A common fencing myth today is that the flѐche attack – a common offensive approach in modern foil and especially epée – has its origins deep in time, in attacks from traditional fencing that look like this:

These attacks are referred to as an “attack on the pass,” and are features of traditional rapier and smallsword fencing systems in the 1600’s and 1700’s. But in truth, the flѐche is unrelated to the attack on the pass, and instead has its origins entirely within modern fencing of the turn of the 20th century. It is about the same age as the airplane, in other words!

To take the myth apart and look at it, first let’s agree on what constitutes a flѐche. Here is a definition from Maitre Felix Gravé, in his 1933 book, Fencing Comprehensive:

“The flѐche attack is a running-forward movement to hit the adversary… The best way to make the attack is to bring the left foot in front of the right and then follow with two or three quick and short running steps.”

Here is a definition from Clovis Deladrier:

“The flѐche (or rush): The flѐche is a simple attack executed by fully extending the arm with the point in line… then deliberately losing your balance by leaning forward, and finally closing the distance by running forward rapidly so that your opponent cannot make a riposte.”

This all results in something that looks like this, and I would say the descriptions above are pretty accurate:

The point of confusion is that the left foot is brought forward as part of both attacks. But in the flѐche, the fencer is launching their body as a missile, and when the left foot lands it lands only long enough to push the fencer on, past and to the side of the opponent. In the attack on the pass, the left foot stays planted when it lands, because the forward momentum has stopped. The attack on the pass, then, is really much more akin to a lunge, being different in that the front foot is what propels the attack and the back foot moves forward to catch the body at the attack’s end. There is none of that “purposeful loss of balance” or running steps.

Another key point that divorces the flѐche from the attack on the pass (or, rather, keeps them from ever have been able to marry in the first place), is that the attack on the pass was almost universally abandoned in the fencing styles of the 1800’s. That is, while it was common in the 1600’s and 1700’s, there is no 19th century treatise that advocates it as far as I am aware. And I have checked dozens, both French and Italian. In his 1845 book on French Foil, Gomard does describe the attack on the pass, but includes it in the category of actions of “ancient method abandoned in modern times (translation mine).” This because, as he tells us, the attack on the pass provides less stability upon completion than the lunge, and because it is much harder to recover from than the lunge. Therefore, the lunge won the day. I would also add that the attack on the pass, coming from a necessarily greater distance than the lunge, provides the opponent a larger tempo in which to defend themselves. So, even as early as Rosaroll and Grisetti in 1803, we no longer see the attack on the pass as a common feature.

The earliest mention of the flѐche that I can find is from Achille Edom, a century later, in 1908, in a book called L’Escrime, le Duel, & L’Epée. So the flѐche, having such a huge gap from the attack on the pass in time, and being vastly different from the attack on the pass in terms of how it is performed, we can see clearly that the two in reality have no relation. Edom does give us the true story of the flѐche’s origin, though details are frustratingly lacking. It seems to have been invented and spread by a group of highly successful French epéeists in international competition – one of whom, Charles Collignon, was a member of the gold-medal-winning French epée team in the 1908 olympics. Edom tells us that these fencers have developed the flѐche to great precision, and then provides discussion of how to defend against it. Jean-Joseph Renaud does tell us a little more, in his 1928 fencing treatise, explaining that Collignon developed the flѐche – as an “attack en courant” (or running attack, using the same terminology as Edom) in concert with his fencing master, named Thiercelin. The attack won him great success… until people started figuring out how to defend it, at which point he resorted to other tactics, Renaud tells us. In both sources, it is telling that the flѐche is described as part of a category of “coups irreguliers” or “bottes secretes” – in other words, not part of established fencing tradition.

So in truth, the flѐche was developed de novo around the turn of the 20th century, entirely within the context of modern fencing competition. And, interestingly, it seems to have faced resistance in being accepted by the establishment, even though it evidently was providing competitive success: the earliest treatise I can find that describes it as anything other than a novelty, is that of Gravé in 1933 – some twenty to thirty years after its creation. Past that point it gains more recognition and shows up in Deladrier, etc., but neither French nor Italian authors give it a treatment as an established technique before 1933 that I can find. So it seems to have been treated in the early days similarly to how the flick was treated in the 1980’s and 1990’s, something that went against tradition and establishment – a coup irregulier, an irregular attack. This is further evidence against it having a link to an established (though long-abandoned) technique, the attack on the pass. So it is safe to say, “Myth Busted.”

The contents of this post reflect my own views and opinions, and do not necessarily represent those of my masters at Martinez Academy of Arms. Any errors are fully my own, as I am still in training and have been encouraged to research to further my studies.