Phases of an exchange, transitions and control

Attempts to conceptualize swordfighting in different phases date back as far as the early fencing manuscripts. The German longsword tradition makes the distinction chiefly on distance - it knows Zufechten ('towards-fencing') as the long-distance part before blade contacts occur, Krieg ('war') as the sequence of blade contacts and Ringen ('wrestling') as the close distance part where grappling, throwing and wrestling actions can occur.

Joachim Meyer adds the Abzug ('pulling away') to such concepts, the phase in which a fencer retreats from the exchange.

The Italian tradition knows Zogho Largo ('wide play') and Zogho Stretto ('close play') and Fiore sorts the different techniques according to these concepts. The Incrosada ('crossing') adds the concept of a bind from which fencing is done, and Vadi describes fencing a mezza spada ('at half blade').

In practical terms, being able to conceptually divide an encounter into phases is useful to better understand what techniques to use when, to formulate tactical plans and ultimately to control an exchange such that a fencer can bring his own strengths to bear.

However, it has to be clear that any such division into phases can in reality never be clear-cut but instead represents a theoretical idealization. Moreover, Usually not every phase occurs in a particular exchange. Personally, I find the following division into phases useful (with names snatched from different traditions based on usefulness without attempt to create a coherent scheme).

Zufechten

Zufechten is the phase prior to fencers committing to attacks or other actions. Generally the phase is characterized by a relatively large distance such that surprise attacks are difficult (or even impossible), low-commitment actions like guard changes, quick blade extensions or steps to study or bait the opponent and quite often some amount of motion to adjust the distance between fencers ('distance play').

Meyer views Zufechten as a very active phase in which the sword is constantly in motion from one guard to the next while other authors seem to have a more static view.

What to do

The idea of winning in Zufechten is to maneuver in such a way that when an attack is finally launched, the opponent is at a disadvantage. For instance, it may be possible to subtly shorten the distance during Zufechten such that an experienced fencer can get the opportunity to launch a quick, essentially unstoppable surprise attack, or to use a change from one guard to the other to attack the opening that has just been exposed.

Just equally well, Zufechten can be used to study the opponent's reaction to a threat as a basis for an attack plan, or to prepare the opponent to expect a certain action that isn't planned at all. Essentially, Zufechten is the only phase in which planning and the use of psychology are possible, all else is happening too fast.

What to avoid

Apart from simply being taken by surprise and subsequently being hit, perhaps the worst thing that can happen in Zufechten is that a fencer gives away his intentions so that his opponent knows what will happen next and can prepare.

For instance, a defender who reacts to quick baiting stabs a few times with the same parry has become predictable - the attacker knows what his motion will be when the real attack comes. Such predictability has to be avoided.

Tactical Opening

When a fencer commits to an actual attack as opposed to a mere low-commitment probing action, he has to close the distance and Zufechten is over. At this point, every fencer is now at risk of being hit.

If the initial attack (or defense) follows a plan (like 'baiting the opponent to hit an exposed arm, if it happens quickly pulling back, beating his blade aside and countering with a thrust'), then the fencers have entered the Tactical Opening phase. If no fencer follows a prior plan but just reacts to events, the phase is Mezza Spada instead (see next section).

The greatest danger in moving from Zufechten to an attack is that both fencers do it at the same time, resulting in double-hits, and consequently much of a good opening tactic is concerned with avoiding double-hits. This really is the domain of the historical manuals - e.g. Fiore, von Danzig, Ringeck, Döbringer or Meyer to a large part describe tried and tested techniques to attack safely or to gain initiataive and counter after the initial defense.

As a good tactic has to involve decision points what to do dependent on the opponent's action, the phase is usually over after three or four blade actions because it is in practice impossible to visualize the whole plan with too many alternatives (and any plan has to be visualized prior to the attack to prime muscle memory - just consciously deciding upon tactics after the attack has started is too slow by far).

The phase can be completely absent if a fencer launches from Zufechten into an attack without a tactical plan and relies on his fighting instincts.

What to do

The idea of winning during the tactical opening means forcing the opponent - either by feints and misdirection or by counter-cuts and thrusts - into a situation where he fails to execute a proper counter technique- either because he doesn't know it or because he has insufficient time to execute it - and is consequently hit.

Generally it pays off here to know the various techniques, plays and counters that the manuals list for various guards - not every opening is suited for every situation.

What to avoid

If the aim is to win rather than to annoy the opponent with intentional double-hits, then it is a mistake to open with techniques which do not apply to the situation at hand. For instance, an cut like a Zwerchhau protects the attacker from counters from above, so the technique is suitable for attacking high guards. It does no such thing if the opponent is standing in a low guard, instead it exposes the attackers torso.

To a lesser degree, the same is true for prepared defensive techniques - defense needs to be reactive, blindly following a plan that looked great before but has nothing to do with how the opponent actually attacks is a recipe for disaster.

Mezza Spada

When fighting still occurs with blade actions and has short blade contacts, usually fast and at a distance where the blades cross about in the middle, but actions no longer follows a prepared plan, Tactical Opening is over and Mezza Spada has started.

Because actions are no longer planed but fencers react to perceived openings and threats, the role of instinct, speed and reaction time is much emphasized and fighting tends to be fast, in fact as fast as possible. This in turn means the chance of double-hits is reduced, because a fencer defending on instinct usually is too busy defending to execute a risky counter-attack. It also means that actions become on average more simple than during tactical opening - feints and counter-cuts tend to be replaced by quick thrusts, cuts and blocks.

It is quite possible to reach Mezza Spada directly from Zufechten, but usually not against a tactically well-versed opponent.

What to do

The message from authors ranging from Vadi to Meyer is unanimous - stress the opponent by hammering him from various directions, if possible add simple feints to your game, if you have the initiative, keep pressing the attack relentlessly.

Conversely, if you do not have the initiative, try to seize it by retreating fast and blocking with point towards the opponent to be ready to exploit any mistake (like a cut too short) with a quick counter.

What to avoid

Because offensive Mezza Spada relies on stressing the opponent, it usually breaks when that doesn't happen and the opponent has time to think and recover. Common mistakes here are to attack too simple or for too long.

As an example of the first case, a simple 'left-right-left-right' pattern of cuts from above feels natural for hammering an opponent, but is very easy to predict and block and gives an opponent ample time to plan a counter.

If an attack is pressed for too long, it usually means the attacker loses proper structure and footwork and he tends to overextend and thus become vulnerable to counters. The surest sign of having pressed an attack for too long is missing a cut because it lands short - this is a very dangerous moment because the split-second it takes to recover the blade is sufficient opening for a capable opponent to land a clean cut.

Bind

A bind is a situation in which the two blades touch each other for an extended period of time. This means each fencer has tactile information on what the other is doing, he feels the motion of the opponent's blade - and this makes the exchange faster, because the tactile reaction time is about 30% shorter than the visual one. At least in theory, it is not straightforward to disengage from a bind, because when trying to do so, the opponent might thrust right into the opening that is created by pulling back.

Fencing from the bind thus involves cuts that pivot around a contact point with the opponent's blades and thrusts that aim to displace his blade. As Meyer writes, conceptually it is surprisingly similar to Mezza Spada in that fencing from the bind aims to overwhelm the opponent's defenses by constantly changing the line of attack.

What to do

The general rule is - if the opponent is weak in the bind, be strong and displace his blade. If he is strong, yield and let his own force move his weapon away from the center, use the unbalanced moment to cut or thrust from the outside. If the opponent brings his hands up, bring the point low, if he lowers his hands bring it high.

If a fencer manages to bring his strong against the opponent's weak, techniques like Mutieren can be used to retain control of the opponent's weapon and seek a safe thrust.

Unfortunately, doing all this correctly is rather difficult because everything happens very fast, so this has to be trained thoroughly.

What to avoid

The most obvious mistakes when fencing from the bind are to disengage for a cut and thus giving the opponent an opening and to win the bind by brute force, thus over-committing to a push around which the opponent can safely go.

Close play

At a distance where the left hand of a fencer can touch the opponent, close-play techniques start. This also is the distance from which it becomes harder to thrust with the point of a longsword and quite possible to strike with pommel or crossguard.

Conceptually close play is different from wrestling in that fencers still try to use the sword as the main weapon of attack (and hence still at least one hand remains at the sword). The Fiore manuscript has a large number of techniques that range from grabbing the opponent's blade via two-handed pommel strikes to half-swording.

What to do

Initiative matters a lot in close play, quite often it is better to just do something than to think the situation through and find the optimal course of action. Grabbing something - be it the blade or an arm - is a good start that forces the opponent to react in a hurry, dependent on what could be grabbed, further actions can be decided upon. Also, constantly pushing forward is a good idea, an opponent stepping backward will have to focus extra attention on not to fall which weakens his overall position.

What to avoid

For our time, close-play and wrestling are activities people tend to shy away from because they are very physical. That is a recipe for losing - close play is not necessarily elegant, but it absolutely requires that a fencer means to go through with it.

Wrestling

Wrestling is done at a distance when a longsword becomes more or less irrelevant to the encounter and it is easier to win by throwing the opponent to the ground or applying a joint lock. Usually the bodies of both fencers are in contact. A fencer might or might not let go of his own sword under these conditions, historically daggers would be carried to be used then.

Once wrestling has started, the encounter is unlikely to go back to a fight with the blade at distance since it is very difficult to get our of a grappling match if the opponent doesn't let go. The encounter is in this case not decided by blade actions.

Retreat

Often neglected in modern HEMA, the purpose of a retreat is to get away safely after scoring a hit (or having tried to do so) even when the opponent tries to do an afterblow.

Naturally, stepping backwards is part of a retreat, but usually this alone is insufficient. Meyer covers the theory of the retreat in his fencing manual and recommends to do a cut while stepping backwards. In principle the same is accomplished by moving the blade to a block where the opponent's line of attack is most likely to be.

Transitions

Going from one phase to another one is equivalent to a transition. Not all phases have transitions to every other phase, for instance it is practically impossible to go directly from Zufechten to wrestling (in fact, the only phase from which wrestling can reasonably be entered is close play).

Transitions can be intended by one or both of the opponents - or they can happen unintentionally.

For instance, when both fencers andvance extend their weapons during Zufechten and cross their blades, they make a transition to a bind. None of them has to do that, each can decide to keep the distance or to pull his blade away, so this is an example for a transition that is intended by both.

To give an example for the opposite, assume both fencers decide to attack high at the same time and step forward - one of them realizes the imminent double-hit and re-directs his cut towards his opponent's blade. The end result will likely see both of them in a high bind fairly close together, ready to begin close play. Yet none of them intended this outcome, each just wanted to start an attack with a cut. So in this case the transition is accidential.

Finally, transitions may be intended by one fencer, but not the other. For instance, consider the case of a fencer planning to approach his opponent, who is in a high guard, under the cover of a hanging parry. Once he moves forward, the opponent will likely cut from above and his sword will slide off the hanging parry to the side and so the attacker will have a good opportunity to enter close play - so the transition from Zufechten via a tactical opening to close play is planned out from the start. The other fencer can of course, if he recognizes what is happening and wants to prevent it, try to prevent it, for instance by retreating quickly or by side-stepping.

Especially the last case - transitions that are forced by one fencer upon his opponent - are tactically interesting. For instance, if that swordsman happens to be exceptionally good at close play, he can win an encounter if he manages to transit from Zufechten to close play every time. It doesn't matter if his opponent is much better at fencing Mezza Spada because that phase is then never entered.

Control

In the context of what has been said above, control is the ability to decide upon transitions regardless of what the opponent wants to do. While that is clearly useful in many ways (think of an instructor who wants to teach a student close-play techniques in a sparring context - obviously he needs to be able to go into the close play phase), it is not the same as winning. A fencer may for instance be able to force his opponent to accept a bind, but it doesn't mean he can always win fencing on the bind. So having control over an exchange only helps winning it if it enables a transition to something a fencer is better at than his opponent.

Such control over the flow of events during a swordfight can take many different forms.

Control over distance is probably the most obvious one. Whoever reacts and moves faster can decide at what distance to engage the opponent and for instance deny close play or surprise attacks. Whoever is able to bring his attacks from the larger distance can stand 'safe' in Zufechten because the opponent cannot reach hin unless he decides to move forward himself. Whoever is able to quickly spot the moment of an attack can ward off the blade and step forward into the attack, thus entering close-play distance.

Technical control is another important factor - much of what is described in fencing manuals can be interpreted in the perspective of this article as actions providing control over an encounter before the actual attack. For instance, a properly executed punta falsa from the Fiore manual gets a fencer at close distance to his opponent dominating the inside line with the opponent's sword blocked outside, ready to strike. Thus it can be seen as a technique to enter close play.

Finally, also psychology is an important factor. Whoever can imply a threat forces the opponent to react to it, whoever can get the opponent to not use a certain technique has thus a measure of control, and so does a fencer who manages to lure his opponent into an action he then is able to counter.

Summary

To understand and apply the theory of longsword fencing tactics, it seems useful to conceptually divide an encounter into different phases. What is required to win the encounter is not the same in all phases, for instance psychology and deception is the domain of the initial Zufechten while speed and reaction time govern who has an advantage at Mezza Spada.

Yet understanding these phases is only the first step - controlling the transitions between them is what is tactically useful. In this way, a fencer can shape the encounter in such a way that it becomes a test of something he is good at - or at least better than his opponent. After all, it is useless to excel at close play if the opponent knows how to reliably prevent entering close play.

Back to main index Back to Swordfighting

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