In fencing in any period, guard stances are a combination of the body position and blade position adopted by a fencer as the basis for offense and defence. By the beginning of the classical period (1880-1939 CE), the two main fencing schools (the French and the Italian) had adopted standard guard positions. The French School taught a system of eight watches, and the Italian four watches. 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 gun guard (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 point at the opponent’s target at the height of the opponent. shoulder. The foil grip is held with the weapon hand in a thumbs-up position.

Pinto Martins states that this guard is carried out of lunging distance to allow the fencer to study the opponent while positioning himself to react to any surprises. To come within 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 twitch, a move 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 center position means that the fencer who adopts the Middle Guard can respond to all four lines (high outside, high inside, low inside and low outside) when a threat is presented in any of those lines.

• Because the sheet is centrally positioned, the response to each line is theoretically equally fast.

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

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

• The Mid Guard does not close any individual lines: 100 percent of the target has some degree of vulnerability. Closing a lane in the guard position protects 25 percent of the target with only minimal requirements for blade position adjustment. Furthermore, 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 on a different line or to work hard to prepare to open the closed line.

• As a result, if the fencer suddenly and unexpectedly finds himself at mid-distance (stride), the openings in all four lines greatly complicate the defense problem.

• The required step forward with contraction to close the line as 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 fencer with a lot of experience in its use, it could well have been an effective tool for denying an opponent information about the eventual confrontation until the distance was closed. However, his vulnerability ultimately made Midguard an evolutionary dead end as footwork speed and mobility and the ability for opponents to quickly close the distance increased.