling, and other tricks (two-handing the sword). There is an idea that what they teach is not just an art for a fencing school or to resolve disputes but a means to defend yourself.

Cut-fencing (hiebfechten):

Fabris speaks really briefly on cuts and for the most part this is true of the German authors. They may offer some words on what the cuts are named. They may say how best to cut. They may have a few token examples of cuts (such as L’ange and Bruchius doing the cut with a rumpieren). Still, for the most part their fencing does not feature cuts. Curiously, authors such as Pascha, Schmidt and von Wintzleben dedicate sections to cut-fencing, and honestly they do seem derived from Pascha’s version. Since Schmidt and von Wintzleben wrote in an era where there was sabres, broadswords, pallasch’s and spadroons (and however else you would refer these weapons) it is less unusual that they would include these sections, making Pascha look the odd one out. The weapons in these sections look different to the thrust-optimised weapons in their cut section, though it is really hard to tell if Pascha is depicting a separate weapon, the weapons seem by Schmidt and von Wintzleben are clearly different resembling spadroons or pallasch. August Fehn of Kreußler’s tradition has a section on the Pallasch too.

Pascha changes his posture placing his left hand behind his back and stretching out the right hand more (since his guard was a little less outstretched than the other authors to begin with). The language for his cuts are similar to the guards in his thrust-fencing, that is where the hand position is after completing the cut is what the guard is named. So his cut of second is from left to right ending up with the palm down. For cutting he favours the guard of Tertie (Tertia). Most of the cut fencing is simple parry and riposte, and sequences with feints added in. I am unsure if his false cuts are a result of coming at an odd angle (such as below) or are explicitly with the false edge.

pacha parrying a cut of 4th.png

Pascha parrying a cut of quarta.

Schmidt’s manual reads fairly similar in the introduction, he reminds the reader that the cuts are termed like in thrust-fencing and that what has been covered can be applied to the cut-fencing (which echoes Pascha’s introduction). He has made the system perhaps more efficient and similar to conventional cut fencing of his time by moving towards a default hanging posture. Schmidt has less exercises than Pascha but the actions within them seem much less repetitive, and more specialised. Schmidt’s treatise reads more like a military treatise, like the formal cut-fencing of the time. It feels like he covers more ground than Pascha’s broad actions and repetitive sequences.




Examples of Schmidt’s cut-fencing. Format appears to be assigning a cut to one party, and a counter to the other.

Von Wintzleben offers less than Schmidt, and as noted previously appears to have copied Schmidt. He has a nearly identical image to what is presented just above. In his cut section he appears to offer general advice and rules more than the specific actions or plays Schmidt has a wealth of. Von Wintzleben does give special attention to circular parries (at least a late image of such) and cross-cutting. Though I am unable to derive any special insight to his cross-cutting compared to the general definition and utility of a cross cut having close the line.



Von Wintzleben demonstrating circular parries and cross cuts. Note the similarity to Schmidt’s illustrations.

It should be noted that all the cut-fencing sections start to target arm, limb and head more than the torso, which is the de facto primary target of the tradition.

Advice both to myself and others on practicing this system:

Look to Köppe for the theory. Look to L’ange for a short easy summary (and some interesting grappling). Look to Pascha for structure (and if you want to cut with sidesword-like rapiers). Look to Bruchius for a more complete understanding.

Also Heußler appears to be a good introduction especially if you are fencing more with sideswords.

If your focus is on smallsword you should definitely be reading Schmidt, especially if you want to transition from an Italian Rapier system into Smallsword (so you do not have to learn the French/English conventions).


The German tradition imported what they considered to be of best utility and applied it pragmatically, writing these lessons down in a very well-structured format. This offers the German tradition a versatility not often seen in fencing traditions as they have encountered many influences and formulated responses to such. This summary has only applied to single sword with some mention of dagger, but the authors also covered other weapons as mentioned in the Authors section, such as partisan or grappling. As Reinier van Noort noted, this is the longest recorded German fencing lineage, if drawing a line from Fabris to Siemen-Kahne.[9] Having been practicing this style of fencing for some time, I feel like it is nearly as streamlined as the Neopolitan fencing tradition, and probably a bit more robust. I think in the future a better summary could be provided. One that aims to identify each action as it appears (how much it appears) and so give a more complete overview of this tradition.

[1] Noort, R., & Schäfer, J. (2017). An analysis and comparison of two German thrust-fencing manuscripts, Acta Periodica Duellatorum, 5(1), 63-74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/apd-2017-0002

[2] https://elegant-weapon.blogspot.com/2019/06/episode-164-elements-of-other-systems.html?q=Fabris

[3] https://elegant-weapon.blogspot.com/2019/05/episode-163-some-observations-on.html?q=Fabris

[4] https://elegant-weapon.blogspot.com/2019/06/episode-164-elements-of-other-systems.html?q=Bruchius

[5] https://elegant-weapon.blogspot.com/2018/08/episode-147-holding-rapier-with-both.html?q=bruchius

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIOcn_KupwQ&t=221s

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijY33xHp2lo

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_HPyWYGC-4

[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw2a_j9CLwE


Godinho’s Chapter Four: A follow up

Godinho’s chapter four describes a particular stepping exercise and I have commented on this repeatedly. For anyone who has read it, I have moved forward with my interpretation somewhat. As usual, working from Tim Rivera’s translation (available at freelance academy press and amazon).

The exercise describes tajos being delivered with the left-foot, and a reves being delivered with the right-foot. This makes for cross-cuts, and he says that doing crossing parrying is not as effective (as cross cuts) so he describes a simpler and more aligned (with the body) parries instead. Fingernails-down with the retreat of the right-foot, fingernails-up with the retreat of the left foot. There is a lot of implications to take from this action for how Godinho moves, and it makes one think on how he steps in his cutting plays when he describes the footwork very little or not at all.

I have presented multiple interpretations before when instructing at Brisbane School of Iberian Swordsmanship. Firstly, large passing steps with strong crosscuts. Secondly, smaller steps (so the left foot is more like a small gain with the right foot remaining infront at the completion of each step) and less commital cuts, this passively transitioning between the fingernails-up and fingernails-down postures. Either way the cuts cross the line, but more of a tempo shift. Both options leave effective follow ups if the tajo/reves is parried.

On stepping, taking advantage of the description used, they talk about ‘placing’ the left foot, and then ‘stepping’ with the right foot in the Rivera translation. I have been told by a Spanish speaker (the helpful Lois Spangler) that there is a difference between those two descriptions. So my inclination now, is to interpret the left foot as less committed than the right foot, somewhere between a gain and a pass. Probably always going to be unsure about how committed the tajo/reves’s are.

I have seen much thought put into how you step in fencing systems like German Longsword and Bolognese fencing, and aligning with that I imagine the left leg is serving the purpose of the gain or a transitional step, this means the initial tajo is a safe way of entering and the reves delivered with a right foot re-aligns the posture to right-leg forward and gives the intended finishing attack.  Since I have mentioned German Longsword am obligated to reference this here, that talk of stepping left with a right attack and keeping the option open of then acting with the right leg has become awfully topical in the last few months. Bill Carew at CIA has talked of the theory for awhile, linking it to the ‘go left with the right’ descriptions in early sources. As well there is this blog submission (not by Bill Carew) from August, 2018.


This update has been to record where I have arrived in the interpretive process.

Update on Spanish Two-Handed sword. Lessons from Godinho’s Single Sword

Update on Spanish Two-Handed sword. Lessons from Godinho’s Single Sword

Previously, I attempted to reconstruct a Spanish Two-handed Sword for duelling a person likewise equipped. To do this I looked at Figueyredo and Godinho’s Montante section and padded it out with some lessons from Alfieri’s Spadone section. As I study Godinho I came to the conclusion that I had to take him up on his Two Handed Sword advice mentioned in Chapter 1, that a Montante should be used in line with the rules of his single sword. Specifically it refers to avoiding cuts and doing counter-time thrusts in response to attacks to your inside or outside with finger-nails-up or finger-nails down. However, more broadly, I think it does need to take advantage of the advice and principles he has messily laid out in his single sword section. Instead of attempting to fit this into my previous work, I decided that it would be much simpler to make it a separate stand-alone submission.

Godinho has too many plays to go through in detail, and so I will attempt to address the basic principles, which is typically the ones closer to the front of the book. Also, working from the Tim Rivera translation of Godinho’s treatise.

Footwork: Godinho does not go into detail on footwork, the plays lay out where you step, and you usually step with an attack. Sometimes it is implied or assumed to be offline but often straight. Chapter four does give some insight into movement though. He advises to step left with a tajo (forehand stroke) and right with a reves (backhand stroke) and to repeat this as sufficient. I do not truly believe he intends this as an absolute rule, particularly as he says differently later. However, this is a great method to passively maintain a transition between inside and outside position. I can only speculate on how these cuts are delivered but I am playing with the idea of them being a small movement just to keep the line covered as one shifts their position between left and right stance. It could also be used as a way to aggressively crosscut towards the opponent. He also advises thrusting nails-up while retreating with the left-foot, or thrusting nails-down when retreating with the right. This is in line with his footwork for thrusting exercises where thrusts are delivered nails-down with right foot, and nails-up with the left-foot. With the two-handed sword passing footwork and alternating cross cuts makes even more sense not less, and using the left foot for attacks on the left and right foot for attacks on the right is also sensible.

Cutting: In Chapter Five he differs from the cuts in Chapter Four I think this is because this is a real committed cut, but also because it starts from an upright position and I believe this isn’t as passive movement done within regular motion, that is an active and conscious threat. He says that you do tajos with the right foot and reves with the left foot (though it is not actually clear if it is the left foot and not just the right foot again), and that these should be as extended as much as able. This drill is a kind of cut and recover drill, where the foot steps out and returns to where it was before after having performed the cut. Advancing as much as needed and instead doing the thrusting like before in the retreat. At the moment I would take this extended mechanic to apply to thrusts as well, since there is no reason why they also wouldn’t be done with full extension. This is good body mechanics and so by extension is applicable to the two-handed sword, though he advises against cuts at all and they are risky, hence why early Liechtenauer is so thrust-centric as a system. In the few times cuts are sensible they should be a strong extended attack but these opportunities are few.

Thrusting: Chapter Five’s rule on extension should apply to thrusts. Chapter Nine defines the nails-up and nails-down thrusts in a way that means exactly what is implied by their name. A thrust that ends nails-up or nails-down, nails-down on your outside and nails-up on your inside. A disclaimer should be made that Godinho assumes the reader is right-handed. Chapter One is actually divided up into three rules. Firstly, attacks to the right should be responded to with a nails-down thrust. Secondly, an attack to the left should be responded to with a nails-up thrust. Thirdly, you should defend yourself with parries, but it is better to answer with single-time thrusts and that these thrusts should be directed towards the same height as the opponent’s point/attack (This is repeated in Chapter Three). As usual, this is perfectly applicable to the two-handed sword, I should probably stop saying that since I have selected these chapters out of relevancy to the two-handed sword. This is the sensible way to thrust into their attack, both so you can accurately meet and gain strength, to raise it higher would be a slower action, and to thrust under their attack would give them the strength. The Nails-up and Nails-down also aligns your true edge with their edge.

Chapter Wherein Begins the Sword Alone, from the Postures of Nails-Up and Nails-Down, Tajo, Mandoble, Garatusa, Play for Lefties, Balanzadas, Manoplados, Tricks, and doubles Lessons. 1599.

This chapter is really Chapter fifteen as it is preceded by fourteen and followed by sixteen. This offers a lot to Spanish swordsmanship not found in Destreza, or at least it includes things that Destreza authors disapprove of. Rules for nails-up and nails-down have been mentioned before, as well as the tajos, it is worth mentioning that later rules challenge what is written earlier, such as thrusting nails-down with the left-foot being described later. In regards to thrusting this chapter does describe countering a nails-up thrust with a nails-down thrust, and kind of counter-winding with the true edge like many other systems.

Chapter Ten: What is Tajo, Reves, Freeing, Garatusa, Mandoble, Gaining Testing, and Wrist.

Going backwards, the things described in the chapter fifteen, were earlier given a short succinct description in Chapter Ten, save the Balanzada which is explained in detail much later than even Chapter Fifteen.

Freeing is kind of an active disengage, almost like a feint as it is described in the book, equivalent to durchwechseln in Liechtenauer’s system.

Garatusa I am not quite certain of, the way I understand it, is when two are nails up and on gains from above, the other twists to the opposite side taking their blade with it, or this can be done with a liberate and thrust after having used the circling action to move their blade. I would say this kind of subtle motion is not as effective with a two-handed sword but might be effective in the right situation, particularly if used to bind down a high guard.

Mandoble I feel has fine application within longsword, though it is not as effective when the principles of overreaching are applied. To cross low and suddenly attack up is fine since it arrests the lower attack, might need to test how effective it is though. In most instances I’d sooner recommend slipping the leg, even something like the later Balanzada.

Wrist cuts are much like a Molinello in Italian systems (which is ironic as the word Mandoble is often used to describe this), even within the text it borrows the Bolognese descriptive of a millstone. The Wrist action described by Godinho I think would not work very well with a two-handed sword, particularly longer and heavier ones of montante description. Though you can kind of imitate this action with the use of a longer handle, making the cuts very small due to how far apart your hands are.

Testing and Gaining are perfectly acceptable and are foundational of swordplay. Testing might be a bit riskier with a longsword. According to Godinho they pretty much mean what you would infer from their name.

Chapter One-Hundred Eight: How to Understand the Balanzada. Chapter One-Hundred Nine: How to Start Off the Balanzada.

This is applicable in use of the two-handed sword. The way I understand it is broadly speaking, you move so your weapon avoids their weapon and you give a thrust. Specific example is the opponent giving a nails-up thrust and you incline yourself to your left and thrust nails-down. I think of this as either slipping the leg or giving an inquartata/girata. Both are effective in two-handed sword. The body needs to retreat or move to the left so that you can deliver an attack after removing yourself from their thrust, with the right leg staying still. I have seen others do this much lower, like a dive or what the Spanish would call Zambullida (often described as running after going to the left/under?). I think that is an acceptable interpretation but with two hands you cannot do it as low as with single sword, certainly not with hands crossed for nails-down (right-handers).

Chapter One-Hundred Forty-Eight: Rules for Lefties:

Pretty much commonsense, just reverse what you’re doing so the true edge is still where you want it to be.

Chapter One-Hundred Twenty-Four: Manoplados

This chapter describes the Manoplados. This is a hand parry. I have pulled off hand parries in use of two-handed swords, I have seen this done by others. I would still not recommend it. This removes a hand needed to control and pivot your own sword to deflect theirs. The two-handed sword is not strong when held in one hand, as well they can very easily pivot their sword back on line with the leverage of two-handed grip.


Hopefully these are helpful to those trying to infer a two-handed system from Godinho’s two-handed sword. The things in here are used in other two-handed systems and give the wielder some options in combat.


As stated previously this is working from Tim Rivera’s translation of Godinho’s treatise.

Overreaching in fencing


This blog entry is inspired by the cat.gif above and made at the suggestion of Lois Spangler.


On the HEMA alternative-facts and wylde theory page the above .gif was shared by Oscar Erkenswick, making the jest that it may have served as inspiration for Liechtenauer’s Schielhau play but I would also argue it is a great demonstration of überlaufen which has always been translated to me as overrunning or less literally overreaching. Michael R. Rhum commented that it also demonstrated principles of La Verdadera Destreza. Breaking down that image, I believe that is true of a lot of fencing. That simply put, if all other things are equal, a high attack will overreach a lower attack.

Cory Winslow’s translation of Codex 44.A.8 renders the principal of uberlauffen as “Whoever aims below, over-run, then he becomes ashamed.” As a fencer often taller than my opponents I find it the most frustrating thing when someone attacks my lower lines with enough commitment that it results in both parties getting hit, as my training to outstretch the arm and slip the leg fails to protect me from the most reckless lunges, I try to call such things suicide attacks because I believe committing that much to the lower lines tends to force this kind of outcome. However, it is also true that this has become instinct, even before instruction, to simply attempt to use my reach to defend against a low attack because it has also rewarded me, even in situations where both fencers have acted reasonably but my reach is just a little bit longer. Another example of this is the position named Langenort (Longpoint) which simply involves the arms holding the weapon at (close to) maximum extension. While frequent in German Longsword it is also demonstrable within Leckuchner and Meyer’s works as a counter, or method to strike the opponent while retreating. A play illustrated both in Cluny and Hutter could be considered a variation of this where when threatened with a high thrust they thrust out the sword with a single arm striking the opponent first with an outreached arm, in his longsword section, di Grassi recommends such a maneuvre as well. Usually authors emphasis that an attack should be delivered with extended arms as to avoid shortening one’s reach.

As Rhum mentioned within the Facebook discussion, it is applicable to Destreza. Destreza maintains that defense of the right angle will deal with all threats that attempt to reach you around the posture. Destreza authors vary in how infallible they think this defense is but strong language is often used. The body is upright, the arm is outstretched thus making a right angle, and everyone dealing with them must do so through this point. Authors like Silver and Köppe have commented that such a defense is not perfect, and maybe that is true in the sense that someone with different timing can strike unsafely and get away with it should they retreat fast enough, or someone with longer reach could manage to strike their opponent a bit lower. Still, I think anyone who has read later manuals will find that point online guards with the arm somewhat extended becomes one of the most prolific postures for weapons resembling the rapier even if they disagree on how upright the stance should be, or how bent the arm should be. An example of this is Fabris and those traditions that evolved from him. They tend to advocate proceeding with resolution or caminiren (with a multitude of other spellings), which in my own opinion makes very good use of an outstretched arm since it involves using the body to acquire distance and relying on your posture and arm actions to secure you the victory. Naturally Fabris actually compliments Terza (third) which is the typical hand posture of Destreza authors. Fabris seems to play with different postures, but people following him such as Köppe who received his book in Paris advocate being fairly upright but bending the knees naturally, which is a little more conservative than some of the novelty postures found in Fabris and ends up resembling Destreza posture a little more, but not in absolutes.

Finally, the .gif of the cats is evidence in front of our eyes. The cat on the left is more upright and can extend its front leg directly to the cat on the right, whose posture and bent front leg has a shorter reach and less strength. Even the cat on the right looks resigned to defeat. Even if the cat on the right is also able to make contact with the cat on the left, it is in a far less strong position, and that same physics is at play within swordsmanship.









My intent?

While I have no viewers and have chosen not to self-promote or post this to pages by choice, I feel a need to justify why I wrote should this blog ever receive attention.

My personal preference is not really the Spanish system, I know that could be confusing considering my content, but I will absolutely continue to make posts about topics in regards to that, due to my position as an instructor in a school that teaches specifically Iberian systems. Much of my self-study is non-Spanish sources.

At this time, what is submitted is not intended for any audience. It has helped me focus and practice writing and that is what I will continue to use it for. If it somehow gets noticed and people comment I welcome such and would respond, just felt like I needed to make this disclaimer should it start gaining serious scrutiny. Serious appraisals of it is fine if people want to do that but they  would be treating it more seriously than I do in writing this material.

This also serves as a bit of a public backup for documents I write, some of which are purely to help my own development and learning.



Reading Paulus Hector Mair’s Rapier

Ironically the long essay posted previously was actually a distraction from a much shorter entry that I am writing now. Simply put when I attempt to read Mair’s rapier section I find some of it tricky to interpret, mostly in regards to his use of the short edge and what exactly he means by ‘fall over’ that is mentioned twice in the rapier text. There is also the concealed thrust.

I do not think it is unusual to use the short edge in swordsmanship, but I do think the way he uses it within the texts is puzzling, as the situations he describes I would almost certainly use the long edge and it seems like a convenient roll of the wrist would enable such. Perhaps due to my prior training I usually interpret his actions as a bind/wind and with blade contact when he does not specifically say, but in this instance I keep wondering if he means something more like a beat. At times I am also tempted to interpret like the Ripping or like what I would crudely describe as an aggressive molinello/moulinet. The krumphaw play mentions falling over and then binding from there in two steps implying that the later step might not be true of the previous actions.

As to the fall over, first assumption was overbind, but it doesn’t sound like that, second assumption was like the krumphaw, but as mentioned he has a specific play for that. If it is a simple binding action like gaining the blade in fourth or second then that would be easy except the binding of the short edge afterwards and the follow up actions do not seem intuitive if following that.

Finally, the concealed thrust, I at first believed it is as changing a cut into a thrust as Meyer’s plays seem to describe but it resemblance to plays from high ward in Italian texts, the illustration and him describing as moving behind his head makes me think it is more simply a oberhut/high guard retracted and that he’s doing a disengage to thrust.

None of the plays seem great to me but I have not had the opportunity to explore them in a drilling context which I intend to do soon. I do not assume that fencing masters are infallible or that all their plays are effective, and especially in the case of Mair I do not have great faith in his fencing pedigree but I do want to explore his fencing more, as the illustrations are great and he did seem to be earnestly attempting to preserve the art of fencing in its twilight.

I read the play to Sean Reichman founding member of Brisbane School of Iberian Swordsmanship and am reasonably happy with the interpretation we came up with (he added more to it than me). It apparently resembled a Bolognese play he had seen before. Simply ending up in a similar position to the illustration in his krump play but we were doing it as a deflection and roll to line up the cut on the other side.

I also attempted one of my guesses for what the concealed thrust described against two different opponents and was surprised to find it worked pretty well though I am not entirely convinced it is the play that Mair was describing.


On Paulus Hector Mair and the Spanish Connection

This entry is to address a question this writer built himself and not in relation to the environment around him nor is it a rebuttal to any point made someone else. The topic is that sometimes Paulus Hector Mair is loosely linked to the Spanish fencing tradition in regards to his rapier section. This blog entry rejects this hypothetical connection between the Spanish fencing tradition and Mair. To the writer it seems too rash to take ‘welsche’ to refer to Spanish as it is sometimes translated to, and if it did it could merely be because the weapons had an association with the region and that when examined this entry would also argue that the treatises have a visible resemblance to Italian traditions such as Dardi and by association a resemblance to Joachim Meyer’s rapier system.

There is information scattered around that could imply a connection and imply is a good word because it remains to be seen if there are people directly and passionately arguing a serious connection between the two. While not often seen as a good source on this area (and rightly so) the wikipedia lists the rapier section as “Spanish Rapier”. The commonly accepted dating of his work also falls into that not insignificant period where Charles V ruled over both Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor, though that is not quite akin to directly ruling both territories as the Emperor’s power by that time was far from absolute and this does not necessarily mean a uniformity of institutions such as swordsmanship traditions.

There are some arguments that this writer would like to dismiss either because they are too weak to be addressed in any detail, or the writer of this entry is simply not educated or qualified enough to address them in any detail. Firstly, the dress of the people in the figures, to reiterate this is not being written by someone educated in medieval fashion, and so speculation that the presentation of ‘Moors’ or typically Spanish dress is something this writer cannot fairly comment on. The garbs to the uneducated look like typical renaissance fashion and it is not the intent of this entry to dispute that the figures are dressed intentionally as Spanish, Italians or Germans though more informed writers such as François Boucher and Jane Asherford have pointed out that Spanish dress was the norm throughout Europe save in France and Italy so it makes sense that the images would portray such dress. Secondly, Mair lived and published work under two Spanish Emperors firstly Charles V’s who was not really Spanish or German culturally but he appointed his brother Ferdinand to handle the German territory and Ferdinand was raised in Spain and speaking Spanish as a first language, and would later become Holy Roman Emperor of the territory. This certainly implies cultural exposure especially of those who frequented court but the Holy Roman Empire and Spain would have been ruled pretty independently of each other for logistical reasons if nothing else and it does not extend to the argument that Paulus Hector Mair had some close association with Iberia and this writer has seen no evidence to suggest that Mair frequented the same courts or circles of either Emperor.

Moving on to a bigger point, the matter of the Spanish Sword/Spanish Rapier section. This is probably one of the bigger pillars in the hypothetical Spanish connection but it is to be argued here that it is not a strong case, as from what is seen in the contents of Vienna and Dresden books the use of welsche is used to describe the rotella/shield use and there is merely a mention of “rappier” but not explicitly Spanish rapier. Rapier being used by other sources such as Joachim Meyer to refer to swords perceived as foreign as the style or common form was popularised within Spain and Italy. A somewhat different version appears in the Munich book which in Latin is pretty similar but it explicitly associates the swords (rapiers) with Spain (Hispanis). The use of Welshe in the Dresden and Vienna books (as the footnote on Wiktenauer notes) is usually used to refer to a speaker of the Romance language and is kind of like saying foreigner. Non-problematically this is usually translated to Italian and this writer would say less problematically due to his own personal experience that many of the example plays look not too dissimilar to Italian swordsmanship particularly Bolognese plays so the better guess would be that this is referring to Italians, whose influence among European fencers at the time is noted pretty often in other sources. This writer is not an expert in linguistics by any stretch has always taken it as a given that ‘Rappier’ very likely came from ‘Ropera’ and so this association between their rapiers and Spain could be as innocent as that, perceiving the weapon as from that region or at least popular there. Without the ability to translate German or Latin and access to precious little translations, there is still identifiable labeling in Opus Amplissimum de Arte Athletica for example the first play of Rapier is tagged in the headline with “ENSIS HISPANI” which this uneducated writer would translate to ‘From Spain’ or less literally as Spanish Manner or Originating from Spain. Seven other plays are labelled such, but not in the German counterparts only the Latin. Still if there’s any evidence to latch onto in making the connection it would be this.

These little details would be more easily accepted as clues if the swordsmanship could be viably linked to some surviving Spanish text. As it is sources from the early 16th century are scarce, late 15th as far as I know are not easily accessible if any did survive. This makes it hard to compare them to say almost contemporary written works in Iberia by Ponc de Menaguerra or Juan Quixada de Reayo who contextually were not seeking to write on unarmoured fencing on foot but were concerned principally with armoured fencing and mounted combat. Mair also predates the treatises of La Verdadera Destreza so linking him to that situation would be absurd, especially as it attempted to distinguish itself from the ‘common’ Spanish tradition of Mair’s time. A potential source of comparison that this writer intends to explore is the later work of Godinho which is now accessible in English translation and is said to be a surviving source for the common fencing tradition. As it is Godinho is, perhaps due to the novelty, often compared to various fencing traditions. Comparisons are naturally made to Italian systems like Bolognese due to how many sources survived and the popularity among current enthusiasts. More obscurely there is the link supposed by respected Fencer and Writers Chris Slee and Tim Rivera between Godinho and Henry de Saint Didier. These comparisons are to be encouraged as they investigate the character of the systems and potential cross-cultural influence, though they always flirt with the line between how much of swordsmanship is cultural and how much is simply derived from experience and practical application, as people say body mechanics are universal, and a sword is a sword and can only be used in so many ways. Unfortunately with the knowledge available, and the personal experience of this writer, it is not possible to draw a direct connection between Godinho’s Spanish Swordsmanship and Paulus Hector Mair’s Rapier plays, though this is something that is good to investigate and the intent of the writer of this entry is to do just that in the future.

Some of the scepticism in the link derives from the context around Mair. Mair was famously a collector who embezzled to expand his collection and was punished and executed for his misuse of public funds. This seems to be because he was a fencing enthusiast and wished to preserve traditions he could find, there is an assumption that all of Mair’s works rather than originating from him were simply his interpretation of other works he had collected. So simply put, they could have come from anywhere but a safer bet would be to assume that they came from the most commonly accessible material within the area he lived. German sources, and Italian sources of which had had some crossover in Mair’s past, present and future were far more likely to find their way to him then sources outside of Spain. Notably actual plays, drills and images are not common within Spanish works, so that Mair’s works features illustrations also adds to the suspicion that he was simply adapting some other more local sources and adding his own derived commentary. Superficially they resemble the Bolognese plays this writer has been exposed to but not explored to any meaningful degree so readers are encouraged to take that as a grain of salt, but in the absence of other evidence, such a poorly argued association is not weightless. Forgeng has stated in the forewords to his Lecküchner translation that the Rostock treatise of Meyer resembled the Lecküchner plays more than the Bolognese swordsmanship his later treatise is associated with. This is also a possibility with Mair, though personally this writer does not hold that belief. Obviously both authors drew inspiration for their Dussack from Lecküchner just to bring that up first so that readers do not consider it an oversight.

The Spanish Connection could be there but there’s not enough evidence to make it the most likely conclusion and the evidence that is there cannot compete with the possibility that it was adapted from non-Spanish swordsmanship, either some German work or Italian work. While Mair is assumed to be a collector and enthusiast rather than a master of fence he could have had instruction in some fencing art which almost certainly would have been Italian influenced, but it is speculative that the work is actually derived from Mair’s own personal experience. With some degree of confidence it looks like the Spanish connection remains unproven at this stage though this writer does not begrudge anyone who would want to make this argument, provided they tie their argument to the available evidence.