Classic Fencing: The Middle Guard

In fencing in any period, guard positions are a combination of body position and blade position adopted by a fencer as a basis for offense and defense. By the beginning of the classical period (1880-1939 CE), the two main fencing schools (French and Italian) had adopted standard guard positions. The French School taught a system of eight guards, and the Italian of four guards. These guards served as the basis for engagement, parries, and invites, the three key categories of sword action.

In foil fencing in classical times, some fencers, at least in the French School, somewhat employed a Middle Guard. For example, the Portuguese fencing master Antonio Domingos Pinto Martins (1895) describes the Middle Guard with the weapon arm crossed over the fencer’s torso toward a central position, as seen by the opponent. The weapon’s protection (hood) is equidistant from the top and bottom and left and right margins of the target. The blade is usually parallel to the fencing line (the line formed by the heel of the rear foot, the heel of the front foot, the toe of the front foot, and the opponent) with the toe raised to aim at the opponent’s target at shoulder height. shoulder. The foil grip is held with the weapon hand in a thumbs-up position.

Pinto Martins states that this guard is carried outside of lunging distance to allow the fencer to study the opponent while positioning themselves to react to any surprises. To approach lunging distance, the fencer takes a small step forward, passing the blade under the opponent’s blade and closing the line laterally with a contact. This is essentially a contraction, a movement that draws the opponent’s sword through the target.

The apparent advantages of the Middle Guard were significant and, upon initial consideration, seem compelling:

• The central position means that the fencer adopting the Middle Guard can respond to all four lines (high outside, high inside, low inside and low outside) when a threat is presented on any of those lines.

• Because the sheet is placed in the center, the response to each line is theoretically just as fast.

• As a result, the fencer’s weapon provides the same degree of protection on each line.

However, the advantages of the Middle Guard are outweighed by its disadvantages, leading to the eventual abandonment of this tactical position:

• The Middle Guard does not close any individual lines: 100 percent of the target has some degree of vulnerability. Closing a line in the guard stance protects 25 percent of the target with only minimal requirements for blade stance adjustment. Also, closing a line in guard position complicates the opponent’s tactical problem as it removes the opportunity to threaten that line. This forces an opponent to attack in a different line or to work hard to prepare to open the closed line.

• As a result, if the fencer is suddenly and unexpectedly in the middle distance (stride), the openings in the four lines greatly complicate the defense problem.

• The required step forward with the contraction to close the line as the distance decreases becomes a predictable action. With this comes increased vulnerability.

The Middle Guard represents one of the many variations on guard positions found during the history of the classical period. In the hands of a highly experienced fencer, it could well have been an effective tool for denying an opponent information about the eventual engagement until the distance was closed. However, its vulnerability ultimately made the Mid Guard an evolutionary dead end as speed and footwork mobility and opponents’ ability to quickly close the distance increased.