Destructive and Devious Defense - some Thoughts

Occasionally, as a fencer you may come across opponents who in some vague sense don't seem to play by the rules - when attacked, they don't even try to defend but instead accept the hit while trying to land a hit of their own. The net result is often not a technically interesting exchange, but rather artless sequences of double hits.

This is especially frustrating when you have reason to believe you are the technically superior fencer - yet all that a well-thought out and well-executed plan of attack results in is another double-hit.

Disturbingly often, I hear in discussions and read online something that in essence amounts to the idea 'the opponent just has to learn to fence properly' (e.g. Craig Peters writes in response to an issue he sees as problem in longsword fencing that we should Promote and promulgate the idea that good HEMA practice is not simply trying to exploit 'what works' but is rather grounded in concrete techniques and applied principles

. Well, the opponent has to do no such thing.

Fiore isn't a manual for 'concrete techniques and applied principles', it is a manual for survival on the battlefield - and what counts there is 'what works'.

So my belief is that you have to just learn to deal with these opponents - and the first step towards that goal is to understand what they are doing, why they are doing it and how that can be exploited tactically.

Destructive defense - how and why

For the first variant, I use the term 'destructive defense'. The idea is particularly strong in competition fencing with rating systems that favour the (in reality more dangerous) head and torso hits over arm and leg hits by awarding more points. The basic idea is fairly simple: Any fencer who attacks commits to leaving the three openings where his sword is not undefended - so rather than defending against the attack, it is possible to do a simultaneous attack into one of these openings. For instance, if the a fencer attacks the head, the opponent thrust into his torso, or if a fencer thrusts low, the opponent cut at his head.

This in itself doesn't 'win' a match in any sense - but it makes sure the practitioner of destructive defense cannot lose. If he consistently manages to get the high point value in the double hits his tactic produces, you cannot get more points than he - but you can get less if he e.g. try to feint (and your real attack is too late) or attack the hands (and score less points).

Destructive defense can really be consciously intended like this - or it can be the result of a fencer being over-eager for a possible hit blanking everything out of his mind except the opening to strike.

If someone believes to be inferior to you, destructive defense may actually be his best option - he knows he can't hope to win with a technical defense against you because you are better, but he can sure ruin your game and frustrate you by destroying your attacks into double-hits.

Devious defense - how and why

The devious defender carries the idea of destructive defense to the next level - he knows you are the better fencer, and he also knows that because of that, you want to avoid double-hits, in fact he assumes you want to fence in such a way as to avoid being hit at all - and so he can defend at the simple expense of threatening a double-hit anywhere.

For instance, a devious defender might have his blade in the center line (in Langort) - if you move in and try to bind, he would simply lower it to avoid a bind - thus giving you a clear line of attack at his undefended head - but he knows that no attack will come because he could cut at your hands, and since you try not to be hit at all, you will forego the opportunity.

A devious defense would neither win a real duel with sharp swords (because a head hit can kill with much higher probability than a hand hit from below) nor win a competition (because the head hit brings more points). So why is it done at all? Because it is one way to get a sense of achievement when sparring against a superior fencer - he is not only kept at bay, but also often is also hit - which would not be the case when trying to mount a technical defense.

On the validity of destructive and devious defense

Destructive defense - at least in the flavour of an opponent eager to attack as soon as any opportunity presents itself - must have been a historical reality. For instance Meyer advises Shauw das der erst seist auff dem Blan, Ehe er sich Legert greiff ihn an. ('See to it that you're the first to take action, before he finds his guard, attack!') - two fencers eager to be the first to attack the other must have been a recipe for double hits very much akin to destructive defense (note that this is clearly not Meyer's intention but rather the logical outcome of misinterpreting the advice as an overagressive approach).

As I have argued in my article on Risk-averse fencing, destructive defense is also not at all a way to commit suicide quickly, but instead an entirely rational choice of an inferior fencer who believes he cannot win on technical merits. If someone believes he do not stand a chance in a duel when trying to defend properly, the reasonable choice is to take a risk and just attack the opponent come what might - this is a dangerous course of action, but since the alternative is near-certain death, mere danger is preferable.

The essential point underlying devious defense is that when the two fencers do not share the same goal in an exchange, the one with the easier to fulfill goals has an advantage. A similar real-life tactical situation in an armed conflict occurs when one party cares about civilian casualties but the other does not. Whoever needs to protect civilians is at a real disadvantage. This is analoguous to devious defense - if one fencer doesn't want to be hit or injured and the other doesn't care, there is a real tactical advantage for the one who doesn't care.

Thus, also devious defense isn't in any real sense 'cheating' or 'not playing by the rules', it is an entirely real tactical choice that just has to be dealt with.

However, I do not think it was a historical reality. While destructive defense is a fairly simple concept, devious defense is much more active, complicated and has to be learned and drilled. However, learning to fence while not caring about wounds when sharp swords are used is not a recipe for a long life - chiefly blunt weapons and protective equipment make this possible. Even in Meyers time when fencing is a gentleman-activity rather than a battlefield necessity, we see fencers depicted without head protection using blunted steel feders - willingly accept a head-hit under such circumstances can't have been be much fun.

It also should be stressed again that neither destructive nor devious defense make much sense for the techically superior fencer to use - because he can reasonably expect to win with a clean hit using a technical defense, i.e. proper defensive plays that keep him safe and don't need to resort to double-hits. Also, neither destructive nor devious defense will ever allow anyone to become a technically superior fencer - if someone use such techniques, he will simply learn the wrong things.

Dealing with Destructive Defense

Destructive defense is, for all the frustration it can cause, a fairly simple concept, and it is that simplicity that makes it fairly easy to deal with.

The simplest approach is to wait for the opponent to attack if that is feasible. After all, there is no concept of a 'destructive attack' akin to the 'destructive defense' - the attacker has to commit his weapon first and so the defender can deal with it safely by using a suitable defensive play.

This might require some incentive once the opponent understands that he won't win when attacking against a superior swordsman. In a situation in which the opponent is just over-eager to attack whatever opening presents itself to the point that he neglects his own defense, it is easy to induce him to attack. This generally seems to be the idea of the Italian tradition. A minimal-commitment feint will usually do the trick because the opponent is already mentally hyped up. Once he attacks, you can counter with any suitable defensive play, since (by assumption) you are the superior fencer, you should be able to score a clean hit because once the opponent is doing an attack, his weapon is committed and can be controlled.

The method suggested by the historical fencing manuals then is to plan any attack as a two step process - first get control of the opponent's blade, once that is done, do the real attack.

The straightforward way to get control of a blade is to enter a bind (this is what the Liechtenauer tradition suggests), so if it is possible to simply advance and enter into a bind, the opponent can no longer attack any line - and so destructive defense cannot be done. Instead, fencing from the bind occurs, with techniques like Mutieren, Duplieren, Inwinden and Auswinden, to be used dependent on how strong the opponent pushes in the bind, a process known as Fühlen.

However, none of this is easy. Fencing from the bind requires a high level of experience and practice to do it successfully as it has quite many variables that need to be taken into account correctly in split-second decisions, so it's popularity in HEMA seems to be limited.

If on the other hand the opponent does not wish to enter a bind situation, he needs to move his blade out of the way. This in essence forces him to cede a line of attack that can be exploited. Again, this is easier understood in theory than done in practice.

Dealing with Devious Defense

As argued above, devious defense is a concept significantly more complicated than destructive defense in which the opponent uses a threat of a hit anywhere to protect himself against attacks. This is done deliberately and usually with some level of sophistication.

The devious defender knows he wants to defend, so he won't easily be lured into an attack. He also knows his ability to threaten a hit will be absent in a bind, so he goes out of his way to avoid binds (or hits against his blade) - it doesn't matter to him if he exposes his head to an attack, because as long as his weapon is free, he can hope to score a hit somewhere.

In this case, the fencing manuals do not give much advice how to attack such an opponent - anyone who proposed to deliberately expose his head to score a minor arm hit probably had this habit drilled out of him quickly by past fencing masters.

I can offer at this point two ideas I found useful in the situation.

The first is to simply not care. We might want to fence cleanly, being able to hit without being hit in return - but if the opponent abuses that concept, trading a solid head hit against a poor quality hand hit isn't so bad after all. At the same time, somewhat increasing the force of the strikes might result in the defender's natural defensive instincts kicking in rather than opening the line.

On the other hand, it is possible to understand devious defense and use it against the defender. If you know the opponent is going to avoid a bind, you can, to a degree, predict the motion of his blade. Actions like a low commitment engagement to a bind - which the opponent predictably evades - followed by a hard cut against the blade from the other side - which he then does not evade - become possible, and this can open a clean line to attack. Fencing in this way requires a good solid understanding of the historical techniques (because you can't actually use them, you just have to fence based on the underlying principles) as well as mentally being one or two steps ahead of an opponent who in turn adapts and creates novel ways to force double hits. It ultimately is a challenging exercise to test the ingenuity of any fencer to come up with out-of-the-box ideas to gain control of a difficult situation.

Summary

Both destructive and devious defense are on some level annoying for an experienced fencer who is trying to win on technical merits but is sucked into the mess of repeated double-hits. Yet it is pointless to lament and try to change the opponent - tactics just have to be adapted. Historical manuals can teach us how to deal with destructive defense by getting control over the weapon of the opponent as the first step of any attack. To deal cleanly with devious defense, we unfortunately have to understand and adapt the historical techniques.

Ultimately, both destructive and devious defense in friendly sparring (rather than an earnest duel) are mainly a problem of the defender who deprives himself of the opportunity to learn technically solid swordfighting.

Back to main index Back to Swordfighting

Created by Thorsten Renk 2025 - see the disclaimer, privacy statement and contact information.