Single/Double Time

[Erich Wagner]

Could someone elaborate on what is meant by single or double time with regard to sword technique?

Thanks,
Erich

[Guest]

The simplest way to tell the thing is saying that one is "Hop", the other is "hop, hop", so in double time sabre fencing you parry a mandritto in the inside guard "hop", and then you throw your own mandritto "hop". In double time spadroon, or in this case even small sword, fencing, you deflect a thrust with a semicircular parry "hop" then you throw your own carte thrust lunging "hop".
In single time you either parry or attack, so you'll prefer a counterattack, for example: you are in the tail guard, your adversary attacks you with a fendente, you step back and give him a manrovescio at the same time.
Double time is typical of 1700 1800 fencing, if you are within the reach of JC do not use double time because he does not really like the concept and might spank you.
I use double time with the 1700 weapons but I'm really far from JC's hands <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Ehi I was kidding in the last part...

If you look at the swordmanship of the movies it's almost always double time: parry, blow; parry,blow etc...
Single time was the way to go in the renaissance (and was by the way more effective because you whant to break the time, not to follow the time in a fight).
Single time is more difficult because you have to execute the right counter, double time is simpler but brings less results (except with the small sword) because you parry a blow, then you throw your own, but your blow can now be parried too.

[Shane Smith]

Single-time...Think "Meisterhau"
Double-time think"durchlauffen"

Thats how I catagorize the concepts.Others disagree however...

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Erich,

First of all, I would recommend that you buy SPADA. There is a wonderful article in this book (that I have attempted to paraphrase part of below) by Mr Stephen Hand that specifically covers this topic better than I can in a forum post.
There is also an interesting article on Medieval wrestling by ARMA's own John Clements!

The terms "single time" or "double time" are most often used to categorize two of the possible responses against an attack. (Theoretically, you could respond in triple time but this would be inefficient for the most part.)

To properly explain this, we first need to look at what a fencing time is.
A fencing time is simply a period of time that encompasses one action.

So, a single time defence is a defence in one action. A good example of this is a direct counterthust that closes the line of attack. ie, fighter "A" launches a down right blow at fighter "B's" neck so fighter "B" winds into the ochs (left hanging guard) as he thrusts at fighter "A". By combining a counterattack with a wind into the left ochs, "B" has defended himself in single time.

This brings us to double time defences. A double time defence is any defence that encompasses two distinct motions NO MATTER HOW SMALL. A good example of a double time defence comes from Talhoffer's (1467) messer and involves a similar hanging parry against a down right blow but with an important difference. The messer's in Talhoffer are shorter or about the same length as a fighter's arm.
Therefore, if "B" attempted a single time defence against "A" in this situation, he would likely lose his hand. Because of this, "B" must engage "A's" weapon and neutralise the threat before he can counterattack. This is a double time defence.

So, "B" uses a hanging guard with a refused point (ie not aimed at target) to make his parry and only then countercuts at "A" with an oberhau.

Carlo, I think maybe you have misquoted JC. To say that double time defences didn't exist in medieval fencing at all is completely incorrect. Perhaps he was saying that they were frowned upon by Ringeck?

Double time defences did exist in medieval fencing, most notably in messer play. However, Liberi and Vadi both use some rather sweet double time defences with their longswords.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Guest]

As I said, I was kidding!
I know he doesn't have anything against double time, the problem is with the "I must use double time syndrome" of many sabre and broadsword manuals in which the edge of the weapon is used to parry more and more... even when a parry is not really necessary. Look at "cold steel" by Hutton, who would argue we really need so many parries?

[Guest]

OPS, sorry for my previous reply, I shot in the white... <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

You're right I should have said that single time was preferred in renaissance and double time was preferred in 700' (medieval fencing is not really my field).

I've found a single time counter in sabre fencing: slipping the leg and cutting at the wrist, sadly slipping the leg is done with a backward tango step that makes little sense, but the idea is good.

Parry-batter-slash is triple time? If so, triple time works for me, as long as the batter is executed after the parry without quitting the contact with the opponent's blade.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Carlo,

Sabre play is in many ways completely unlike straight sword play.
Firstly, it is alot faster. Because of the curve in the blade, a sabre fighter can fight using much smaller movements than he can with a straight sword. Just turning the blade over and moving the hand a little creates alot of power for cutting. Depending on the sabre in question, this same turn can move the point about a foot from side to side in the blink of an eye.

The point is that with a sabre you either have to completely void an attack or make sure you have a very secure parry before riposting. A sabre is rather unsuited to single time defences that involve blade engagement but countercutting is as valid as ever.

Saying that single time was preffered in the Renaissance and indeed in any period per se is erroneous.

Please explain the "tango step" to me and also the method you use. Lets see if we can find a reason for the historical method shall we?
Cheers,
Stu.

Trying to apply one method of parrying to all weapons from all cultures within a given period is doomed to failure. George Silver (1599) often recommended a "ward and strike" method with his basket hilted shortsword. Vincentio Saviolo 1595 almost exclusively recommended "stesso tempo" counterthrusts. Not just different methods for different MASTERS but different methods for different WEAPONS.

[Guest]

Let's start from a point on which we agree, I think, if a second weapon is used to parry (be it buckler or dagger or target ...) while you strike with your c&amp;T, then you're using single time. If it is admitted that c&amp;t was used mainly with something else, than single time is to be seen as prevalent. I know the renaissance masters taught parries, but voiding and traversing were used too in single sword fencing. On the other hand, the 700' and 800' sabre and broad sword masters put an emphasis on blade (edge!!!) banging in defence I find hard to explain, I'm talking about Roworth, Lonnergan, Mathewson and Mc Bane. I think that intentionally receiving a blow on your blade while you could make it miss by way of slipping or traversing or simply backpedaling and at the same time seek for flesh is not a good idea, because when you parry your opponent is as safe as you are and because the very best way to wound an arm is calling a parry with a fake strike and hit the arm with the true strike. I do no use either the duelling sabre or the heavy and much curved, better suited for mounted combat, chivalry sabre, I use a couple of almost stright one pound and half (a bit more 700-800gr) sabres. With these I find more productive in terms of hits to go for coutercuts other than letting my arm dance around in parry-riposte play, and while I badly miss the high ward of the c&amp;t, I find Sir Hope to be right on the matter of the hanging guard, we do not need 7 or 8 different parries.
The tango step: the right leg is put behind the left leaving the heel lifted...I prefer to step back with both feet or even to jump back, so I can attack on a pass or lunge from a stable position.
I know it's important to be historically correct, but I think it's more important to have a style that works, if I can borrow tecniques from messer play or scimitar fencing (that's way I'm asking news about it elsewhere) and have a better style...I'll go for it, with the spadroon I borrow from small sword play with good results.
Thanks for the interest you show for my posts, I'm in this forum to learn and guys like you help much.
Carlo

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Carlo,
This is turning into an interesting discussion.

I shall address your points in turn. Masters such as Di Grassi Marozzo who taught the Spada da Filo type swords all used the single sword as their foundation in the manuals. Have you any evidence that these weapons were usually used with a companion weapon or a buckler?

Understanding both the desire to parry rather than void and also understand the "tango step" are in my experience part of the same problem. Basically if fighter "B" moves far enough back that fighter "A" will miss him completely then the fight is going to be decided by the fastest feet and the longest lunge rather than outright skill. So, the trick with the the later manuals you mentioned is that you want to go back far enough to protect your legs but not far enough that you can't counter. Because of this it becomes necessary to parry. Now often doesn't consist of putting the blade in the way of the weapon and just stopping it as if you do this it helps the opponent recover to his guard off his lunge. As such when you make the parry, you do it as a very light beat that sends the opposing blade towards the floor. This accomplishes two things. Firstly it opens up the high line for a completely unopposed cut and secondly it helps to stop them retreating.

As far as Hope goes, it is a wonderful way to start teaching beginners however only using one ward leaves you horribly open to counters from Silver. I am a big fan of the hanging ward but prefer Silvers where my point doesn't threaten and is sloping slightly backwards. The extended hanging guard in seconde allows the other chap to engage your blade which is the type of game I don't want to play.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Guest]

Hi Stuawrt,
point one: I was told so... by the way it's smarter not to leave your dagger in the sheath, it's sooo useful

Point two: I do not mean you have to break the measure so that you can't strike back, but you have to have perfect balance at all times, that particular move puts you in a so and so position, it's better to let your feet join and keep them on the line than to cross them and leave one heel in the breeze <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

I cited Hope because he did not feel the need for many different parries or wards, I'm not relying on the hanging too much (it works well anyhow), I like the outside like Mr Perkins and the low wars of Mc Bane. Silver, interesting, it's only that without an illustrated work, I'll never be sure of what he really says <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

The wards to be preferred depend on the weapon used, the hanging I find is very good with the light spadroon with which you can disengage quickly (the low wards of Mc Bane are really sneakish and useful too) , not so with the sabre, outside and inside being better. C&amp;T? High ward, with dagger in the middle!
Ciao
Carlo