If you’re a hard-line weight trainer, this might not be of interest- it’s simply an explanation of what the term “fencing” actually means when discussing the people about whom I’ve been writing. Since no one seems to have written a simple-to-digest explanation of what it was, I thought I might as well, because we could all use a distraction from the insanity of humanity as a whole at the moment.
One of the more interesting tidbits I’ve picked up in researching the Monstery series and the Female Fustigator about Monstery’s star pupil, Ella Hattan, is the fact that fencing is as unlike what we think of as fencing as dogshit is unlike a two-inch thick porterhouse steak cooked to perfection and finished with garlic butter. Fencing in the 19th century was so fucking badass Mike Tyson in his prime would have been too terrified to participate, because he’d have to live through multiple stabbings just to get to the pugilism portion. And when I say stabbing, I should clarify that stabbing is just a placeholder term to describe the myriad ways one could rend, smack, slash, spindle, mutilate, hack, needle, and bludgeon another human being with a close quarters weapon. This shit is so cross-discipline it makes mma look like a bunch of close-minded, troglodytic Luddites, and so blood-spattered it probably looked like an old-school Wanderlei Silva vale tudo fight on only the most bloodless days.
To wit:
“In early March, 1876, a “Grand” tournament of arms was announced, to be held at the Lyceum Theater in New York City, that would involve “all kinds of weapons that are used in fencing. The event was organized and directed by Colonel Thomas H. Monstery, a noted New York fencing master and teacher of pugilism, who had reportedly participated in more than fifty duels, and fought under twelve flags on three separate continents. By all accounts, this Assault-of-Arms would be the largest, the most interesting, and the most ethnically diverse ever held in the city. It was noted that the contestants would include Danes, Germans, Spaniards, Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Americans, and that the tournament would embrace the following weapons,”
- Foil– this is your traditional fencing weapon, at least by modern standards, and is a thin, flexible blade no more than a half kilo in weight and 90cm (3 feet) long. “The foil was used in France as a training weapon in the middle of the 18th century in order to practise fast and elegant thrust fencing. Fencers blunted the point by wrapping a foil around the blade or fastening a knob on the point (“blossom”, French fleuret). In addition to practising, some fencers took away the protection and used the sharp foil for duels” (Wiki).
- Saber– in this instance, it’s not as awesome as you think. When I see the word “saber,” I immediately think of the kilij, a Turkish cavalry saber that was a three-pig blade on Deadliest Warrior. Instead, this is a fencing blade based on an Italian dueling sword. It’s a straight blade about the same size as the foil, though it seems to the untrained eye a sturdier blade- they can slash and stab with it.
- Broadsword– this one was a Scottish specialty, though don’t go thinking this is some kind of rad-ass Braveheart-esque, horse-cleaving claymore. Instead it was an inexplicably small sword with a basket hilt, roughly the same size as the other two but weighing about double. It was essentially a heavy foil used primarily for thrusting, but it was an important training weapon for the Scots, who used it as a backup weapon paired with a buckler when they fought dismounted.
- Small-Sword– a two-foot blade used for thrusting, this one was the immediate predecessor to the French dueling sword.
- Rapier– if you’re starting to get the feeling all the swords are essentially the same, you’re correct.
- Bowie Knife– Bowie knives are a uniquely american all-purpose knife that was often used to settle disputes, kind of like in Helena, Texas in the Helena Duels, but they only used three inch blades. As to how a Bowie knife contest was conducted I’m not certain, but here’s a primer on techniques for knife fighting using the Bowie and the “Mexican” knife, which may well have been one of the three Spanish knives (this being a total sidebar, I’ve done enough random research no one else will do). If you don’t know what a Bowie knife is, you need more education.
- Spanish Knife– The reputation that Mexicans have for gettin’ stabby with it is not undeserved, nor is it without significant pedigree. The Spanish proclivity for stabbing people arose in Andalusian Spain with the navaja, a folding knife shaped something like a Bowie, being the primary means of demonstrating one’s blood-shedding displeasure with his compatriots since the 17th century. The associated fighting style was taught in esgrimas de navaja (fencing and knife fighting schools), and this is where the name for Filipino knife fighting, escrima, is derived. And if you thought that they two styles were friendly, think again- Filipino knife masters often fought Spanish masters in the streets to settle disputes over whose styles were better, much to the dismay of the authorities in places ranging from Spain to New York. Prefacing the ridiculously awesome Counte Dante Dojo Wars by about a century, knife fighters were apparently only too happy to risk their lives to test their mettle against their most closely related martial arts relatives.
- Cane– cane fencing was the type of shit you see in bartitsu (the style of martial arts Sherlock Holmes did in his books) and was commonly referred to as la canne, as it is a French martial art. In la canne, both thrusting and slashing attacks are awarded points, and they add a lot of the flourishes you usually associate with escrima and other Eastern stick fighting styles, though they often fight with both hands grasping the cane (which is roughly the same length as a foil.
- Sword Cane– Very weirdly, we know almost nothing about this shit- the only picture taht exists of the guard for it comes from bartitsu, a martial art that was only just revived after being lost for almost a century. If you want to read the little we do know, go here.
- Lance– it’s exactly what you think- two to three meter sticks with a pointy metal bit on the end. Lancers came back into use in the 19th Century as knights were replaced by riflemen, and they continued to be used through WW2, somewhat unbelievably.
- Bayonet– it’s a knife stuck to the end of a rifle. They still use them. They haven’t changed enough for it to matter- you just stab people in the guts with them when you run out of Freedom pellets. If you want to see what bayonet fencing looks like, here you go.
- “English singlestick”- the Imperial version of la canne was called singlestick and used a very slightly shorter stick for one handed fencing in order to practice for the use of the small-sword in duels. Why they’d include both this and small-word is a question I cannot answer- it seems pretty fucking redundant.
- “German Schlager”- of all of the weapons on this list, the korbschläger was the one in which I put most of my hopes, because I confused “schlägel” with “schläger” and mistakenly believed this was some sort of a maul or mallet. My German is pretty rusty. In any event, this is for all intents and purposes identical to the Scottish broadsword.
- Saber Against Bayonet
- Knife Against Saber
- French Quarterstaff or Bâton / English Quarterstaff– quarterstaff fighting in Europe was common until WWI, when it’s through that all of the people doing it had their lives frivolously expended in an effort to gain a few feet of open ground. It consisted of thrusting and slashing attacks with an eight-foot staff, not unlike the fighting style of Donatello, though with a considerably longer staff.
- Savate, or Boxe Française– if you’re unfamiliar with savate. it’s a pretty cool French streetfighting style that only uses kicks. After unsuccessful sparring matches with British boxers (sport savateurs didn’t use their fists, elbows, or knees in matched- kicks were the only method of scoring), sport savateur Charles Lecour invented Boxe Française, which was a hybrid style combining the kicking techniques of savate with English boxing. That later became once again known as savate, and it is still practiced today with unique toe strikes that only work in shoes or boots (otherwise you’ll break the fuck out of your toes).
- Sparring– this might have been done with gloves, but Monstery was only concerned with bare-knuckle and rough-and-tumble in his writings. As such, it’s likely the rules regarding the fight were prearranged rather than concrete, universal rules.
“An Assault-of-Arms, is, simply put, ‘an exhibition of fencing with various weapons.’ During the nineteenth century, those particularly large or lavish assaults began to adopt the appellation ‘Grand’–as in the case of an 1857 New York City tournament, in which it was announced that ‘one man will defend himself against twelve assailants.’ During the 1860s and 1870s, the Grand Assault continued to develop and grow in popularity, particularly in France, where such gala events were attended by hundreds, even thousands, of spectators, as well as high-level politicians, military men, artists, journalists, and members of the aristocracy. Monstery’s event was not the first ‘Grand Assault-of-Arms’ to be held in New York City; a Colonel De La Croix had directed one in Mahattan in 1811, and in 1857, two were held on Broadway, one under the auspices of an F. Lambert, the other by Henry Gebhard.
The 1876 event directed by Monstery was, however, far more notable in both the diversity of its participants, in the variety of the weapons exhibited, and for its particular ‘American-ness’; no other Grand Assault-of-Arms (that this author is aware of), in either Europe or America, was known to have included the use of the Bowie-knife or the sword-cane”
Nor was this a bunch of nobodies- this was the closest thing to Mortal Kombat the world had likely ever seen, albeit with blunted (but otherwise working) weapons.
• Maitre d’Armes “Captain” Juillard, formerly of the Cavalry School of Saumur, France. Juillard was the fencing master at John Wood’s Gymnasium, on Twenty-Eighth Street near Fifth Avenue, and had contested there with Monstery two years prior: “Colonel Monstery…had seen enough of Captain Juillard to know that he had an expert and effective master before him…This assault created considerable enthusiasm, and the combatants retired amid ringing applause.”
• Professor Léon Caton, also of the Cavalry School of Saumur, France. The Army and Navy Journal, in April of 1876, noted that “MM. Caton’ was a “pupil and friend of M. Senac, the French Maitre d’Armes.’ [Editor’s Note: Senac was Monstery’s primary rival/nemesis in the realm of combat sports and combat sports instruction].
• Maitre d’Armes Jean De Turck. An article published two years prior in Turf Field and Farm noted that “Mons. Deturck was superintendent of the fencing school of a French regiment, with four professors under him…Monsieur Deturck exhibited the most modern Parisian school in perfection, the close work of the point as the taking of stitches with a knitting needle…” Various accounts published in the New York Herald show De Turck contesting with the foil, broadsword, singlestick, and bayonet.
• Fechtmeister Louis Friedrich of the New York Turnverein. According to the journal Mind and Body, “Mr. Friedrich was for many years an authority on fencing in New York, and was very well known in fencing circles throughout the East and among the societies of the Turnerbund…” In 1877, after at an event at Turn Hall on West Fourth Street, the New York Spirit of the Times reported that Friedrich was “a first class fencer, firm and quick, with a very imposing attitude and style…Friedrich and Monstery, with the broadsword, were the best feature of the evening, for Friedrich is very fine with the cutting blade, and kept even with the Colonel nearly blow for blow, both parties saluting the hits like gentlemen swordsmen.” Regarding his use of the bayonet in bouts against Captain De Turck, it was noted that “When Friedrich does this, the sympathies of the audience are generally with De Turck, who gets most unmercifully thrashed, being wholly unequal to Friedrich…” In another contest between the two, this time with sabre versus bayonet, Friedrich still maintained the advantage, as reported the Army and Navy Journal: “M. De Turck made a good defence with the bayonet, but the great superiority of the sword was quickly apparent. The only way De Turck could get in on Friedrich was by attacking and keeping up the pointing vigorously. The moment he stood on the defensive, the swordsman could get within his guard and cut or stab at will”
• Captain James McGregor of London. The Army and Navy Journal, in its April 22, 1876 issue, described a bout of fencing between McGregor and William Miller: “In the single stick practice between Mr. McGregor (Colonel Monstery’s assistant we believe) and the beneficiary of the evening, there was pretty play. Mr. Miller has the advantage of a Herculean frame and great quickness, but McGregor was the best swordsman, and made a very handsome fight.” In 1884, McGregor would contend with thirty-six inch broadswords against the famed champion Duncan Ross, the two of them protected by “coats of mail.” Although McGregor lost to Ross by two points (16 to 18), he was ahead throughout most of the contest, due, according to the New York Sun, to “some scientific fencing.” Later, as reported by the Buffalo Courier, he would again challenge Ross to a contest of “mixed weapons,” including “the broadsword, mounted and on foot; with the foils, rapier, saber, infantry sword, bayonet against bayonet, bayonet against sword, single-sticks and quarterstaff”
• André Christol. Nicknamed “the tiger of the Pyrenees”, Christol was a noted French Græco-Roman wrestling champion and pugilist. In 1875, as reported in the Nov. 12 issue of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, William Miller, “the larger,” had wrestled against Christol, “the lither, but about equal in perfection of muscular development.” It was noted, “The two athletes went at each other with heads lowered, like wild beasts warily beginning an encounter, and grappled each other firmly around the shoulders” (Miller).
So now, when I mention fencing, put the idea that it is nothing but nerds stabbing at each other with old-school car antennas while dressed like steampunk Japanese astronauts- this shit was a deadly serious method of practicing for duels and armed combat, and it involved everything from bare knuckle brawling to women on horseback fighting men on foot and vice versa, and every conceivable method of fucking up another person with the barest nineteenth century illusion of safety.
Respect that shit- it’s legit.
Sources:
Miller, Ben. A grand assault-of-arms in old New York, directed by Col. Thomas Monstery. Out of This Century. 9 Apr 2015. Web. 26 May 2020. https://outofthiscentury.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/a-grand-assault-of-arms-in-old-new-york-directed-by-col-thomas-monstery/
Nice article. A small comment about the Scottish broadsword, from a Scot who likes hitting people with swords…
A basket-hilt claymore bears about as much resemblance to a foil as a pug does to a wolf. It might be a one-handed blade, but it’s not primarily a thrusting weapon; it’s a true cut-and-thrust blade. Fighting with one is heavy on the cuts – targets include the head, knees, wrists, ribs and belly – and if you land a clean cut, it sinks in like a butcher’s cleaver. From experience, if you slash into a carcass with it you’ll sever the spine. Another key difference – if you punch someone with a foil you’ll mildly inconvenience them. Punch someone with the guard on a claymore, it’s like hitting them with a hammer. Don’t do it to your friends.
Scottish fighters didn’t pair it with a buckler in open combat – they used something called a targe, which again bears only a superficial resemblance to a buckler. Bucklers are tiny, basically saucers you grip in one hand for duelling. A targe is roughly double the size, has a six-inch spike in the centre of it, and is worn strapped to the forearm with a dirk gripped in the same hand and protruding from the bottom edge.
A typical way of using this would be to sweep your opponent’s weapon away with the shield – you’d swing it in an arc so that their weapon is carried away by your targe, the spike rakes at their eyes and your dirk cuts at their arms or chest – then hack down with the broadsword into their undefended head/neck/chest area. Essentially, your angry Highlander would turn into a windmill of sharp pointy things crashing into you at a dead sprint.
Not offered as a nit-pick, but rather because it seems you’d enjoy a more accurate version a little more, in all its stabby, slash-happy fun.
I definitely appreciate it. My understanding was that over the time the basket-hilt broadsword evolved away from the claymore,and that it was essentially a rapier by the time Monstery was alive. The Scottish cavalry would use it when dismounted with the buckler deal. In any event, the evolution of it was the type of shit Monstery railed against, which you’ll see in part three. He fucking hated the direction fencing was going and fought hard to keep the combat close to realistic, but he was apparently alone in his willingness to fight with actual blades and the methods that go with them.
Thanks again for the input- this shit is fairly hard to parse because people seem only to write about sport fencing and swordplay in actual combat, rather than the initial intermediary fencing that was done.
In my response I complete overlooked your comment about the buckler. In my research a targe was explained to be a type of buckler, hence my use of more common nomenclature.