Risk-averse Fencing

Was fencing in a historical setting much different from how it is today?

Imagine being faced with the prospect of unarmoured single combat with sharp swords till first blood is drawn. Of course you don't want to be the one being carried away from the fight bleeding. So how should you fence? How does the prospect of injury influence your decisionmaking? Would (or should) it be different - and if so, how?

Many people imagine that in this situation, it would be best to fence very defensively. Bide your time, see what the other is doing, wait for a mistake and only then, when you see an advantage, you strike.

This idea has an obvious problem - if the other fencer is also waiting for an opportunity and everything else is equal, the situation favours no one. Yet if the opponent just presses forward with a solid series of attacks, he is in fact very safe for the simple reason that you do not even get a good opportunity to attack him because you're busy fending off his blows - the situation actually favours the attacker. This is something that could easily be proven formally using Game theory, a mathematical framework for rational decisionmaking, but we'll skip the math here and just present the arguments.

In a full battle, you could argue that acting defensively works because you can try not to get hurt while others deal with the enemy fighters (so you can offload all the risk to others) - but the setting imagined above is single combat to the first blood, it won't end before - you only stay healthy by hitting the opponent at some point and for this you need to attack. Being risk-averse is just not the same thing as being defensive, any fight is risky and sometimes the overall danger is minimized by attacking and deciding the matter quickly..

Risk-taking - what is it and when to do it?

In a fight, you take a risk by placing yourself in extra danger with the hope that the action pays off. For instance, the idea 'if I get down on my knee and duck underneath his cut, I end up being really exposed, but maybe it won't matter because he is surprised and misses his cut while I can stab him in the chest' is an example of taking a risk. On the other hand, 'I hide my sword behind my back' is not - that's just plain stupid because there is no payoff for the extra danger.

Whether you should take a risk or not depends on what you believe will happen if you don't. If you believe you are up against a superior swordsman who will best you anyway, taking a risk makes sense because the situation won't get much worse by a bit of extra danger, but if you get lucky it can improve a lot. On the other hand, if you believe you are the better swordsman and can win anyway, taking a risk makes the situation worse. Actually, you don't need to be convinced that you are overall better - if you believe there is an area where you are better, for example you assume your footwork is faster, you might more reasonably try to make that the decisive factor in the exchange rather than take any risks.

In summary, for the inferior swordsman risk-taking is entirely reasonable, for his superior opponent it is not. Even a self-destructive gamble like 'I block the hit with my left arm and might get an opening for a thrust to the chest that way' that seems entirely stupid because with sharp swords it'll mean losing the left arm can make sense for someone who is in a duel to the death and believes he'll be killed anyway.

Thus, a risk-averse swordsman should not only avoid putting himself in dangerous situations (which he doesn't need to do), but should be prepared to deal with an opponent who is entirely willing to do just that - do a seemingly stupid thing like neglecting to defend himself just to hit. In essence, risk-averse fencing has much to do with avoiding double hits, i.e. attacking in such a way that the chance for any counter-attack is minimized.

Factors that prevent double hits

If you just approach an opponent and attack, he can land a simultaneous hit if he is even halfway competent and willing to forego any defense. If you cut to the head, you're open below, so he might thrust to the chest and vice versa. In a competition point-scoring scheme you might find that acceptable, but if real blood would be drawn likely not. So something needs to keep you safe from harm while you attack. What is that something? There are a few possibilities:

Mechanical control of the blade

If a fencer has the strong of his blade against the weak of the opponent's blade, he can for all practical purposes control the opponent's blade, i.e. he can move the contact point where he wants to and use the fact that the tip of his own sword is free to strike or thrust into an opening. This situation can arise from a bind if a timely Mutieren is done or from a Meisterhau (e.g. a properly done Zwerchhau catches the opponent's weak with the strong while striking to his head). It is very difficult to extract a blade from such a control situation and usually the fencer in control has an excellent chance at a clean hit without counter attack.

A special application of the principle are slicing attacks to the wrists as frequently described in the Liechtenauer system as Abschneiden or Hentdrucken. Such attacks also prevent the opponent from a counter, as even with blunt swords the force applied to the wrists blocks motion. With sharp swords, the effect of the slice would be even more pronounced as the attack would at minimum generate quite a lot of pain.

   
Of all possibilities to keep an attacker safe, having mechanical control is one of the most reliable and many of the techniques in the Liechtenauer system make use of it.

Sword kinematics

It takes a while to stop and turn around a sword that is moving (or being pushed) into the wrong direction and if the movement is the result of a tactical error, the reaction time to recognize and correct the mistake has to be added. The result is a time window before a counter is possible during which a quick attack can be made safely. This is most obvious for Nachreisen where a missed cut or a transition to a different guard are exploited by attacking right behind the blade that is thus moving away from the attack, but the same principle is also at the heart of Duplieren or Auswinden where an attack from outside the center line is made possible by the fact that the opponent pushes in bind away from the center line - and cannot easily undo this when the opposing force is suddenly released (both techniques are very risky if the opponent does in fact not push, because then they cede the center line to him) Also, most cuts against the blade are done with the intent of letting the opponent temporarily lose control and fall into this category. In addition feints often make use of the principle to make a small threat to get a large defensive action into the wrong direction.

Blocked direct line of attack

If an attack is done in such a way that the strong of the blade is blocking the line of the most likely counter from the guard the opponent currently is standing in, chances are that when the counter comes, it runs into this block. For instance, if the opponent is standing in a high guard and the attacker uses an Unterhau to the hands, the head is open for a counter unless the attacker brings his own hands high up to block the line. The same principle is at the heart of Inwinden - any thrust should be wound against the opposing blade such as to prevent a counter - and also any good feint relies not only on kinematics but also blocks the direct line for a counter in the actual decisive attack.

The idea is not completely risk-free, because the opponent might simply use an unexpected counter that is not along the direct line.

Insufficient time to plan

When a series of attacks is brought forward quickly, the defender might have a more complex answer to the first one ready, but once that is over, usually has no time to organize anything than blocks as follow-up defense. After all, he needs to figure out where the next attack is coming from, especially if there is no clear pattern, and then react to it. The available time usually means that this has to happen mostly on instinct. Thus, if the instinct is to simply block, the defender can't come to the offensive as long as the attacker keeps pressing the attack.

This idea is heavily advocated by Meyer. The problems are that the attacker needs to get around the first defense (which might be more than a simple block) and that he runs the risk of the defender retreating quickly enough to actually find the time for a good counter.

Longer reach

This situation is very rare when both fencers use the same type of weapon, but frequent when the exchange is unequal such as e.g. longsword vs. saber. The fencer with the longer reach can thrust or cut with the blade tip to the hands of a defender and the defender cannot counter because his weapon is too short. With the longsword, this happens when one fencer tries a low attack (in which the blade needs to point downwards about 30 degrees) which shortens the reach by some 15-20%. The defender can then simply step back and cut with the full reach towards the head (known as Überlaufen in the Liechtenauer system).

With equal weapons, it is not possible to plan or force this situation, it can only arise if the opponent makes a tactical mistake.

Element of surprise

If a fencer manages to genuinely surprise an opponent such that the opponent has to to consciously think about what is happening and what he needs to do next, this may yield enough time to bring a quick attack in and retreat. An example for such a surprise action might be going down low on the knees for an attack at the legs - the opponent might need a moment to figure out why the attacker is no longer at eye level and what he should be doing now - or he might just not and simply cut to the head.

Having the element of surprise is certainly better than just hoping for the best, but among the double-hit avoiding techniques, it is the least effective.

***
When dealing with an opponent how is (or might be) willing to take risks and accept double hits, risk-averse fencing means (among other things) utilizing the techniques above - preferably the most effective ones. This requires planning an attack as a two step process: The aim of the first step is to get control of the opponent's blade, or, if that is not easily possible, to get it moving into the wrong direction. Only once that step is accomplished, the attack can proceed to the second phase in which the aim is to land a hit.

In practice, much depends on what the risk-taking opponent is actually trying to do. If he is attacking, single-tempo counter-cuts or counter-thrusts provide the mechanical control over his blade that is needed. If he is not attacking but accepting a bind when it is offered, Mutieren may be the technique of choice, whereas if he is not accepting a bind and trying to escape from it, the situation is a bit trickier and using the appropriate master-cut to attack may be what is required to force a bind.

Observe and adapt

First of all, note that gaining mechanical control of the opponent's blade is not limited to pressing strong against weak. Especially Fiore shows a number of unexpected ways in which the whole body can be used to safely disable a sword while attacking, for instance by pinning it between arm and body or by stepping on it:

   
But even if you are the better swordsman, you may not be vastly superior. In that case, it is better to take and use an advantage that the opponent offers rather than trying to force binds and establish mechanical control. The techniques required to do that are not easy, i.e. you always juggle the risk of making a mistake yourself against the advantage they offer. Generally you're best off if you play to your strengths.

For instance the opponent may not be a rational actor when faced with a sharp weapon (few people are) - he might act defensively or even jumpy in spite of the fact that a rational argument can be made that this is to his disadvantage. If the opponent is jumpy and overcommits to defense, it is much easier to use feints to defeat him than to go for a bind (which he will usually not offer or accept in the first place and rather jerk his sword away).

It may also be that the opponent is inexperienced and does something dangerous out of incompetence rather than planning. Incompetence is somewhat less dangerous than calculated risk-taking because even if there is a payoff to putting oneself in danger, the incompetent fencer might not be able to utilize it fully. But that doesn't mean incompetence is harmless - far from it. If for instance an attacker approaches with large, unfocused motions, a counter-cut or thrust is dangerous because it specifically covers one particular opening - in this situation, a sweeping cut to the opponent's sword to get it out of the way wherever it may be can be superior.

Observing and adapting to the opponent are the key to minimizing overall risk - if an opponent offers an easy way to defeat him, there is not point in doing it in a complicated way that can go wrong.

This is all the more important if you start the duel without knowing who is the better swordsman. In this case, it can be the best strategy to start out defensively to gain time to observe and only once you have an idea about who is better at what, change strategy to take this into account.

Decisionmaking in modern competition fencing

Now, let us return from the example of single combat with sharp swords to a modern HEMA competition with blunt weapons and protective gear in which points are awarded for hits, provided they happen in the same tempo (if a hit comes too late, i.e. in the next tempo, it isn't counted). A cut on the head is worth two points, a cut anywhere else one point and any thrust two points.

In this setup, the desperate 'once in a lifetime' gamble to block a hit with the left arm to get a good cut at the opponent's head that makes sense in a life or death situation on the grounds that it's better to lose the hand than one's life is suddenly... a completely normal and rational choice. You can win by accepting that exchange over and over, because every time you manage you get two points, the opponent only one.

In fact, you never need to bother with defending at all - if you manage to get a two-point hit in regardless of what the opponent does, you cannot lose - the best he can achieve is to match your score, if he doesn't succeed every time you win.

Of course that type of decisionmaking - while completely rational in the context of the payoff specified by the competition rules - has no historical precedent whatsoever. Any swordsman with a sharp weapon not bothering to defend himself would soon be incapable of holding a sword.

Yet it is actually easier to learn the skills required to disregard your opponent and get a high-value hit in quickly than to understand and master the skills to strike while you're protected by one of the above factors. So while one could win a modern competition by treating it as medieval single combat and only strike from situations with mechanical advantage, it would take much more time, energy and training.

Understanding this effect of the different payoff in single combat and competition goes a long way in explaining why surprisingly many people think that there is a fundamental difference between historical fencing and modern HEMA competition fencing (and by extension, that historical techniques would be useless in modern competitions).

Back to main index    Back to Swordfighting

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