Modern fencing abroad. Confrontation between French and Italian fencing schools

Soon after the first man hollowed out a hole in a stone and stuck it on a stick, making an axe, stone processing was put into practice. They were used to make not only axes and hammers, but also knives and spearheads. And for the most part, all these tools and weapons were created for hunting animals, as well as for the purpose of killing one’s neighbor.

Epochs succeeded one another, stone knives became bronze, copper, iron and finally steel. Martial art also improved, strength gave way to technology and skill. The development of fencing art went hand in hand with the development of edged weapons. Large swords required sweeping slashing blows, while sabers and swords required greater dexterity and agility. Modern fencing styles have evolved from the techniques of various fencing schools of the last hundreds of years.

Spanish fencing school

One of the most ancient is the Spanish school of fencing, which received the name destrez, which literally translates as skill. The Spaniards themselves claim that in reality the word “destreza” means a synthesis of craftsmanship, philosophy and art. The founder of this style is considered to be the Spanish nobleman Hieronimo Sanchez de Carranza, who outlined the methods of his school in the book “Philosophy of Weapons”, written by him in 1569. Destreza was built on the basis not only of combat skills, but also of the teachings of ancient Greek philosophers and the knowledge of that time about human physiology and biomechanics. Gerard Thibault significantly supplemented the theory of this school of fencing: he studied and described all the movements of the fencer’s arms and legs, identified patterns and designated the so-called Thibault circle - a schematic circle within the boundaries of which the fencer moves. This fencing technique was akin to art and incorporated certain philosophical principles, thus becoming a kind of teaching or set of rules of a true Spanish nobleman, similar to the Japanese code of bushido samurai.

A wielder of a destreza could effectively fight not only with a sword, dagger and one-handed sword, but also with a two-handed sword, spear and halberd.

Italian fencing school

There are still ongoing disputes between historians about which school of fencing is primary - Spanish or Italian. It is known that mentions of the latter appeared in the 15th century. Unlike Destreza, the Italian school mainly involves fencing with a sword, i.e. The emphasis in this system of techniques is not on blows with the blade, but on piercing attacks.

The Italian school relies more on defense and counterattacks. A necessary skill for a fighter is the ability not to lose a certain pace during the fight. In addition, the fencer either protected his second hand by wrapping a cloak around it, which in battle could also distract the enemy’s attention, or (this was in later times) took a dagger in it, which was used not for defense, but for attack.

One of the founders of the Italian school of fencing is considered to be Fiore de Liberi, an Italian nobleman from an impoverished noble family. In 1409, from his pen came the treatise “The Flower of Battles,” which became the foundation on which the entire Italian fencing tradition subsequently developed.

French fencing school

The French school of fencing has its roots in the Italian one. It originated in the 15th century. The French, by and large, also relied on piercing attacks, but unlike the Italians, they tried to have a greater impact on the opponent’s weapon, which was expressed in numerous taps, grabs and beating of the blade. They also used two swords in battles, which were sheathed in one sheath.

Interesting fact: modern sports fencing originated from the French school. It was in France that a special blunted rapier and a protective mesh face mask were invented.

The founder of the movement is considered to be the French nobleman Henri de Saint-Didier, a participant in numerous military campaigns. He left behind several treatises on the art of fencing, but only his work entitled “Secrets of the First Book of the One-Handed Sword,” which dates back to 1573, has survived to this day.

Polish fencing school

The art of Polish fencing or “stuka Kryzowa” (the art of the cross) is full of mysteries and tragedy, and this is perhaps the most interesting story. The fact is that the technique of the classical Polish school of fencing was lost, and then recreated again, and this happened less than ten years ago.

In the last century, the loss of knowledge did not dampen the ardor of Polish fencers, who began to study the history of this art. Taking the Hungarian school as a basis, they supplemented it with their own techniques, which they managed to restore. But their work was not systematic.

The famous Polish fencer and actor Janusz Siniawski took the issue seriously. He found the earliest historical document that described Polish fencing, the so-called. “Michael Starzewski's treatise”, published in Warsaw in 1830, and studied it. But, unfortunately, the document turned out to be incomplete and in places inaccurate.

After years of persistent research, the scheme was almost revealed, but several key details were still missing. This continued until 2010, when a Dutch document from the 16th century unexpectedly fell into the hands of a researcher, which described the skill of Polish saber fencers. The missing elements were found and the system was built.

It’s worth starting with the fact that the classic weapon of the Polish nobles was the carabela saber. In terms of the blade, it was practically no different from Russian, Caucasian or Turkish counterparts, but the knob of the handle had a bend, which was made in the form of an eagle profile. The saber fencer's posture when striking is a slight half-squat and legs wide apart, while the vector of movement of his blade formed an imaginary cross in front of the fighter from his own blade and the enemy's blade. This is where the name came from. In the 17th century there was a saying on this topic: “The Hungarian hits with a backhand, the Muscovite hits from top to bottom, the Turk hits towards himself, and the Pole hits with a cross (cross).”

Russian style of fencing

For many centuries, the main fencing weapons in Russia remained the saber and saber. They came to us from the South and from Asia after heavy swords began to lose their relevance.

The difference between the Russian style of saber fighting, as mentioned above, was the strike from top to bottom. At the same time, the legs, unlike the same Polish school, were not spaced so widely, which made it possible to quickly approach the enemy almost closely in order to avoid an attack at a long distance and deliver a decisive blow. From the beginning of the 18th century, under Peter I, officers began to be trained to use a sword. The teaching of this discipline acquired even greater scope in 1817, when the French fencer Alexandre Valville published in Russia his book “Discourse on the Art of Wielding a Sword,” in which he described 30 years of experience of all European schools.

In conclusion, it should be noted that it is impossible to determine which specific style is the best, since each was a product of its own era and is based on the culture and customs of certain peoples. And since these techniques have reached us, it means they have stood the test of time.

Story

The earliest known treatise on fencing, which partially described the art of fighting without weapons, is known as “Flower of Battle” (Italian. "Flos Duellatorum"). This Italian manuscript, written by Fiore de Liberi in 1409, has sections on hand-to-hand techniques, the use of the dagger, short sword, long sword, halberd and spear.

Another important treatise, written by Filippo Vadi between 1482 and 1487, is called De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi. (English)Russian. Despite the different styles of weapon use in the two books, Wadi's work was based on Liberi's treatise.

There is a version that Wadi's fencing style is transitional between the Liberi technique and the masters of the Bolognese school.

In the 16th century, many works began to be published, usually devoted to cutting and piercing blows with a sword. However, these collections partially contained instructions on the use of other types of weapons. A general overview of Italian fencing manuals of the 16th century includes the following list of weapon combinations: only an epee (or sword), an epee and a dagger, an epee and various types of shields, an epee and a cloak, an epee and a gauntlet, two swords, a two-handed sword, only a dagger, a dagger and cloak, halberd, spethum (English)Russian, glaive, protazan, protazan and shield, spear, pike, hand-to-hand techniques against an enemy with a dagger.

In the 17th century, when the sword finally replaced the sword, new manuals on the use of edged weapons appeared. However, despite the abundance of combinations in the last century, treatises of the 17th century were limited to describing fencing only with a sword (or a sword and dagger, a cloak or a shield). From the 17th to the beginning of the 19th centuries, the Italian school of fencing had almost no changes.

In 1883, the Italian Ministry of Defense officially adopted Masaniello Parise's treatise. It was from this period that the transformation of the Italian school of fencing into a modern sport began. Parise's style has survived to this day practically unchanged, although some techniques have been added to it.

Modern historical fencing in Europe and the USA has a large number of followers who study the Italian school of fencing and use treatises of the 15th-19th centuries.

Treatises

Some famous treatises on fencing by Italian masters:

• Fiore de Liberi (English)Russian("Flower of Battle" (English)Russian, 1409)
• Filippo Vadi (“De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi”, 1482-1487)
• Pietro Monte (“Exercitiorum Atque Artis Militaris Collectanea in Tris Libros Distincta”, 1509)
• Antonio Manziolino (“Dardi school”, 1531)

See also

Write a review on the article "Italian fencing school"

Notes

Links

• .

An excerpt characterizing the Italian school of fencing

The unexpected news about the French crossing the Neman was especially unexpected after a month of unfulfilled anticipation, and at a ball! The Emperor, at the first minute of receiving the news, under the influence of indignation and insult, found what later became famous, a saying that he himself liked and fully expressed his feelings. Returning home from the ball, the sovereign at two o'clock in the morning sent for secretary Shishkov and ordered to write an order to the troops and a rescript to Field Marshal Prince Saltykov, in which he certainly demanded that the words be placed that he would not make peace until at least one the armed Frenchman will remain on Russian soil.
The next day the following letter was written to Napoleon.
“Monsieur mon frere. J"ai appris hier que malgre la loyaute avec laquelle j"ai maintenu mes engagements envers Votre Majeste, ses troupes ont franchis les frontieres de la Russie, et je recois a l"instant de Petersbourg une note par laquelle le comte Lauriston, pour cause de cette aggression, annonce que Votre Majeste s"est consideree comme en etat de guerre avec moi des le moment ou le prince Kourakine a fait la demande de ses passeports. Les motifs sur lesquels le duc de Bassano fondait son refus de les lui delivrer, n "auraient jamais pu me faire supposer que cette demarche servirait jamais de pretexte a l" aggression. En effet cet ambassadeur n"y a jamais ete autorise comme il l"a declare lui meme, et aussitot que j"en fus informe, je lui ai fait connaitre combien je le desapprouvais en lui donnant l"ordre de rester a son poste. Si Votre Majeste n"est pas intentionnee de verser le sang de nos peuples pour un malentendu de ce genre et qu"elle consente a retirer ses troupes du territoire russe, je regarderai ce qui s"est passe comme non avenu, et un accommodement entre nous sera possible. Dans le cas contraire, Votre Majeste, je me verrai force de repousser une attaque que rien n"a provoquee de ma part. Il depend encore de Votre Majeste d"eviter a l"humanite les calamites d"une nouvelle guerre.

Each person has his own idea of ​​Italian fencing. As a result, misconceptions always arise regarding one or another issue relating to this type of martial arts. This time we will try to streamline historical data and put everything in its place, thanks to research carried out by Grand Maestro Oleg Maltsev and his colleagues, based on the study of ancient books, treatises and other ancient sources that are in the public domain.

To do this, we will use two approaches: social and scientific. The social approach shows your perception of Italian fencing in the light of historical documents. The scientific approach shows how you might perceive Italian fencing from a scientific point of view, accompanied by some commentary on these documents.

Live Broadcast with Grand Maestro Oleg Maltsev. Italian Fencing School.Science of Victory#LiesAndTruthAboutMartialArts #MartialArts #GrandMaestroOlegMaltsev #IgnoranceLiquidation #SpeculationsOverview #Weapons #HistoryOfMartialArts #CriminalTraditions #WeaponHistory #LiveBroadcast #ItalianFencingSchool

Gepostet von Lies and Truth about Martial Arts am Donnerstag, 20. July 2017

Imagine some kind of time line. It is generally accepted in society that the year 1500 is the starting point when the first unnamed treatise on fencing appeared in Bologna, and it is this that is considered the first document. We suggest taking a look at the 17-step chronology of the history of Italian fencing, taking into account the written treatises:

1523 – Antonio Manciolino (Antonio Manciolino) – treatise “OperaNova”
1531 – Camillo Agrippa (Camillo Agrippa)
1536 – AchilleMarozzo (Achille Marozzo). His treatise “OperaNovadell’ArtedelleArmi” was reprinted until the 17th century.
1539 – FrancescodiSandroAltoni (Francesco di Sandro Altoni)
1553 – Camillo Agrippa (Camillo Agrippa)
1570 – GiacomodiGrassi (Giacomo di Grassi)
1572 – Giovannidall’Agocchie (Giovanni dall’Agocchi) – three books on the art of defense
1575 –AngeloViggiani (Angelo Viggiani)
1580 – Girolamo Cavalcabo (Girolamo Cavalcabo)
1601 – MarcoDocciolini (Marco Docciolini)
1606 – Salvator Fabris (Salvator Fabris)
1606-1608 – Nicoletto Giganti (Nicoletto Giganti)
1610 – RidolfoCapoferro (Ridolfo Capoferro)
1640 – FrancescoAlfieri (Francesco Alfieri)
1670 – Giuseppe Morsicato Pallavicini (Giuseppe Morsicato Pallavicini)
1686 – Francesco Antonio Marcelli (Francesco Antonio Marcelli)
1696 –BondidiMazo (Bondidi Matso)

It's worth talking about some of the troubles with this chronology. The first thing that catches your eye is that there is hardly anyone among the Italians who has read all these documents. It was quite difficult to arrange the treatises chronologically, and even then, these are only the main, more or less well-known works. There are many other works that are not included in the chronology for various reasons, for example, due to their lack of availability in the public domain, although such books were examined as part of the study. But all scientists refer specifically to the works presented in the chronology. Therefore, we are not talking about the criminal tradition, about the Genoese and Neapolitan schools of fencing, about documents written in Sicily. We are talking only about official documents, about more or less famous treatises, which, according to classical history and public opinion, constitute Italian fencing, although on the basis of these documents it is possible to understand, for example, the Apulian and Calabrian schools of fencing only partially.

Each person has his own opinion about what is written in the treatises. In addition, it is seriously “diluted” by the opinion of the masters on this matter. As they say, as many people as there are, so many opinions, therefore this already impressive package of documents is multiplied by the number of opinions of different people. Just imagine what kind of library would need to be created to take into account all opinions - competent or incompetent, and understand Italian fencing in such a way that everyone would like it? It turns out this way: there are people with their own opinions on this matter, and there are historical documents. What the documents say in the vast majority of cases contradicts their opinion. As you can see, the biggest problem is that most people have opinions not based on these documents - they have not even read them - but on the basis of those who teach them the art of war.

Notice the frequency with which treatises were published at that time. This fact alone should lead an intelligent and sensible person to a certain thought, because today treatises are not published with such frequency. It turns out that these treatises were needed then, but now for some reason there is no need for them. Today, instead of treatises, there are people who do not write any works, but declare their opinions in the gym or on the training ground, where they demonstrate some techniques to everyone. They don't write any treatises because it would look funny. In this regard, many serious contradictions arise between your opinion, the desire to follow your masters, and the historical documents presented.

One cannot help but notice an interesting fact: most famous fencers are Venetians. Many of them are not from Venice, but they spent their whole lives there. Why Venice, you ask? The fact is that at that moment in time Venice, Genoa, Bologna and Sicily were not part of Italy.

This chronology represents the public view. Of course, you can start studying the treatises from this list, but we still have to figure out the differences between Italian fencing and other types of fencing (French, German, Spanish, etc.). To understand this, we will rely only on the works of famous fencers. Undoubtedly , Italy's first famous fencer was Achille Marozzo. He lived in Venice and ran a fencing school there. Next to Marozzo you can put Camillo Agrippa and Giacomo di Grassi, the author of the so-called “First Venetian Treatise”. It should be noted that each of these people is quite interesting as a person.

Let's imagine a vertical of three levels and consider three treatises written for different strata of society.

1. Giacomo di Grassi's treatise, published in 1570, will be located at the top of this vertical, since it is written in a very complex language, and you are unlikely to understand it on your own. Di Grassi openly writes that the rest do not understand anything at all about fencing. He visited all the fencing schools in Italy and abroad, and he had the opportunity to see the work of the masters, their mistakes and stupidities. “The First Venetian Treatise” by Giacomo di Grassi is an academic postgraduate course for a fencer, that is, written for someone who knows how to fence, but does not yet understand everything about this issue. There is no “set of techniques” in the treatise. It only contains the science of fencing. However, the author reserves the right for you to independently select a set of techniques for this science that, in your opinion, corresponds to this science.

2. Camillo Agrippa wrote a treatise for an educated person who is able to understand what is written here. The treatise was published in 1553. It contains a description of both science and techniques.

3. The favorite treatise of most Italians is the treatise by Achille Marozzo, published in 1536. It describes working with all types of weapons: a knife, a dagger, and even the technique of working with bare hands against a knife. Marozzo's treatise is written in very simple language, and therefore understandable to everyone.

Please note that the frequency of publication of treatises is about 20-30 years. This vertical indicates the dates of publication, not the dates of writing of the treatises, and these dates should be distinguished. Of course, there are other authors of treatises, but they did not play a significant role in the history of fencing.

These treatises were written in Venice, and in such a way as to cover the entire vertical of social classes (upper class, noble class and commoners). Some claim that Camillo Agrippa wrote his treatise in Rome, but, apparently, few people know that this treatise was previously published in Venice.

To briefly describe each treatise, Giacomo di Grassi's work is a description of science, Camillo Agrippa's treatise on how science is applied, and Achille Marozzo's treatise on how to imitate those who know how to fence.

Among the outstanding people the following authors can be noted.
1606 – Salvator Fabris (Salvator Fabris) – “The Fifth Venetian Treatise”
1606-1608 – Nicoletto Giganti (Nicoletto Giganti). It is believed that Nicoletto Giganti “purified” Venetian fencing of its complexities and in this respect repeated the feat of Achille Marozzo.
1610 – Ridolfo Capoferro (Ridolfo Capoferro)
1640 – Francesco Alfieri (Francesco Alfieri) – “Second Venetian Treatise”

Perhaps these are all the key treatises published in Italy. For quite a long period of time, these seven Venetians were the first persons of Venice or modern Italy in the field of Italian fencing. No one can surpass them - they are too huge. In addition, these are universally recognized people, so some readers will have to come to terms with and admit that the entire system is divided into the Venetian, Bologna and Genoese schools, which at that time had nothing to do with Italy. And this is not surprising, because, for example, Venice was an aggressive maritime state waging wars of conquest; accordingly, they needed a military system that would help them conquer and win.

Further, historical sources say that in the 18th century all this disappears and two schools of fencing remain: French and Neapolitan. We dare say that this is a rather dubious statement, since the treatises still exist. Of course, if they were not forged in the 18th century and left in this form to this day.

Some documents say that in the 19th century, as if from the ashes, some incomprehensible system was being revived in Italy, which looked like this: the Spanish school of fencing, French, Neapolitan, Sicilian and northern. And it is said that Italian fencing is a mixture of French and Spanish fencing. This data can be found in excerpts taken from a 19th century official document discussing schools of fencing, namely the Treatise on the Use of the Saber and Sword in Italian Fencing, written by Alberto Blengini in 1864. The book even contains photographs of fights with swords and sabers against people armed with small arms and a bayonet.

As we see, until the 17th century, history is quite clear and understandable.

If you arrange all these treatises in a certain order, you will get the same vertical order of classes. The treatise of the Venetian Salvator Fabris is similar to the treatise of Camillo Agrippa. The Fifth Venetian Treatise was written by him for the nobles. Nicoletto Giganti's treatise is similar to the work of Achille Marozzo. Accordingly, it can be said that the treatise of Ridolfo Capoferro is similar to the treatise of Camillo Agrippa, and the Second Venetian Treatise of Francesco Alfieri can be attributed to the science of fencing, which is discussed in the work of Giacomo di Grassi.

In fact, we can say that the works of Marozzo and Giganti were written for soldiers. Italians love these books very much for the simplicity of their presentation. Giganti's book is much more powerful and more complex than Marozzo's book, but both are useful to study. The second level is the commander level. This category includes the works of Agrippa, Fabris and Capoferro, written for nobles and commanders. Treatises for the highest echelon (generals, commanders, rulers) were written by di Grassi and Alfieri. The Grand and Minor Lodge meter shows that the criminal tradition (Little Lodge) is oriented towards the works of Marozzo and Giganti. If we compare the works of Agrippa, Fabris and Capoferro, these are different treatises with different views on fencing, that is, three different Grand Lodges, to which any of the Small Lodges can be substituted. These communities are ruled by Capo Alfieri and di Grassi. Their treatises are ideological, that is, they set the ideology and command regime from top to bottom.

The di Grassi and Alfieri levels are represented by the same leaders, according to the Venetian continuity of generations. The second level is represented by three categories of nobles: some like the treatise of Agrippa, some like the work of Capoferro, some like the work of Fabris, and some study the techniques outlined in all three treatises. The third level includes two types of soldiers: Venetian soldiers trained according to Marozzo's book, and Venetian soldiers trained according to Giganti's book. The books of Marozzo and Giganti provided the evolution of soldier training for nearly 100 years. They contain 14 sets of 14 Venetian movements, which later became the main technical elements used by soldiers. As for the nobles, they have much more technical elements. At the level of di Grassi and Alfieri, the same base will remain, but the knowledge will be expanded. This base can be expanded by using it in other ways and adding technical elements. The original Venetian system includes 36-38 basic technical elements.

An interesting question arises: what did the other 11 maestros do? Nothing has changed since then. Look around and see how many people teach fencing today - there are far from 17 of them. And then, in the above chronology only 17 authors are presented only because it does not take into account documents from Genoa, Venice, Naples and Spain. If you collect documents from all libraries in Italy, their number will increase to 200 or 300. However, scientists unanimously declare that there is nothing outstanding in these documents, since everything outstanding was done in the period before the 17th century by the Venetian school of fencing.

So, it's time to take stock. As a result of the work done, a system emerged that can be relied upon in the future. It is unlikely that anyone will challenge the authority of these people. The next step is to figure out what contribution to fencing was made by each of these people, based on the treatises they wrote, and to determine all the differences in Italian fencing at different levels of the vertical class in accordance with historical documents. At this stage, it is important that we managed to structure what is happening to XVII century.

You may disagree with this classification, you may adhere to a different classification, but it is unlikely that you will read all these books. Before presenting this material, Grand Maestro Oleg Maltsev had to seriously work in Italy, Venice and Sicily, study all these treatises and other ancient documents in order to understand the historical events of the period of the XV-XVII centuries. Our next articles will be devoted to an in-depth analysis of treatises and other schools of fencing.

In the first half of the 16th century, the fencing school dominated in Italy Achillo Marozzo (1496-1576). Marozzo is mainly seen as the first outstanding author to write about the art of fencing. But it is probably wiser to regard him as the greatest teacher of the old, rough, unpolished school of fencing, which relied on swiftness, fury, and insight as much as on careful preparation and skill.

Marozzo was from Bologna, but he kept his school in Venice. Judging by the numerous reprints of his works, five of which were published between 1536 and 1615, he enjoyed a good reputation.

It is remarkable in that it was far ahead of any other treatise of its time and anticipated the dominant position of Italian schools in fencing. And after his death, three more editions were published at fairly large intervals - and, apparently, it was popular among some old-fashioned fencing players even at the beginning of the 17th century, when the schools of such great masters as Fabrice, Capo Ferro and Giganti flourished.

From the second half of the 16th century, the piercing technique for the sword and long rapier began to prevail, which was of little use for war, but ideal for a mortal duel.

The first treatise on fencing, which was scientifically substantiated the advantage of thrusting techniques over slashing blows and defensive positions over complex maneuvering, was the work of a Milanese Camillo Agrippa, published in 1568 in Venice. (“”; published in 1553, 1568 and 1604)

It is interesting that Camillo Agrippa was not a professional fencer, but just an amateur. However, by profession he was an engineer (architect, mathematician), thanks to which he was able to introduce new rational elements into the art of fencing: “First of all, he simplified the duel, identifying four main positions in it. He paid close attention to the need for rational movement of weapons. At the same time, he used his knowledge of mathematics to calculate the optimal directions of attacks and similar positions and to develop precise methods of defense. His work was the first to describe a lunge- an important attacking action.

Salvator Fabris born in Bologna in 1544. He traveled to Spain, France and Germany. In 1590, he was invited to the court by the Danish king Christian IV, a great lover of the art of fencing, and under his patronage Fabrice published his treatise. (“De Lo Schermo overo Scienza d’Arme”, Copenhagen, 1606). The art of fencing was his life's work. The science of fencing is indebted to Fabrice for the clarification of many obscure principles, such as: opposition, transfer of weapons, circles, feint, tempo and distance. Fabrice was the first to prove the undeniable superiority of such a fencing system, in which the main goal is speed of action and tempo, on which careful preparation of the attack is based. Fabrice's work was such a success that during the 17th century no less than five editions of it and the same number of translations or adaptations were published in Italy and Germany.

Technological, military and social changes entail changes in the appearance of weapons, and therefore in the technique of using them.
The long period of Italian wars (from 1494 to 1559) ended. This led to the emergence of weapons that were originally intended for everyday wear and fights in urban environments, and not for combat.
This is how it appeared rapier(rapier) - a long, one-handed weapon with a lighter blade, designed for piercing techniques. The rapier was created in Italy and Spain, and from there it spread throughout Western Europe.

Confrontation between the French and Italian fencing schools.

Starting from the middle of the 17th century, when the French shortened their swords, fencing with piercing weapons began to rapidly progress in the variety of techniques, dexterity and speed of their use. From this moment on, a sharp divergence begins between the French school (more progressive) and the Italian school (more conservative). These differences reached their peak towards the end of the 19th century.

In France, from the second half of the 18th century, fencing made rapid, significant progress, clearly ahead of Italy. In 1736, the Frenchman Girard introduced the 8th and final defense, almost two centuries later than the first 7. In 1755, in the French Encyclopedia, in the article “fencing,” the need to introduce a fencing mask to prevent accidents was first mentioned. But it took 10 years before fencing masks were finally introduced.


Vintage postcard from the 19th century, France.

In 1766, in Paris, fencing teacher Danet published a detailed work on the use of edged weapons, a significant part of which consists of exercises on teaching techniques for withdrawing and capturing an enemy’s weapon with an unarmed hand. At the moment, these techniques are considered prohibited in fencing.
The introduction of the mask gave a sharp impetus to further technical and tactical improvement of fencing.

At the same time, a struggle between two schools arose in France: old classic(Bertrand, La Boissiere, Cordenois, Bondi, etc.) and practical schools, the founder of which was the famous French fighter of the early 19th century, Lafauger. His famous fight in Paris in 1816 with Count Bondi, the best fencer in Paris at that time, constituted an era in the history of fencing. Lafaugere was small in stature, but unusually agile.

The provincial fencing teacher Lafaugere, unknown to anyone at that time, came to Paris with the goal of testing his theory in practice in a battle with the best representative of the classical school - Count Bondi. His brilliant victory in the presence of a huge number of spectators and all the fencing authorities of the time created a sensation. In 1730, academician Ernst Legouwe, an adherent of the old school, wrote the following in his article “Tournament of the 19th Century”: “The sharp reaction of realism against romantic academicism in literature and painting could not but affect fencing. Gomard, Charlemagne, Cordenois and others could see with true regret the emerging new school, which, caring only about giving the injection, rejected the requirements of grace and grace of movement as useless and ridiculous. In vain did Bertrand, our incomparable Bertrand, prove by his lessons and personal example that one can be at the same time the most graceful and the most powerful fighter; Every day the new school won the right of citizenship. Fencing henceforth remains, without a doubt, a useful and entertaining exercise, but it is no longer an art, for “there is no art where there is no beauty.”

During this period of struggle in the direction of French fencing, the principle of rationalization, purposefulness of every movement and action is the basis of fencing technique and tactics. The first of the most authoritative innovators in this regard was Jacob. He insisted on the introduction of counter-ripostes and long fighting phrases, which constitute the characteristic and most difficult feature of the French school.

Italian fencing has been under the influence of the French since the end of the 18th century and almost the entire 19th century. In introducing their methods, the French first of all took care to introduce their teachers and their weapons (without a diameter and with a guard in the form of a figure eight). The design of the weapon and the way it was held changed the technique, methodology and tactics of fencing in northern Italy (in the occupied territories). Three schools were formed in Italy: the northern Italian one under the leadership of Radaelli, which took the main positions of the French school, the southern Italian one, headed by the Parise family of fencing masters, which retained Italian weapons (with a crossbar and martingale) and Italian equipment, and the secondary school led by Marchianni, which took the the most advantageous position, taking the most valuable from both schools. In 1879, a government commission was organized in Italy to unify teaching methods, which supported nationalist tendencies and in 1883 chose the system of the Neapolitan Academy professor Masaniello Parise.