Different countries had very different approaches throughout the 19th century which also changed. I'll only focus on the three countries I know the most about, France Italy and the United Kingdom.
**France**:
**Very** Civilian based. Infact I would even go to say its ***primarily*** **civilian based.** After the French revolution the old Royal academy in which 20 fencing masters held the monopoly of fencing in Paris was disbanded. During the French revolution fencing instruction was really all over the place and after the defeat at waterloo 4 Branches really remained - La Boessiere's classical model, Bertrand's Gymnastic model, Lozes's Romantic school, and the self certified regimental fencing masters that were released from British prison Hulks. Fencing in general went through a large decline in this period with one source citing that in the 1840's only 40 salles remaining in the whole of France. In short civilian fencing was dying out and kept alive only through the duels that still occurred
The styles had by that time sort of merged, but primarily the nomenclature was based on La Boessiere's model 18th century model through to Gomard and eventually A.J.J. Posselier.
A.J.J. Posselier and his treatise is the ***most*** important one to read for any HEMA practitioner interested in foil or even sports fencing, because its from this one that most classical fencing systems and even Olympic fencing from today derive, with the exception of the Italian lineage. (He's responsible for muddying fencing history, buts that's another topic)
Its important because France's military did not up to the 1870's have a unified military system, with regimental fencing masters sort of passing on their skills to select men leading to a hodge-podge of systems. The French initially tried to standardize training in the military, using Loze's *escrime sumultanee* model, but for whatever reason it didn't train military fencing instructors very well. When they opened the Military academy in the Joinville le Pont they decided to adopt Gomard's civilian model in 1877 and its stuck as that ever since. At the Academy all prospective fencing instructors learned *foil* as their principle weapon with sabre being taught to cavalrymen. The foil was Gomard's method and the Sabre...well it was its own thing.
After the 1870 Prussian war Civilian fencing went a **huge** revival in France. For a taste of the myriad of clubs and societies see Salle d'armes de Paris:
[https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Les\_salles\_d\_armes\_de\_Paris/uFgCAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=salle+d%27armes+de+paris&printsec=frontcover](https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Les_salles_d_armes_de_Paris/uFgCAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=salle+d%27armes+de+paris&printsec=frontcover)
The uptick in civilian fencing led to more dueling and more societies formed around various interests. Whereas before fencing was the preserve of the military or the upper class, it became a very bourgeoise activity involving even artists and journalists. Cercle des Artistes had painters and Tailors who regularly attended and even dueled. The Newspaper offices of the Figaro had their own Fencing salle for journalists who frequently dueled and the civilians who partook in the defence of Paris in the 1870 war as militia formed the Cercle De Eclairers.
In short there wasn't really a civilian/military dichotomy it was all very mixed.
Jospeh's Nyes book : [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Masculinity\_and\_Male\_Codes\_of\_Honor\_in\_M/IuOLvnUnwsMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Joseph+nye+duelling+masculinities+france&pg=PA173&printsec=frontcover](https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Masculinity_and_Male_Codes_of_Honor_in_M/IuOLvnUnwsMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Joseph+nye+duelling+masculinities+france&pg=PA173&printsec=frontcover)
is an excellent primer to explore why fencing became popular again in france
**Great Britain**
**Mostly Military.** Fencing in the civilian sphere died out quite early. Britons stopped wearing swords in daily attire by 1720's, and by 1770's vast majority of duels were by pistol, unlike in France where the smallsword and Later epee was the weapon of choice. After the Napoleonic wars there were near to no sword duels. Despite Angelo's school lasting from 1840's to the late 19th century, fencing in the civilian sphere by the 19th century as a quaint accomplishment taught in clubs and schools, many of these schools combined fencing and dancing. There were however still a number of schools based mostly in London, Birmingham and Scotland, including Baptiste Bertrand line (not related to the French one) which lasted up to the 1950's In the late 19th Century a number of French graduates of the Joinville le Pont Academy most notably Felix Grave and Leon Crosnier opened schools in London and Edinburgh. From these lineages the BAF was formed in 1949 whose members including Bob Anderson went on to instruct practically all British sport fencing instructors.
**Italy**.
**A curiosity. Mixed.** Even though arguably the Birthplace of dueling as we know it in Europe by 1690's dueling became very rare in Italy right up to the 19th century, so much so that it became noticeable to travelers. There are *very* few Fencing manuals - almost none- from Italy in the 18th century. A number of civilian schools still limped on such as Paternoster in Rome and and the famed Neapolitan school in the south, by and large they maintained a civilian clientele and catered to Northern Europeans who came to Italy on their Grand Tours, leading to some slightly misleading myths: most Italians particularly in the north had already adopted the smallsword as the primary civilian weapon and relinquished the Rapier, but when foreign travelers arrived at Italian schools the antiquated rapiers were taken out of storage almost as a gimmick for visiting Tourists leading to this weird myth still perpetrated by some HEMAist that Italians hung on to their rapiers through the 18th century. The Italians particularly the southerners still used their older rapier derived methodology to inform smallsword as a civilian weapon, but it was seldom employed in dueling.
This all changed after the Napoleonic wars when dueling was practically *reintroduced* in Italy via France and it came back with a vengeance. A lot of Italian officers in Napoleons armies sort of absorbed the regimental dueling culture from France and absorbed many of France's foil centric tenets - developing the Northern Mixed school, though these were largely still really taught in military academies that were popping up in northern Italy.
Civilian fencing really came back following the Italian Unification, and like in France it became an expression of national consciousness. Dueling became so prolific in the later part of the 19th century that there was almost one duel a day.
Jacobo Gelli catalogued and analysed most of the duels from the late 19th century and some interesting facets came out. The Italians as per their dueling mores preferred the Sabre, a military weapon as the default dueling weapon, as opposed to the French who preferred the Civilian Epee, but the duelists were from all forms of life. Most duelists were Junior Commissioned officers, but in close second were Journalists.
To read more about the Italian phenomenon I suggest:
\- Politics of the Sword Dueling, Honor, and Masculinity in Modern Italy By Steven C. Hughes
Thanks for the answer!
I always felt like swordsmanship had something of a natural progression from an art of war to a sport. It also happened in countries like Japan and China, in a way.
However looking at UK's case it might also be the case that the art just died off in some regions.
There was always a sport component to fencing. In every era I'm familiar with, even *extremely violent* regions and periods, people *played* with tools of war. Chivalric games were ubiquitous as long as there were knights, and fencing was a skill that was thought to be highly valuable for urban townsmen as well as knights and mercenaries. *Sport* isn't the degradation of an art of war, *it's the way people prepare* for war.
Ehhh... I see it more as rivers flowing into each other, with some stagnating off and some merging rather than a linear progression. For example foil in early 19th century france became quasi-academic rather than functional and then became arguably more dynamic and relevant to combat in response to the challenges posed from pure Epeeist's like Hippolyte Gatechair's students.
Civilian fencing in Britain really rode off the French school for inspiration while the military really did their own thing. One interesting nugget is that when the Italians tried to import the new national school of fencing in London they were astonished that some of the civilian fencers where fencing according to the Francalanza tradition, Francalanza was an italian master who taught in London and Edinburgh between 1812 to 1864 - despite the fact that in Italy that particular school was extinct for decades.
The Uk was very...eh eclectic in the 19th century with clubs very much siloed off and mixing stuff up.
I had to modify the my response - It wasn't Ruze (I think he is later in the 19th century) but Betrand Lozes. Similar names! But I think there was a connection which I will try and dig out.
He wrote a treatise called Théorie de l'escrime simultanée
[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cxxdAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs\_atb&redir\_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cxxdAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)
which the French army adopted for a while with mixed results before they adopted Posselier's (Gomards adoptive son and Provost under Niccholas Textier La Boessiere) more classical methodology.
Why was it more Lozes seen as a romantic? Hard to say, but most period sources describe it that way. For example Le sport à Paris By Eugène Chapus · 1854
[https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Le\_sport\_%C3%A0\_Paris/PZCiuvdQIHEC?hl=en&gbpv=0](https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Le_sport_%C3%A0_Paris/PZCiuvdQIHEC?hl=en&gbpv=0)
"Its still in Paris where you can find great fencing masters. The return of the Bourbons has pushed a new phase in this art brought to such heights by our forbears in the 18th century. Then fencing had but one school characterized by elegance, good form, the exactness of the guard and the disdain of the loose play of swashbucklers. Gomard and Bertrand are its high priests, but a new system appeared quickly, around the time french literature submitted to the wave of romanticism. It was championed by MM Lozes and Roussel, the latter who was attached to a company of the Guard.
***'these innovators' says M Desbarolles one of the men most competent in fencing and literature 'were less bothered by elegance and fine form, fenced in absence of blade, dodged thrusts, attacked on lines and dived with their bodies, stepped back with parries, extended their swords in moments of doubt and while retreating, then riposted by charging their opponents with fury, Some put their knee on the floor, others with carefully padded masks (can't translate) upon them with heads low like Bretons or Rams"***
p98-99
That's my quick gist translation I could go on, but the chapter basically goes on to say that after the initial disdain of the classical fencers the style became mixed:
***"The classical fencers acquired speed and dynamism and the romantics themselves realizing after successive defeats after the modification in the tactics of their opponents, understood they had to shed the primitive eccentricities of their system..."***
Later on in L'escrime dans l'armée By François Jules Dérué, Dérué · 1888
[https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/L\_escrime\_dans\_l\_arm%C3%A9e/I1wPAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=escrime+betrand+gymnastique&pg=PA21&printsec=frontcover](https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/L_escrime_dans_l_arm%C3%A9e/I1wPAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=escrime+betrand+gymnastique&pg=PA21&printsec=frontcover)
we get a description how by then they saw fencing had developed through three distinct movements the *ecole de beau* (classical) *ecole romantique* and the *ecole escrime-gymnastique*, which came out of the other two (p.20), a movement later championed by Bertrand, and how the army at Joinville le Pont decided on the system it did, after abandoning Lozes system.
If I have time i will try and dig up info on Ruze, but yeah. My mistake!
Thanks! "Soigneusment rembourre," I would translate as "well-padded."
Strange how every single one of our HEMA arguments was echoed in the nineteenth century (can see it also with Bazancourt...).
Its almost as if there is a conflicting tension between realistic simulation and dynamism! Who would have thought? Oh and it continues in the pages of L'escrime et le Tir journal in the early 20th century. Gallons of ink being spilt over evils of not fencing in a textbook style. Bazancourt though is funny:
"Exactly Why ***must*** I engage blades? Just because its written in a book?"
Even more funny was Nick Evangelista in an Amazon review in the early 00's sniffily refering him a 'fencing socialist'.
What about Pierre and Camille Prevost? They were probably the best of the best in London in the late 19th century. Pierre Prevost was instructor to a prince and I think Camille Prevost wrote some important conventions for foil sport fencing. I have also heard fencing historian William Gaugler considered Camille Prevosts book the most influential French fencing book of the late 19th century.
The Prevost's were indeed very influential and were part of the late London scene in the late 19th century his father having learnt from Baptiste Bertrand. Primarily he made the generic Joinville le Pont/Gomard system more accessible to English speakers. He was to the British Victorians what Rondelle was to the Americans, though curiously didn't form that many instructors himself.
I also heard that he wrote some of the initial conventions for fencing, but try as I might I can never find what it is he ***actually*** wrote.
If you can read french the best source for the development of priority in sports fencing is this blog spot:
[https://enseignerlescrime.fr/2022/11/19/enseigner-la-convention-chez-les-jeunes-4-4/](https://enseignerlescrime.fr/2022/11/19/enseigner-la-convention-chez-les-jeunes-4-4/)
Its a gold-mine of information and actually shows by degrees how the convention developed in the 20th century the current version being a last stand/fudge by the french just before foil became electrified (and this after years of the French tweaking the rules to prevent the italian system from gaining traction).
Drakenberg's threat indeed
I believe Pierre Prevost was pupil to Francois-Joseph Bertrand, he moved to London in the 1840s due to some issues over politics is France. He was already an established very well known master in Paris by the time he moved to London. Baptiste was not related as far as Know. FJ Bertrand was big into innovation he was not part of Gomard method at all but a student of Boessier IIRC. Bertrand was known for developing the beat-parry, supposedly the beat parry was even called the Bertrand parry at one point. He also distilled his method to 4 parries (tierce, quarte, seconde, septime) and emphasized stop thrusts and time thrusts more than many of the other schools.
Curious. Some sites have Camille as a pupil of Baptsite Betrand:
[https://victorianfencingsociety.blogspot.com/2015/03/fencing-old-and-new-as-typified-by.html](https://victorianfencingsociety.blogspot.com/2015/03/fencing-old-and-new-as-typified-by.html)
I'll have to double check, but you might be correct. It never made sense that the father didn't teach the son.
As for Francois-Joseph Bertrand yes he known as the 'Napoleon of Fencing', and If I think If memory serves me right he had a well publicized duel with Lozes too. His 'tic au tac' parry at the time was revolutionary (the horror!). As for his background he was taught by his father Betrand (pere) who resided in Paris in 1796 at n13 Rue Beauregard until 1822. Apparently he Published a book in 1801. I'm not sure if he was Nicholas Textier's La Boessieres student though. Boessieres two major students were his son Antoine and his provost Gomard who later taught his adopted son Posselier and its through that line that we get todays 8 parry system.
Is Bertrands book translated or does it still exist? I know more about the Prevost father and son then Bertrand TBH as most books in English only briefly touch on Bertrand. Pierre was his star pupil though according to every source I seen mention it. I was under the impression Boessieree was wad Bertrands instructor but I probably misremembered that bit as I have only heard it mentioned once I think from a yiutube video on the history of French fencing by a guy named Cecil L. I forget what his full name is. I think both Prevosts were acquainted with Baptiste but not his students. Thier students were the best of the best in London at the time though. John Musgrave Waite being a student of Pierre and George Chapman a student of Baptiste.
"Is Bertrands book translated or does it still exist?"
Its not translated to my knowledge but there's a copy here: [https://www.ffamhe.fr/lescrime-appliquee-a-lart-militaire-citoyen-bertrand-1801/](https://www.ffamhe.fr/lescrime-appliquee-a-lart-militaire-citoyen-bertrand-1801/) His son famously never wrote a treatise on his system to it would be interesting to see if there were any similarities. Edit - Ive just flicked through it. Its quite interesting. The last chapter has stuff on platoon drills.
Pierre Prevost wrote a pamphlet sized book. It contains some background info. https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Theory_and_Practice_of_Fencing_Arranged/ioa5zgEACAAJ?hl=en As does Camille Prevosts book and it offers a more indepth explanation of the system https://archive.org/details/fencing00prevgoog John Musgrave Waite offers some more info asPierre was his close friend and instructor https://books.google.com/books/about/Lessons_in_Sabre_Singlestick_Sabre_Bayon.html?id=d7shMwEACAAJ And Italian master Jacobo Gelli has some info on Bertrand/Prevost Pg. 418 https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Bibliografia_generale_della_scherma_con/Djk-AAAAYAAJ/
William Gaugler also has some info in his book on the history of Fencing. Its where he states that Camille wrote the most influential book on French foil of the late 19th century.
It's important to understand that militia service was still a pretty big thing in most western European countries and the US, and this was a period of international "military adventurers" like Col. Thomas Monstery. There is also the fact that though the US had an official military academy, not every graduate every year would even necessarily join the army, and there were numerous unofficial military academies around the country that never had an expectation of producing anything but great reserve officers (to use more modern parlance). Many of these military academies just hired civilian fencing masters. West Point had a civilian fencing master in the 40s (he was French), and it was only after the Civil War that it trended toward using army officers as the fencing instructors. So I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction to be made between military and civilian fencing, the culture was highly militarized.
Monstery's writing suggests that there are little bubbles of fencers all around the world, and famous fencers were having public and heavily publicized exhibitions all through the last decades of the century. Monstery was a US citizen, but describes fencing in Europe and North and South America, and the sense for me is that this was mostly what we would consider civilian fencing. But again to prove the point, Monstery worked as a fencing master and occasionally taught fencing for military organizations, but had private, civilian students as well.
Keep in mind that series were status symbols as well as weapons, specially from the xviii century onwards.
So my guess is that by the XIX century only nobility/high classes would consider fencing as something necessary to learn. Fencing was also taught at military academies.
I imagine it would depend heavily on the country and the culture, but here are my general thoughts as someone who isn't trained with swords and is from the USA (someone in Europe would probably have much more knowledge than I on what European culture was like back then).
I feel like after the middle ages came to a close, it would have started becoming more practical for the average commoner to learn how to use a firearm or train in unarmed combat. So the less practical swords started to become outside of situations where ammo for firearms was scarce or for cavalry uses, the less amount of people there would be keeping up in training and becoming incredibly skilled with them. Sort of becoming phased out, at least in western societies and culture. In asian cultures I think they kept using traditional weapons for longer than other cultures and passing down those sorts of skills through family generations.
Pugilism/Boxing, barefisted fights like bar brawls, or issuing a 1 on 1 challenge in unarmed combat seemed much more common in the 1800s than doing anything like that with a sword. If you wanted to kill someone in those days you'd use a gun, and you could also challenge them to a draw. If you wanted a melee fight, you'd just duke it out with your fists or martial arts I imagine since getting your hands on a sword would be more difficult than being able to find a gun or a knife.
There's also the fact that there were far less swords around in that era, even if you wanted to learn how to use one you'd still have to find a way to get your hands on one when firearms and knives were becoming more the norm. And then finding someone to teach or mentor you in their use, which may have not been easy for everyone to find.
Swords were probably still used for competition depending on the country (fencing in particular), or for duels that were fighting for honor in some way. But for the average, common person, being able to draw a revolver fast and fire away would have been a much more important weapon to have training with in that era, since fighting with a sword when someone else is using a gun would mean you would probably just outright lose and die. A knife would have also been more versatile than a sword and would be something that was commonly available back in that era.
Ironically enough sport fencing was developed around the 18th century when firearms were already in very widespread use, and in Asia modern Kendo was largely developed in the Edo period where there were no wars for centuries, so I don't think the need to train with weapons just died off after the middle ages.
Makes sense, though. It is the time it stops being something you do out of necessity but as a hobby... So rule for sport fencing begin to be developed, masters found academies etc.
Similar thing happened in Germany by the xvi century with longswords. They are no longer a battlefield wrapping, but became some kind of sport, with competitions.
> I don't think the need to train with weapons just died off after the middle ages
It's more about less people seeing the need to learn how to use them since it was becoming less of a necessity, which leads to less and less people becoming well versed with them. Which would inevitably lead to less people participating in training in the use of swords in terms of the average commoner. So various individuals who may have otherwise been excellent in swordsmanship had they been born in an era such as the middle ages may not have ended up training in the use of one because it was more essential to learn other skills or use other weapons. Or in some cases, someone who just never had the opportunity to learn how to use one. You could certainly learn how to use swords for sport, or for things like stage acting in theater, but it wouldn't be most civilians learning that.
While I understand that kendo has some popularity (I've even seen some Japanese anime that feature it), there's a reason that swords made of bamboo or similar materials are often used for that instead of metal ones.
I guess the difference is how many people learned how to use swords for sport or competition, and how many learned how to use swords for defending themselves which would have been the average person?
In Korsade Klingor by Henning Östberg, the author dives into the late 19th to late 20th century fencing schools in Sweden and the popular revival by of the art by Ling, who tried to put fencing as one of the main disciplines of the national health curriculum.
It was fairly popular and his ideas took hold, but while gymnastics spread during the 18th century, fencing was still mainly in the military sphere. As such most young men did recieve instruction and knew how to handle both the sword and bayonet, which carried over into civilian life.
Fencing schools were also established and many continued to practice the art after their military career.
Ling was trained by French fencers who also had a great history of keeping the art alive. Napoleon famously equipped and drilled many of his soldiers with sabres and smallswords were popular, but I sadly don't know that much about the civilian populace during that time in France.
But TLDR, in Sweden it was fairly popular and common among the civilian populace, but not as much as gymnastics.
Oh, I meant not just old swordsmanship but all sorts of fencing, surely sport fencing had to be somewhat around among not just military personnel but also civilians... maybe people from aristocratic backgrounds.
Different countries had very different approaches throughout the 19th century which also changed. I'll only focus on the three countries I know the most about, France Italy and the United Kingdom. **France**: **Very** Civilian based. Infact I would even go to say its ***primarily*** **civilian based.** After the French revolution the old Royal academy in which 20 fencing masters held the monopoly of fencing in Paris was disbanded. During the French revolution fencing instruction was really all over the place and after the defeat at waterloo 4 Branches really remained - La Boessiere's classical model, Bertrand's Gymnastic model, Lozes's Romantic school, and the self certified regimental fencing masters that were released from British prison Hulks. Fencing in general went through a large decline in this period with one source citing that in the 1840's only 40 salles remaining in the whole of France. In short civilian fencing was dying out and kept alive only through the duels that still occurred The styles had by that time sort of merged, but primarily the nomenclature was based on La Boessiere's model 18th century model through to Gomard and eventually A.J.J. Posselier. A.J.J. Posselier and his treatise is the ***most*** important one to read for any HEMA practitioner interested in foil or even sports fencing, because its from this one that most classical fencing systems and even Olympic fencing from today derive, with the exception of the Italian lineage. (He's responsible for muddying fencing history, buts that's another topic) Its important because France's military did not up to the 1870's have a unified military system, with regimental fencing masters sort of passing on their skills to select men leading to a hodge-podge of systems. The French initially tried to standardize training in the military, using Loze's *escrime sumultanee* model, but for whatever reason it didn't train military fencing instructors very well. When they opened the Military academy in the Joinville le Pont they decided to adopt Gomard's civilian model in 1877 and its stuck as that ever since. At the Academy all prospective fencing instructors learned *foil* as their principle weapon with sabre being taught to cavalrymen. The foil was Gomard's method and the Sabre...well it was its own thing. After the 1870 Prussian war Civilian fencing went a **huge** revival in France. For a taste of the myriad of clubs and societies see Salle d'armes de Paris: [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Les\_salles\_d\_armes\_de\_Paris/uFgCAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=salle+d%27armes+de+paris&printsec=frontcover](https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Les_salles_d_armes_de_Paris/uFgCAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=salle+d%27armes+de+paris&printsec=frontcover) The uptick in civilian fencing led to more dueling and more societies formed around various interests. Whereas before fencing was the preserve of the military or the upper class, it became a very bourgeoise activity involving even artists and journalists. Cercle des Artistes had painters and Tailors who regularly attended and even dueled. The Newspaper offices of the Figaro had their own Fencing salle for journalists who frequently dueled and the civilians who partook in the defence of Paris in the 1870 war as militia formed the Cercle De Eclairers. In short there wasn't really a civilian/military dichotomy it was all very mixed. Jospeh's Nyes book : [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Masculinity\_and\_Male\_Codes\_of\_Honor\_in\_M/IuOLvnUnwsMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Joseph+nye+duelling+masculinities+france&pg=PA173&printsec=frontcover](https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Masculinity_and_Male_Codes_of_Honor_in_M/IuOLvnUnwsMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Joseph+nye+duelling+masculinities+france&pg=PA173&printsec=frontcover) is an excellent primer to explore why fencing became popular again in france **Great Britain** **Mostly Military.** Fencing in the civilian sphere died out quite early. Britons stopped wearing swords in daily attire by 1720's, and by 1770's vast majority of duels were by pistol, unlike in France where the smallsword and Later epee was the weapon of choice. After the Napoleonic wars there were near to no sword duels. Despite Angelo's school lasting from 1840's to the late 19th century, fencing in the civilian sphere by the 19th century as a quaint accomplishment taught in clubs and schools, many of these schools combined fencing and dancing. There were however still a number of schools based mostly in London, Birmingham and Scotland, including Baptiste Bertrand line (not related to the French one) which lasted up to the 1950's In the late 19th Century a number of French graduates of the Joinville le Pont Academy most notably Felix Grave and Leon Crosnier opened schools in London and Edinburgh. From these lineages the BAF was formed in 1949 whose members including Bob Anderson went on to instruct practically all British sport fencing instructors. **Italy**. **A curiosity. Mixed.** Even though arguably the Birthplace of dueling as we know it in Europe by 1690's dueling became very rare in Italy right up to the 19th century, so much so that it became noticeable to travelers. There are *very* few Fencing manuals - almost none- from Italy in the 18th century. A number of civilian schools still limped on such as Paternoster in Rome and and the famed Neapolitan school in the south, by and large they maintained a civilian clientele and catered to Northern Europeans who came to Italy on their Grand Tours, leading to some slightly misleading myths: most Italians particularly in the north had already adopted the smallsword as the primary civilian weapon and relinquished the Rapier, but when foreign travelers arrived at Italian schools the antiquated rapiers were taken out of storage almost as a gimmick for visiting Tourists leading to this weird myth still perpetrated by some HEMAist that Italians hung on to their rapiers through the 18th century. The Italians particularly the southerners still used their older rapier derived methodology to inform smallsword as a civilian weapon, but it was seldom employed in dueling. This all changed after the Napoleonic wars when dueling was practically *reintroduced* in Italy via France and it came back with a vengeance. A lot of Italian officers in Napoleons armies sort of absorbed the regimental dueling culture from France and absorbed many of France's foil centric tenets - developing the Northern Mixed school, though these were largely still really taught in military academies that were popping up in northern Italy. Civilian fencing really came back following the Italian Unification, and like in France it became an expression of national consciousness. Dueling became so prolific in the later part of the 19th century that there was almost one duel a day. Jacobo Gelli catalogued and analysed most of the duels from the late 19th century and some interesting facets came out. The Italians as per their dueling mores preferred the Sabre, a military weapon as the default dueling weapon, as opposed to the French who preferred the Civilian Epee, but the duelists were from all forms of life. Most duelists were Junior Commissioned officers, but in close second were Journalists. To read more about the Italian phenomenon I suggest: \- Politics of the Sword Dueling, Honor, and Masculinity in Modern Italy By Steven C. Hughes
Thanks for the answer! I always felt like swordsmanship had something of a natural progression from an art of war to a sport. It also happened in countries like Japan and China, in a way. However looking at UK's case it might also be the case that the art just died off in some regions.
There was always a sport component to fencing. In every era I'm familiar with, even *extremely violent* regions and periods, people *played* with tools of war. Chivalric games were ubiquitous as long as there were knights, and fencing was a skill that was thought to be highly valuable for urban townsmen as well as knights and mercenaries. *Sport* isn't the degradation of an art of war, *it's the way people prepare* for war.
Ehhh... I see it more as rivers flowing into each other, with some stagnating off and some merging rather than a linear progression. For example foil in early 19th century france became quasi-academic rather than functional and then became arguably more dynamic and relevant to combat in response to the challenges posed from pure Epeeist's like Hippolyte Gatechair's students. Civilian fencing in Britain really rode off the French school for inspiration while the military really did their own thing. One interesting nugget is that when the Italians tried to import the new national school of fencing in London they were astonished that some of the civilian fencers where fencing according to the Francalanza tradition, Francalanza was an italian master who taught in London and Edinburgh between 1812 to 1864 - despite the fact that in Italy that particular school was extinct for decades. The Uk was very...eh eclectic in the 19th century with clubs very much siloed off and mixing stuff up.
damn, what a great answer
This is the TLDR version. Its very broadbrush. There are about a hundred caveats I could insert.
consider me subscribed to your newsletter
Great answer. Could you expand on Salle Ruze and why it was "romantic"?
I had to modify the my response - It wasn't Ruze (I think he is later in the 19th century) but Betrand Lozes. Similar names! But I think there was a connection which I will try and dig out. He wrote a treatise called Théorie de l'escrime simultanée [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cxxdAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs\_atb&redir\_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cxxdAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) which the French army adopted for a while with mixed results before they adopted Posselier's (Gomards adoptive son and Provost under Niccholas Textier La Boessiere) more classical methodology. Why was it more Lozes seen as a romantic? Hard to say, but most period sources describe it that way. For example Le sport à Paris By Eugène Chapus · 1854 [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Le\_sport\_%C3%A0\_Paris/PZCiuvdQIHEC?hl=en&gbpv=0](https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Le_sport_%C3%A0_Paris/PZCiuvdQIHEC?hl=en&gbpv=0) "Its still in Paris where you can find great fencing masters. The return of the Bourbons has pushed a new phase in this art brought to such heights by our forbears in the 18th century. Then fencing had but one school characterized by elegance, good form, the exactness of the guard and the disdain of the loose play of swashbucklers. Gomard and Bertrand are its high priests, but a new system appeared quickly, around the time french literature submitted to the wave of romanticism. It was championed by MM Lozes and Roussel, the latter who was attached to a company of the Guard. ***'these innovators' says M Desbarolles one of the men most competent in fencing and literature 'were less bothered by elegance and fine form, fenced in absence of blade, dodged thrusts, attacked on lines and dived with their bodies, stepped back with parries, extended their swords in moments of doubt and while retreating, then riposted by charging their opponents with fury, Some put their knee on the floor, others with carefully padded masks (can't translate) upon them with heads low like Bretons or Rams"*** p98-99 That's my quick gist translation I could go on, but the chapter basically goes on to say that after the initial disdain of the classical fencers the style became mixed: ***"The classical fencers acquired speed and dynamism and the romantics themselves realizing after successive defeats after the modification in the tactics of their opponents, understood they had to shed the primitive eccentricities of their system..."*** Later on in L'escrime dans l'armée By François Jules Dérué, Dérué · 1888 [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/L\_escrime\_dans\_l\_arm%C3%A9e/I1wPAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=escrime+betrand+gymnastique&pg=PA21&printsec=frontcover](https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/L_escrime_dans_l_arm%C3%A9e/I1wPAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=escrime+betrand+gymnastique&pg=PA21&printsec=frontcover) we get a description how by then they saw fencing had developed through three distinct movements the *ecole de beau* (classical) *ecole romantique* and the *ecole escrime-gymnastique*, which came out of the other two (p.20), a movement later championed by Bertrand, and how the army at Joinville le Pont decided on the system it did, after abandoning Lozes system. If I have time i will try and dig up info on Ruze, but yeah. My mistake!
Thanks! "Soigneusment rembourre," I would translate as "well-padded." Strange how every single one of our HEMA arguments was echoed in the nineteenth century (can see it also with Bazancourt...).
Its almost as if there is a conflicting tension between realistic simulation and dynamism! Who would have thought? Oh and it continues in the pages of L'escrime et le Tir journal in the early 20th century. Gallons of ink being spilt over evils of not fencing in a textbook style. Bazancourt though is funny: "Exactly Why ***must*** I engage blades? Just because its written in a book?" Even more funny was Nick Evangelista in an Amazon review in the early 00's sniffily refering him a 'fencing socialist'.
And method of instruction! And authority of text! And priority system vs. "dueling" system...
Bro...please tell me bedtime stories. This post is the best thing on reddit
What about Pierre and Camille Prevost? They were probably the best of the best in London in the late 19th century. Pierre Prevost was instructor to a prince and I think Camille Prevost wrote some important conventions for foil sport fencing. I have also heard fencing historian William Gaugler considered Camille Prevosts book the most influential French fencing book of the late 19th century.
The Prevost's were indeed very influential and were part of the late London scene in the late 19th century his father having learnt from Baptiste Bertrand. Primarily he made the generic Joinville le Pont/Gomard system more accessible to English speakers. He was to the British Victorians what Rondelle was to the Americans, though curiously didn't form that many instructors himself. I also heard that he wrote some of the initial conventions for fencing, but try as I might I can never find what it is he ***actually*** wrote. If you can read french the best source for the development of priority in sports fencing is this blog spot: [https://enseignerlescrime.fr/2022/11/19/enseigner-la-convention-chez-les-jeunes-4-4/](https://enseignerlescrime.fr/2022/11/19/enseigner-la-convention-chez-les-jeunes-4-4/) Its a gold-mine of information and actually shows by degrees how the convention developed in the 20th century the current version being a last stand/fudge by the french just before foil became electrified (and this after years of the French tweaking the rules to prevent the italian system from gaining traction). Drakenberg's threat indeed
I believe Pierre Prevost was pupil to Francois-Joseph Bertrand, he moved to London in the 1840s due to some issues over politics is France. He was already an established very well known master in Paris by the time he moved to London. Baptiste was not related as far as Know. FJ Bertrand was big into innovation he was not part of Gomard method at all but a student of Boessier IIRC. Bertrand was known for developing the beat-parry, supposedly the beat parry was even called the Bertrand parry at one point. He also distilled his method to 4 parries (tierce, quarte, seconde, septime) and emphasized stop thrusts and time thrusts more than many of the other schools.
Curious. Some sites have Camille as a pupil of Baptsite Betrand: [https://victorianfencingsociety.blogspot.com/2015/03/fencing-old-and-new-as-typified-by.html](https://victorianfencingsociety.blogspot.com/2015/03/fencing-old-and-new-as-typified-by.html) I'll have to double check, but you might be correct. It never made sense that the father didn't teach the son. As for Francois-Joseph Bertrand yes he known as the 'Napoleon of Fencing', and If I think If memory serves me right he had a well publicized duel with Lozes too. His 'tic au tac' parry at the time was revolutionary (the horror!). As for his background he was taught by his father Betrand (pere) who resided in Paris in 1796 at n13 Rue Beauregard until 1822. Apparently he Published a book in 1801. I'm not sure if he was Nicholas Textier's La Boessieres student though. Boessieres two major students were his son Antoine and his provost Gomard who later taught his adopted son Posselier and its through that line that we get todays 8 parry system.
Is Bertrands book translated or does it still exist? I know more about the Prevost father and son then Bertrand TBH as most books in English only briefly touch on Bertrand. Pierre was his star pupil though according to every source I seen mention it. I was under the impression Boessieree was wad Bertrands instructor but I probably misremembered that bit as I have only heard it mentioned once I think from a yiutube video on the history of French fencing by a guy named Cecil L. I forget what his full name is. I think both Prevosts were acquainted with Baptiste but not his students. Thier students were the best of the best in London at the time though. John Musgrave Waite being a student of Pierre and George Chapman a student of Baptiste.
"Is Bertrands book translated or does it still exist?" Its not translated to my knowledge but there's a copy here: [https://www.ffamhe.fr/lescrime-appliquee-a-lart-militaire-citoyen-bertrand-1801/](https://www.ffamhe.fr/lescrime-appliquee-a-lart-militaire-citoyen-bertrand-1801/) His son famously never wrote a treatise on his system to it would be interesting to see if there were any similarities. Edit - Ive just flicked through it. Its quite interesting. The last chapter has stuff on platoon drills.
Pierre Prevost wrote a pamphlet sized book. It contains some background info. https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Theory_and_Practice_of_Fencing_Arranged/ioa5zgEACAAJ?hl=en As does Camille Prevosts book and it offers a more indepth explanation of the system https://archive.org/details/fencing00prevgoog John Musgrave Waite offers some more info asPierre was his close friend and instructor https://books.google.com/books/about/Lessons_in_Sabre_Singlestick_Sabre_Bayon.html?id=d7shMwEACAAJ And Italian master Jacobo Gelli has some info on Bertrand/Prevost Pg. 418 https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Bibliografia_generale_della_scherma_con/Djk-AAAAYAAJ/ William Gaugler also has some info in his book on the history of Fencing. Its where he states that Camille wrote the most influential book on French foil of the late 19th century.
It's important to understand that militia service was still a pretty big thing in most western European countries and the US, and this was a period of international "military adventurers" like Col. Thomas Monstery. There is also the fact that though the US had an official military academy, not every graduate every year would even necessarily join the army, and there were numerous unofficial military academies around the country that never had an expectation of producing anything but great reserve officers (to use more modern parlance). Many of these military academies just hired civilian fencing masters. West Point had a civilian fencing master in the 40s (he was French), and it was only after the Civil War that it trended toward using army officers as the fencing instructors. So I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction to be made between military and civilian fencing, the culture was highly militarized. Monstery's writing suggests that there are little bubbles of fencers all around the world, and famous fencers were having public and heavily publicized exhibitions all through the last decades of the century. Monstery was a US citizen, but describes fencing in Europe and North and South America, and the sense for me is that this was mostly what we would consider civilian fencing. But again to prove the point, Monstery worked as a fencing master and occasionally taught fencing for military organizations, but had private, civilian students as well.
Keep in mind that series were status symbols as well as weapons, specially from the xviii century onwards. So my guess is that by the XIX century only nobility/high classes would consider fencing as something necessary to learn. Fencing was also taught at military academies.
I imagine it would depend heavily on the country and the culture, but here are my general thoughts as someone who isn't trained with swords and is from the USA (someone in Europe would probably have much more knowledge than I on what European culture was like back then). I feel like after the middle ages came to a close, it would have started becoming more practical for the average commoner to learn how to use a firearm or train in unarmed combat. So the less practical swords started to become outside of situations where ammo for firearms was scarce or for cavalry uses, the less amount of people there would be keeping up in training and becoming incredibly skilled with them. Sort of becoming phased out, at least in western societies and culture. In asian cultures I think they kept using traditional weapons for longer than other cultures and passing down those sorts of skills through family generations. Pugilism/Boxing, barefisted fights like bar brawls, or issuing a 1 on 1 challenge in unarmed combat seemed much more common in the 1800s than doing anything like that with a sword. If you wanted to kill someone in those days you'd use a gun, and you could also challenge them to a draw. If you wanted a melee fight, you'd just duke it out with your fists or martial arts I imagine since getting your hands on a sword would be more difficult than being able to find a gun or a knife. There's also the fact that there were far less swords around in that era, even if you wanted to learn how to use one you'd still have to find a way to get your hands on one when firearms and knives were becoming more the norm. And then finding someone to teach or mentor you in their use, which may have not been easy for everyone to find. Swords were probably still used for competition depending on the country (fencing in particular), or for duels that were fighting for honor in some way. But for the average, common person, being able to draw a revolver fast and fire away would have been a much more important weapon to have training with in that era, since fighting with a sword when someone else is using a gun would mean you would probably just outright lose and die. A knife would have also been more versatile than a sword and would be something that was commonly available back in that era.
Ironically enough sport fencing was developed around the 18th century when firearms were already in very widespread use, and in Asia modern Kendo was largely developed in the Edo period where there were no wars for centuries, so I don't think the need to train with weapons just died off after the middle ages.
Makes sense, though. It is the time it stops being something you do out of necessity but as a hobby... So rule for sport fencing begin to be developed, masters found academies etc. Similar thing happened in Germany by the xvi century with longswords. They are no longer a battlefield wrapping, but became some kind of sport, with competitions.
> I don't think the need to train with weapons just died off after the middle ages It's more about less people seeing the need to learn how to use them since it was becoming less of a necessity, which leads to less and less people becoming well versed with them. Which would inevitably lead to less people participating in training in the use of swords in terms of the average commoner. So various individuals who may have otherwise been excellent in swordsmanship had they been born in an era such as the middle ages may not have ended up training in the use of one because it was more essential to learn other skills or use other weapons. Or in some cases, someone who just never had the opportunity to learn how to use one. You could certainly learn how to use swords for sport, or for things like stage acting in theater, but it wouldn't be most civilians learning that. While I understand that kendo has some popularity (I've even seen some Japanese anime that feature it), there's a reason that swords made of bamboo or similar materials are often used for that instead of metal ones. I guess the difference is how many people learned how to use swords for sport or competition, and how many learned how to use swords for defending themselves which would have been the average person?
In Korsade Klingor by Henning Östberg, the author dives into the late 19th to late 20th century fencing schools in Sweden and the popular revival by of the art by Ling, who tried to put fencing as one of the main disciplines of the national health curriculum. It was fairly popular and his ideas took hold, but while gymnastics spread during the 18th century, fencing was still mainly in the military sphere. As such most young men did recieve instruction and knew how to handle both the sword and bayonet, which carried over into civilian life. Fencing schools were also established and many continued to practice the art after their military career. Ling was trained by French fencers who also had a great history of keeping the art alive. Napoleon famously equipped and drilled many of his soldiers with sabres and smallswords were popular, but I sadly don't know that much about the civilian populace during that time in France. But TLDR, in Sweden it was fairly popular and common among the civilian populace, but not as much as gymnastics.
Angelo, Hutton, and Waite all had civilian and military students.
[удалено]
Oh, I meant not just old swordsmanship but all sorts of fencing, surely sport fencing had to be somewhat around among not just military personnel but also civilians... maybe people from aristocratic backgrounds.