Distance, also called measure, plays a fundamental role in fencing. Defined as the physical distance between two fencers or the distance that a fencer’s blade must travel to hit the other fencer, the way it is measured provides a window into the tactical and technical doctrine of the various fencing schools. As expected in the period before the development of the modern international style, there are multiple approaches, including the following examples in German, Italian, and French.

Roux (1849, Treichel translation) in his manual on the Kreusslerian Thrust Fencing (a style that persisted in Germany until the classical period) describes the distance in terms of the sword. The sword blade was divided into four parts from forward guard to point: (1) full strength, (2) medium strength, (3) medium weak, (4) total weak. The relative position of the sword established three distances, recognized by the shooter based on the pressure on the opponent’s blade:

  • Wide distance: the total weakness of the fencer can reach half of the weakness of the opponent. This position is for defense or reconnaissance.

  • Medium distance, also known as normal or adequate measure: the fencer’s total weakness can reach half the opponent’s strength.

  • Close Distance: Half of the fencer’s weakness is in the opponent’s full strength. This is a dangerous position because the opponent’s attacks will penetrate through a fencer’s parry.

Although there are differences in the exact way these distances are described, this German approach to using the blade to measure distance remains largely consistent into the early years of the classical period (see Steflik’s translations of Eiselen 1818, Seidler 1843 and Schneider 1887). .

Rather, the Italian approach to distance relies on the footwork required to perform the attack. Parise (1884, Holzman’s translation) defines three measures:

  • Advance Measure: A lunge forward is used to hit the opponent.

  • Lunge Measure – The opponent can be hit with a lunge.

  • Narrow Measure – The opponent can be hit without the use of footwork.

Van Humbeek (1905, translation by Van Noort), a Belgian fencing master trained in Italian, divides the distance into:

  • Long Measure – Shooters are further apart than the correct distance.

  • Correct Measure: The fencer must use an advance to reach the distance that the opponent can be hit with a lunge.

  • Normal measure: the fencer can hit the opponent with a lunge.

  • Short Measure: No footwork required to hit the opponent.

Barbasetti (1932) uses different terminology, but with the same basic intention:

  • Close or close distance: when the opponent is touched by a simple extension.

  • Correct distance: when the opponent can be hit by a lunge.

  • Normal Distance: Normal call because it is taken when taking the guard position to defeat a sudden attack, it requires a forward and a lunge to hit.

  • Out of Distance Position: When the distance is greater than the normal distance.

The French description of the measure is different. Mentions of distance in earlier texts are generally minimal or absent. The 1877 War Ministry Fencing Manual (Slee’s translation) does not discuss the measure. The 1908 English translation of the War Ministry manual describes the fencer being on or off the range, and the term measure is defined as the greatest distance a fencer can hit an opponent with a lunge. This definition is repeated in 1967 by Crosnier. Deladrier (1948) specifies that the proper distance to be maintained at all times is the distance at which the opponent can be hit by a lunge. Castello differentiates between in range, the distance the opponent can strike with a lunge, and out of range, the distance the opponent must use an advanced lunge. Neither Rondelle (1892), Senac (1904), Manrique (1920) nor Grave (1934) discuss the measure in detail.

At the end of the period we find other detailed measurement considerations, based on the range needed for the attack. At this point, it is difficult to attribute these categories to a specific school and they may represent the evolving international style. Vince (1937) identifies three measures:

  • Short distance: the opponent is hit by an arm extension.

  • Medium distance: a lunge is required to strike.

  • Long Distance – Requires a breakthrough and a lunge to strike.

Lidstone (1951) describes four distances:

  • Out of range: distance at which the opponent cannot be hit by a lunge.

  • In distance: the distance at which the opponent can be hit by a lunge.

  • Half Distance – The distance a half lunge can hit.

  • Short distance: distance at which the blow can be made without launching.

In summary, we see the distance described in two significant ways, in terms of the position of the blades and by the footwork required to execute the attack at a distance that will result in a hit. In the classical period, Italian theory provides the most developed approach to measuring footwork, and appears to form the basis of the developing international style of fencing at the end of the period.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *