Let's make some progress here! With this, we're hitting the halfway point of the rules for the sword alone.
No need for more of an introduction so here we go!
Fabris opens by touching on some advantages and disadvantages of the first two rules. For the first rule, he says that it is good because it lets us gain an advantage from farther away. On the other hand, he says that we might give away our strategy too soon, and that our opponent could manage to change things up enough or otherwise find the time to somehow save themselves. This seems fair, and it does square with the instances in which Fabris tells us that we may need to withdraw and try again, or that our opponent could retreat enough to effectively break engagement.
The second rule he describes as good because it really only allows for a single opening, which is close enough to our sword hand that our opponent can't attack it without essentially attacking through our forte. Because of this, we've reduced our decision tree to "our opponent does a really bad idea for themselves" and that's that. It also keeps our sword free and we don't need to worry about performing lots of cavazione, unlike the first rule. On the other hand, he describes it as "laborious" and keeping the arm almost completely immobile is just plain tiring after not all that much time.
Keeping these issues in mind, Fabris describes the third rule as one that will not give away our strategy until far too late, so that our opponent will not be able to move themselves or parry until it is too late. The method that Fabris tells us will accomplish this is this: since our opponent by definition can't wound us until we're in measure, we will not assume a guard at all until we are stepping into measure. We will be approaching our opponent to the outside without being in guard or having our sword in any particular position. As we are stepping into measure with either foot (Fabris specifies "when you lift your foot to step into measure") we will place our forte against our opponent's debole to shut them out of line without stopping, at which point we - as we might expect - are to run along our opponent's blade with our sword without stopping or flinging out our arm.
There aren't any specific details of stances and movements there, but given that we aren't told to form any specific guard as yet, that makes sense. Still, it does feel like it's more theory and less application as yet, so let's see where we go from here.
Fabris then tells us that if we end up on the inside and our opponent tries to parry we - and this will not remotely surprise people who have been reading along up to this point - "should change from third to second, lower [our] body as [we] proceed forward and wound [our] opponent in the tempo of the parry." Nothing remotely surprising here, and in fact this is pretty much right out of rule one, as well as other plays that Fabris illustrates in the first book of his manual. Fabris points out that our opponent will not be able to bring his point back into line but does state that if we have any hesitation or break in our motion after we find their sword then our opponent will be able to find the time to return their blade to line because of that slowing of our action.
So far, so good. Straightforward and we don't have any real surprises yet.
Fabris says we can apply "the same resolution" in passing if our opponent tries to parry without breaking measure as we find their sword - just turn to second underneath, and pass to wound them before they can apply any pressure to our blade. On the other hand, if they retreat as they parry we should cavazione before they touch our blade. This will essentially place us in a starting position, albeit on a different line, and we can continue as normal.
At this point, Fabris points out that we want to avoid "making any motions contrary to a cavazione." For instance, if we make the first motion toward our opponent's blade, we cannot also cavazione in that tempo. If we suddenly lower our hand, we can't bring it back up. In general, this is good advice to remember, but when we're playing games with collapsing our measure and tempo like this, we can't afford to waste any motion.
He goes on to describe how, if we have good enough control over our blade to be able to change the original motion into another one, we can "perform a splendid deception" on our opponent. (Sounds like feinting but okay Fabris, let's hear it.) "As soon as you place your foot in measure, you gain the opponent’s sword. As he tries to meet your blade and resist to it, you deceive him with a cavazione and proceed forward with the other foot, so that he cannot return in line. All he can do at this point is to try to wound you under your sword with a half-cavazione, but you can avoid this danger by simply lowering your point and your body to the same side of his sword. This keeps him out of line as you push your attack home." Okay that's... pretty straightforward and not out of keeping with anything we have so far, really. It seems a bit more... hm. Proactive is the best word I can come up with off the cuff as I write this, but I'll work on it. It seems a bit more proactive than how Fabris has set up his rules so far, which generally seem to be more in the vein of "I have placed my opponent in a no-win scenario and have a response for whatever they might do" as opposed to "I'm going to feint on the way in" but even still, I can get there.
Fabris then says that if our opponent performs a cavazione as we find their sword, or comes forward, we'll just wound them in that tempo. If they break measure as they cavazione to find our sword, we should just contracavazione and keep right on going forward and wound them. If they change their guard while breaking measure, we keep moving forward but we place our sword against theirs such that we can keep running our sword along theirs. Light on details, but straightforward enough with what we've seen in the previous rules.
Moving on, we are told that we should keep the measure in mind, and that it should make us aware of potential offenses or defenses that we might see, and that we should be prepared for them. Sure, okay, good advice but again, not so much with the details.
Fabris does say that he's not going to discuss what to do if our opponent completely breaks measure or they just lean away, because they're not threats. Likewise if they try to cut, we can wound them as they prepare the cut and that's that. If they're moving away as they do this, he says that we can just parry in fourth or second or void the cut and strike them.
He closes by pointing out that this rule requires a very refined understanding of measure. This certainly seems true, as we need to be able to know when we are about to enter our opponent's measure so that we can be entering a guard as we do so, and to be aware of what our opponent can accomplish at any point in the closing of measure.
All that said, this rule so far really reads to me as what would happen if the first rule had a lot of the flowcharts stripped out of it and more or less simply had "do what you need to do" added in. This would be terrible as a first rule, but in terms of following the first and second, it really seems much more like presenting an alternate way to implement the principles that we saw in there, which is great.
Soon, the plates!
No comments:
Post a Comment