Capo Ferro's Hierarchy of Defense

Recently I was pointed at Guy Winsdsor's video describing Capo Ferro's hierarchy of defense. It's one of those things that summarized a lot of dispersed information in his manual in a really concise and excellent way, and helped me get a much better understanding of Capo Ferro.

(Go watch it here.)

The comments on the video summarize the procedure, but not in a way that I could use as a way to introduce this drill to people - let alone really integrate it into my own brain - so I'm re-writing it up here in a way that will be useful to me, and hopefully other people.

In short (and hopefully correctly), through Capo Ferro's manual, a consistent set of responses and counter-responses can be found. The most common attack in rapier is, once your blade has been gained, to disengage out of stringere. Guy uses that term, I'm used to cavazione, so let's roll with that for consistency.

Capo Ferro flowcharts out four possible defenses for this attack. They are:

• Two tempo parry-riposte
• Counterattack in opposition (aka "single tempo parry-riposte" because Capo Ferro uses parry and riposte kind of interchangeably at times. This is performed simply by turning your hand over into the opponent's blade, not with a countercavazione.)
• Void and counterattack (aka "counterattack with avoidance")
• Countercavazione

Each of these defenses, naturally, has a counter. So when your opponent gains your blade, you feint with a disengage to flush out one of those defenses and then you counter it. (This is the core of the way the Capo Ferro plates are set up: Action, Defense and then Action, Defense, Counter.) The counters are:

• Two tempo parry-riposte: disengage back, avoiding the parry
• Counterattack: two tempo parry-riposte
• Void: two tempo parry-riposte (note: scannatura is a two-tempo parry riposte, just saying)
• Counterdisengage: any of the initial defenses, though for this drill just recavazione for simplicity's sake

From my quick glance now, it looks like a drill could be set up to chain one into another into another, but practicalities of range, hitting the other person, and working an action out of a void would probably cause it to break down a little over time. Still though, it's a thought.

The basic drill is, in effect, to recreate the plates from Capo Ferro, running through everything in sequence. So it goes like this:

1. You start off having gained your opponent's blade. Your opponent performs an attack by disengage. You perform one of the initial defenses and strike your opponent. Repeat until you have performed all four defenses against your opponent's attack.
2. You again start off having gained your opponent's blade. Your opponent feints a disengage, and you respond with one of the initial defenses. Your opponent performs the correct counter for the defense and strikes you. Repeat until you have performed each defense and your opponent has countered them.
3. Switch sides. Do it again. When you begin to run it through for the second time on a side, remember to change your starting inside/outside blade positions, so you work both lines.

Guy does bring up a very good point near the end of the video, that is well worth keeping in mind: Four possible actions can come out of you performing a feint. You need to be able to predict (or better, force) your opponent's reaction. How do you do that? Discuss!

Leather flask, continued.

I'm progressing on this little project and it's making me happy, so all of you get to hear about it and get proof of me learning things. Or something.

Anyway! I'd gotten my hands on a marking wheel, so I laid out one of the pieces of leather, put the pattern on top of it, and traced along with the wheel. Then I put the two pieces of leather together, got my leather awl, and drove holes.

I learned a couple of things at this point:

1. Using a marking wheel when there's anything more than a gradual curve in the seam is a giant pain in the ass.
2. I didn't use a groover, but if I did - even if only to just mark a line rather than carve out a groove - it might have helped with the above problem.
3. Alternately, just manually spacing out holes on a line I made, but that strikes me as painful.
4. Punching holes through both layers of leather worked fine on the top layer, less fine on the bottom.
5. I had a cutting board under the leather. Maybe if I had something with more give, more of the awl could have moved through and made clean holes in both layers. Maybe a wooden board of some kind? Or a thick piece of leather over a board. 
6. Make sure you keep the awl vertical at all times when punching with it.
7. Because of all the above problems combined, some holes don't line up. 
8. Cheap awls break.

So, yeah. I've got a newer better awl set on the way to me (thanks, Amazon!) and I'll be putting more holes in the leather soon. Here's a Value-Added Picture of how things looked shortly after I got going - I took a break on it yesterday evening and I was about halfway done stitching around the outside. I'm using what I think of as a two-needle figure eight stitch, because that's what my friend Alex taught me to do with leather.

Next step - finish the stitching and then go pound sand!

In which some non-weapon A&S is better than no content at all.

Man, I'm awful at this. So. Here's what I've got! I'm trying to plow through an Introduction to Fabris paper. It's... slow. I don't know if I'm just intimidated by writing it, or if I've taken on too much, or what. Either way though, I've promised to get this thing done and submitted for an A&S competition when it is done, so I've got to do that. Because promises, y'know? So that's a thing.

Therefore, instead of an incomplete paper, you get a couple pictures of proof that I'm engaging in non-weaponry related A&S! (Heresy, I know, and yet.) I've wanted to make a leather flask for a while. I've had the leather for ages, but I didn't do anything with it until I happened to ask Grim if he had a chisel I could use to make holes I could lace. I'd been looking for one that does multiple holes at once, so I can keep things even, and those things are expensive last I looked. But I'm being loaned one at Birka, so I can get on that next. For now though, I cut out the two sides I needed!

I'd printed out a pattern to use and after weighing down the leather to keep it flat, I used a totally not remotely period Sharpie on the rough side of the leather. I didn't have a real meant for leather knife either, but my roommate Marieta was kind enough to lend me a substitute. I put a cutting board underneath to save the table, and off I went!












After cutting one side out, I used that to trace out a second piece. Hopefully that'll keep things a little more even. It all went smoothly, and now I've got them sitting aside, waiting until after Birka. Who knows, maybe there'll be someone selling some leatherworking tools there that I can use to do this better next time! Regardless, I'm ready to score some lines in the leather, put some holes in it, stitch it up, and then go pound sand.

Work limits writing, so here's an old study that's probably interesting!

Since my last post, I've started working again (yay!) which has cut into my ability to keep cranking on things here. New job, new schedules, things get shifted. I'll try to get something new up by the end of the weekend, though.

In lieu of more Fabris, I'll leave you with this New York Times blog post from 2009, involving some studies about taking ibuprofin before exercise. I know a number of us who've done that - before melees, before tournaments. Turns out, it's a terrible idea. Who knew?

Fabris, Part Eight - Chapter 10

We're back!

(pages 17-18)

Chapter 10 - On Tempo and Contratempo - Which are good and bad; how to deceive a false tempo that the opponent gives you in order to wound you in contratempo.

Fabris begins by defining tempo for purposes of this discussion. Here, he says that "A tempo is a movement that the opponent makes within measures. If he were to move outside the measures, it would not be a tempo but merely a movement or mutation, because in this discipline, 'tempo' also implies an occasion to wound or at least to take some advantage over the opponent." I've seen other definitions before (specifically noting that it's a movement between two moments of stillness or a moment of stillness between two movements, using Aristotelian concepts), but I really appreciate Fabris including the point that the movement has to occur within a measure to even matter. 

Fabris goes on to point out that the time you use to make one movement cannot be used to make another movement - so if your opponent has an opening, is in measure, and makes a movement during which you strike, you will wound him because he cannot do two things at once. In doing this though, the tempo of your attack can't be longer than the tempo of the movement your opponent is making, otherwise he can still parry you and respond to your attack.

This is what Fabris calls an attack in tempo. (Or of tempo.)

Fabris further states that distance plays into attacks in tempo. If your opponent is sufficiently far away and only moves his arms or body but not his feet, you may well not be able to reach him with your attack because he can move his feet to break measure entirely. In this case, Fabris recommends using this opportunity to close the measure and take the next tempo to wound your opponent.

Very nearly any movement can give you a good tempo. Shifting around in a guard, moving feet and body, or sword and feet, or any combination can give a tempo if there's an opening. Naturally though, it's much easier to take a tempo if your opponent doesn't realize he's giving it, and if you already are in a good counter-posture. Because your opponent is already moving, he can't parry and counter because that's two tempi, and if you're already in a good counter posture, you only need one to strike.

Fabris states that even at wide measure, taking a tempo when your opponent moves - even if it isn't his feet - can be good because he probably doesn't know that he just gave you the tempo; this should let you close quickly.

At this point in the chapter, things are very straightforward, but there are some interesting conclusions we can take from what Fabris is saying. He doesn't outright say that tempi can vary in length from one another, but simply notes that it's a thing to be careful of and moves on. It seems as though it's just taken for granted, which I suppose, it should be. It only makes sense.

What does stick out to me though, is that Fabris doesn't seem to allow for the interruption of a tempo to do something else - what I tend to think of as aborting to a parry, or suddenly bailing out of measure. It's something we've all seen, and many of us have done. I suspect that this is because this may not fit into his view of proper fencing, because any attack is a commitment and if you're allowing for the possibility of hitting the abort button it's because you didn't correctly choose a counter-guard, gain your opponent's blade, and make a firm strike. 

While we haven't gotten to his chapter on feints yet (it's coming up soon), I'm going to guess that he'd consider a feint and attack as being composed of a number of short tempi, and not a single long tempo. That being the case, you wouldn't be interrupting the feint to parry or do something other than what you had planned, but simply doing something else as the next tempo.

Moving on to the remainder of the chapter!

Fabris states that some fencers will make a tempo to lure you into an attack and then have parried and countered your blow as you do so. This is what he calls "contratempo," and he goes on to clarify that technically, any time you counter an attack it's a contratempo action. He states that another possible result is both fencers are wounded, because either one didn't judge the contratempo correctly, the invitation was performed too close, or the invitation was too large.

If you want to avoid the contratempo, you need to be keenly aware of the tempo your opponent is giving you, and make sure that it's long enough so that your blow has time to reach your opponent. If you feel that it is an invitation, Fabris says that you should begin your movement, and then change to the opening made when your opponent moves his blade in the contratempo.

Fabris then says, almost as an aside, that "this discipline relies in great part on the ability to subtly deceive your opponent."

If you are in close measure, Fabris says you can take advantage of any movement from your opponent (unless they're breaking measure). Unless he's increasing measure (in which case he may have the time necessary to parry and strike you), you should have the advantage if you attack in that tempo. It is never good to be the first to move in close measure, unless you are attacking.

Additionally, if you are in close measure you can attack without your opponent giving you a tempo, if you are in a good counter-posture. If you are careful in your choice of targets and your assessment of your opponent's ability to parry, and you gain the blade well, you should be successful.

I must say that I enjoyed how Fabris pointed out double-kills, as well as how when you're sufficiently close, some of the rules about tempo morph somewhat into more of a gunslinging approach - although he does say that you must still have a good counter-posture lest you be wounded as well. This is a really tight description of tempi and what you can do with them.

Next up, the cavazione. Tune in!

Overcoming hurdles to the inclusion of historical technique in SCA rapier

(With thanks to Lilias de Cheryngton for editing this. Otherwise, it wouldn't be remotely intelligible.)

One of the common remarks I hear about historic technique is that it doesn't work well in the SCA. On the contrary, I think there's a lot of room for the use of period techniques in rapier (and for that matter, in Cut & Thrust) over those of sport fencing, but there are absolutely barriers to their full adoption by the SCA rapier community. I think that these barriers can be problematic to the point of turning people entirely off from the study and use of period techniques, and that is unfortunate. At the very least, we should be able to use historical techniques in bouting situations within the bounds of our rules, and I argue we should make an effort to work past the hurdles and do so.

In this brief essay, I would like to discuss the issues that can interfere with the use of historic technique, and offer a few ways we can try to avoid, remedy, or at least mitigate them. The crux of the issue is, essentially, people don't fight the right way for the techniques to work. I will elaborate on this rather broad statement in the following ways:

• Reasons due to safety concerns.
• Calibration.
• Speed and intent of attack.
• Body contact.
• Reasons due to influence of rules on combat (or “gaming the system”).
• Double kills.
• Touch calibration.
• Reasons due to mindset.
• Modern influence - sport fencing.
• Lack of fear - point fear, fear of death.
• Lack of period priorities.

There is certainly some crossover between these categories, but my hope is that breaking it up in this manner will facilitate discussion.

Safety Concerns

Safety concerns are probably the more intimidating issues to cover - who wants to ignore safety and really injure their opponent or themselves? That being said, they're also pretty easy to address, since they tend to be concerned solely with the fighter initiating the attack.

The first safety issue is that of calibration. Initially, it looks like we need to thread a needle between "safe" and "historically accurate." Look at some of those plates - they want you to hit someone so there's a foot or more of steel coming out the other side! How hard would you need to hit someone to do that, though? The answer is to adjust the angles necessary to perform the technique safely as well as effectively. Modifying the technique slightly from the original will take more study and practice, but changing the angles slightly to allow you to perform it safely in SCA combat is worth it. Sometimes you can simply place the tip of your blade on your opponent and not finish the skewering movement, but performing the technique without the prescribed follow-through could leave you vulnerable.

A large subset of period techniques require proper intent and speed for them to work, making safety more of an issue. These techniques should be worked up to, and practiced until they can be performed safely – much like any “modern” fencing technique a person uses for the first time! Until you can perform them safely, do not use them in an uncontrolled bout. Given enough practice, it is quite possible to perform period techniques while being ready to break your wrist or arrest your forward motion on contact.

Body contact can be a larger hurdle, depending on your home kingdom. If your kingdom allows fleeting contact in accordance with the society standards for rapier, you have a fair amount of freedom to play with. You still can't grab, pull, grapple, or strike, but you don't need to worry about accidentally bouncing off your opponent, or performing techniques that require you to put your hands on their limbs to check their motion. If you are forbidden to use body contact, there are still large amounts - honestly, the majority - of historical techniques you can use without any change whatsoever; you just happen to be somewhat restricted in what you can choose from.  Nearly every period technique either fits, or can be modified to fit, within our safety rules.

Influence of Rules on Combat

A much thornier issue is how the rules of our game unduly influence the course of combat. This might also be termed "gaming the system." Sometimes it's intentional on the fighter's part, sometimes it isn't, but the rules have an effect either way.

Double kills are the first problem here, and they are two-fold. First, there is the practice in the East where, when each opponent strikes the other at nearly the same time, the second is considered late and not counted, regardless of whether it was in motion at the time the first shot landed. (Note: Society rules specify that if a shot is in motion when the first blow lands, the second shot is still good, which neatly obviates this issue.) The Eastern practice encourages speed while ignoring defense; as long as you get that first touch, whatever happens afterward is irrelevant, no matter how large a bruise it leaves. This can lead to poor defense, and is a horrible practice in general. The period masters agreed, using the concept of "after-blow" to describe its dangers. Dealing with this is relatively easy – I suggest adopting the society rule on the matter, and the problem should remedy itself. You'll either see better fighting, or a sudden spike in double kills (which should encourage better fighting).

The second issue with double kills is the fact that, much of the time, double kills are not punished. It can be common practice, to make life easier on the MoL, to re-fight double kills until there is a winner. There are no negative consequences. This has another easy solution: to quote Don Dylan ap Maelgwn, "Dead is dead." A double kill counts as a loss for both combatants. It could be awkward if both finalists in a tournament are eliminated this way, but a special provision could be made in this case.

The other major rule issue has to do with touch calibration. In kingdoms where lightest touch calibration is preferred, a number of bad habits can develop. It's easier to not commit to your attacks, tap people gently as you're flinging yourself backwards, or touch your target many times in rapid succession, but in ways that wouldn't even realistically break the skin. Beyond altering what your region views as acceptable, it is difficult to remedy this for other fighters. Certainly though, you can ensure that you are placing your weapon firmly and well, making good committed attacks against your opponent. The benefit to doing so is that it is much harder for those shots to be ignored – intentionally or not – and that is a benefit in itself.

Mindset

Finally, we come to mindset. This is the area individual fighters can most readily change in themselves, and even lead by example in their communities.

First, the fighter should look to any modern influences on their fighting. The majority of us still have foil and epee roots even within the society, even if they never officially did sport fencing. There is also a definite perception that techniques derived from sport fencing need to be used in order to win.

For people who came to the SCA from sport fencing, there is absolutely a hurdle of ingrained responses to get past. Especially if these responses win bouts, it is hard to let them go in favor of more period techniques. However, I would point out that sport fencing techniques are primarily designed around sport fencing weapons - which period weapons are assuredly not. The difference in weight alone could lead to injury, either in execution of technique on your opponent, or simply through muscle strain on yourself. Additionally, with as much difference as there is between modern weapons and period ones, the techniques used with modern weapons aren't designed for the heavier, longer, and otherwise different period weapons. Period technique was designed for period weapons. While there is absolutely going to be a learning curve in learning or re-learning techniques with the weapons we use, I feel that it will ultimately be more comfortable and have a higher success rate - as well as being closer to what the SCA is ostensibly about.

Another issue which can dramatically affect how the fight plays out is the lack of fear. There may be a deep concern for winning; fighting well for your royalty, kingdom, or inspiration; and simply performing well. However, that is different from looking at your opponent and realizing a missed parry might mean death - possibly a quite painful one over days or weeks. In our game, there's no fear of mortality, and there's not even any “point fear.” Look at a tipped rapier pointing right at you. Now take the tip off and do it again. It's suddenly a lot harder to pin down where the point of the blade is. That difference in perspective, combined with the fact that it is pointed right at your vital organs, is scary. It might be melodramatic, but it drastically changes how people fight. Without live steel, what's the worst that will happen? You might lose. Maybe you'll get hit a little hard. Because of this, people are willing to take risks, fight unsafely, and do things that they'd never even consider if the fight were real.

All of these mental aspects of the game roll up into the final point - the lack of period priorities. The manuals I'm personally familiar with are very clear on one point: worry about defending yourself first and make sure you are perfectly safe before you consider attacking your opponent. For instance, Capo Ferro states, “Therefore, it is moreover seen that defense is the principal action of fencing. No one should proceed to offense if not through the route of legitimate defense.” This means that gunslinging, willingness to sacrifice a limb to land a hit on your opponent, and trying for a double kill are out. Combat is serious because blood can be shed. This isn't to say we shouldn't try to have fun out there, or that we shouldn't be trying new things, working on different techniques, and relaxing (especially in pickups with friends) - not every fight needs to be kill-or-be-killed. When it matters, though, I believe internalizing the period fighting mentality does a lot for encouraging the use of period technique.

One of the great things about SCA rapier is the degree to which, even keeping our safety rules in mind, we are able to train and use period techniques as we fight. I believe encouraging this in ourselves and in our communities is important to what we do, both as historical fighters, and as members of the SCA.

A few Pennsic thoughts.

Before I dive back into the Fabris (WITH SHOUTING, FOR IAN) I figured I'd drop a few notes on Pennsic here - or at least specifically fighting notes. In no particular order, even!

The melees were, well, melees. That said though, they were really, really smooth and had not nearly the number of issues that I'm used to. I blame the weather being so awesome and not hot and gross. The fact that it wasn't 95* with humidity to match really seemed to take the tempers off.

There was a meaningful force imbalance in play, though I admit that I'm not sure of the numbers. It was especially noticeable in the woods though, where the East was able to have a pretty much unbroken line across the entire woods and the Middle, well, couldn't. Partway through, the East was told by either HRM or HRH (I got differing reports on that) to stop using DFBsThe bridge battle (Gunning: The War Point) was wacky fun, but pretty unsatisfying as a war point. Again, I didn't notice any really upset fighters though, so I imagine we all had the same attitude going into it.

Another thing that I noticed for something like the second or third year running was the Freelance Academy Press sponsored track of WMA classes. This is excellent, and I want more of this. I realize this means that I need to put up or shut up, and despite my fear of a class full of people who will point and tell me how wrong I am, that I should do this damn thing, huh?

A few things did make me blink over the course of Pennsic, though.

Meat Shields - I come from a kingdom where disabled fencers are obliged to remove themselves from the field, so we tend to just not see them where I'm from. I get that it's not forbidden by Pennsic convention (and likely in other kingdoms as well), but man, I just think it's silly. That said, I saw (and at one point was involved in) what would have been a double kill situation in a tournament with one person dead and the other having lost both arms, but the latter being allowed to continue because hey, they aren't dead. (Which, for the record, I was totally okay with every time I saw it.) So maybe I'm just a hypocrite, or it's a melee thing that irks me because melee.

Spears - Oh, boy. So. A number of folks from a number of kingdoms brought a number of examples of experimental spear designs to show people, play around with, and get feedback on. Universally, I think, the reactions were, "Well, it's neat, but hell if I want to get hit with that." Personally, I have Strong Feelings about them, on both sides. In almost nothing resembling order:

• Rapier is, at heart, a civilian weapon. Our melees are at best random terrible militia and more likely Montague v. Capulet brawls. Why the hell would we have pikes?
• Without putting any force behind a shot I was able to hit Caine hard enough to make him, as he put it, "Throw up in his mouth a little." Granted, I put the point in the right place while he wasn't braced for it, but how often would that happen in a melee? Lots. And that was with no force behind the shot - I can't imagine what that would have done with the force that I'd end up throwing in a melee.
• Any head shot with a spear transferred all the force right to the neck. There's no extra mass in what we wear on our heads to soak up the force.
• The arms race. We're already seeing it to a small degree with twohanders, and a very large degree with shields. (As an aside, I would kill for a maximum shield size of 24". Pretty sure that's the biggest thing I've found in any manual or the like that was used with rapiers or rapierlike weapons. Am I wrong? I'm probably wrong.) I feel that if pikes showed up, then it would very rapidly become All Pikes and All Giant Shields All The Time and then we're basically fighting rattan without armor. I just don't want that in rapier.
• On the other hand, spears were taught in a number of period manuals, and also used in the London Masters of Defense prize fights. It would be pretty awesome if we could see a longsword v. spear match, assuming it could be done safely.

I'm not sure where that leaves me. I think that I might be okay with spears as a C&T only option (which also defaults to no melee), assuming a good and safe design could be created - and that's already a pretty high bar to set. They just have more mass, and thanks to F=MA, that means they'll just hit harder no matter what.

DFB - I'm still a little divided here. It's a tool, and I use it really well. It's realistic, in that if I can get behind someone on a melee field for long enough to plant my feet, they're guaranteed out of the fight. But it's not what I want to play. I want more people facing me when I kill them, and I want more of That Kind Of Honorable Engagement. Then again, I'm also the person who wants to give more people singles when they ask for them despite also rolling over people in melees in which we're supposed to be training for Pennsic. I should really just examine what I want out of my own game and make up my mind, huh? I suspect the answer will make me less popular in the East, and more Donovan "Funkiller" Shinnock, but whatev. I'll go read The Phoenix Guard again and remind myself of one of the big reasons I got into this whole organization, right? Right.

So that was my Pennsic. I fought a whole lot of people, saw some great people get recognized for being great, avoided the EMT cart, and had fun doing what I do. Which is pretty great.