Trattato teorico-pratico di scherma della sciabola by Federico Cesarano

In the past few months I have had an increasing interest in non-Radaellian sabre treatises published around Radaelli's time. The main reason for this is in order to get a better contextual idea of what sabre fencing looked like in Italy before Radaelli and Parise's methods became so dominant. The book that I am sharing today is of one such treatise from 1874, entitled Trattato teorico-pratico di scherma della sciabola ('Theoretical-practical treatise of sabre fencing').

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zOUplLliWTzhnvi1XlQvJxM0GCGSUVzl

Although this text was published in Milan, it details the method of the Neapolitan maestro Federico Cesarano, who ran a fencing hall in Padua. He makes no effort to hide his Neapolitan pride, following in the footsteps of Rosaroll-Scorza and Grisetti by quoting Tasso every now and then, and stating that:

Some peoples are favoured by nature through particular skill and agility in the useful art of defending oneself: the Italians are certainly among them, and of these the Neapolitans are recognised as more skilful in fencing both for their more natural disposition, and because in this part of Italy the noble art of fencing was always kept pure without ever hampering it with practices of foreign schools.

It is not unlikely that Cesarano studied under one of the Parises at the Accademia Nazionale di Scherma in Naples, as he specifically recommends the Parise model mask for sabre fencing:

Various models of this mask are made: without hesitation I prefer the model of Maestro Parise of Naples, which is all leather except for the mesh, which is always iron.

Cesarano prefers a (familiar) raised, extended guard of 3rd, which he says is 'the most commonly used'.

He also gives this interesting insight into measurements for typical fencing sabres of the time:

The length of the blade varies from 86.8 to 89 cm and is calculated from the point to the heel; the width varies from 13 to 25 millimetres. The total weight of a fencing sabre is about 640 to 890 g.

The book also contains an appendix detailing some rules to be observed in the fencing hall, and a brief discussion of rules to be observed in a duel.

Lastly, here is Gelli's brief entry on Cesarano from his Bibliografia General della Scherma:

Federico Cesarano, born in Naples on the 18th June 1846, was a volunteer in the Garibaldini Hussars for the 1860 campaign; he then moved into the Lucca Light Cavalry, with which he made the campaign against Austria in 1866.
In 1868 he founded a Fencing and Gymnastics Club in Padua, which he is still the director of.
As a fencer he has appeared in all the tournaments held in Italy, always bringing back the best prizes in works of art and gold medals.
Currently he also presides over the teaching of gymnastics in the municipal schools of Padua.

Thanks to Biblioteca comunale centrale di Milano for providing the scans.

Parries of 1st and 7th - "A little forward"

In his 1876 manual Del Frate describes the parries of 1st and 7th as being the same as the second movements of the molinelli to the head from the left and right, respectively, except with an additional note saying:

“In both of these parries, however, the sabre is held a little forward of the prescribed position for the 2nd movement of the molinello.”

What exactly is “a little forward”? First let us look at how Del Frate describes the second movements of the molinelli to the head.

To the head from the left:

Two — bending the arm the blade is lowered with the point towards the ground, and the sabre is brought alongside the left flank, the edge turned to the left, the grip to the left and at the height of the head, about 20 centimetres ahead; the arm at the height and in the direction of the forehead; the body balanced as in the guard position (fig. 16).

To the head from the right:

Two — raising and bending the arm the blade is lowered with the point towards the ground, and the sabre is brought alongside the right flank with the edge turned to the right, the grip about a palm away from the right temple, such that one's gaze passes between the forearm and the blade, the weight of the body equally distributed on the legs (fig. 19).

And here are the plates showing both parries and their respective second movements of the molinelli:

Although it is unfortunate that the plates for the parries of 1st and 7th show a different perspective to that of their respective second movements of the molinelli, there does not seem to be much of an obvious difference between the two. In the plate showing the parry of 1st it almost appears that the sabre is slightly shorter than in the other plates. This could either be an error on the part of the illustrator, or that the tip of the sabre is pointing slightly more forward (or back), which would not entirely disagree with what Del Frate says.

These plates indicate that Del Frate’s idea of “a little forward” is perhaps no more than a couple of centimetres. Similarly we see the same depiction of parry of 1st in his 1868 manual:

"Position of Parry of 1st"

"Position of the second movement for the molinello to the head from the left"

Despite the fact that the plates are virtually identical in their depictions (albeit with Fig. 19 incorrectly showing the fencer to be forward-weighted), the description in the 1868 text is slightly different:

“The hand a little higher than the head and about one palm [20 - 25 cm] away, the tip pointing to the ground ahead one palm from the hand, and the edge to the left.”

This brings the point ahead of the grip such that the sabre does not point directly down as it may appear on the plates. Regardless of the reason as to why this was not mentioned in the 1876 text, Del Frate makes no mention in this text to the parry being any further forward than is previously suggested, as the description of the parry does not refer to the second movement of the molinello to the head in this case.

The same can be found in both the 1873 and 1885 editions of the Ministry of War’s cavalry manual Regolamento di esercizi e di evoluzioni per la cavalleria, which contains a distilled version of Radaelli’s system for use in the cavalry. Here we see that the illustration is nearly identical to that seen in Del Frate’s 1868 text, and the description is not far off either:

“To execute parry of first the cavalryman is placed in the position of second or point in line, and then at the command:
FIRST:
Raising the arm and bringing the hand to the left at the height of the forehead, one takes the following position:
The hand a little higher than the head and about one palm away, the point of the sabre turned towards the ground, one palm ahead of the hand, edge to the left (fig. 22).”

As for parry of 7th, in the 1868 text Del Frate does still relate it to the second movement of the molinello to the head from the right:

“... raising the right hand one will take the position very similar to the second movement of the molinello to the head from the right, with the difference that the grip stops about four fingers in front of the head, with the blade nearly parallel to the flank."

Compared to his description of the second movement of the molinello to the head from the right in the same text:

“The point of the sabre is dropped perpendicularly towards the ground raising the hand, bringing it a little higher than the head, and four fingers from the right temple so that the sabre comes to be behind the right shoulder with the edge turned to the right, and the point distant as little as possible from the body, at the same time looking between the forearm and the sabre.”

Parry of 7th as described in this text only ends up being 4 fingers in front of the head as opposed to 4 fingers from the temple in the second movement of the molinello, amounting to merely a few centimetres of difference between the two. Nowhere else in his 1868 text does Del Frate state that a parry is held any further forward than one would assume by reading the text, and even in the cases previously mentioned.

Giordano Rossi (a Radaellian) shows the parries in the same manner as in Del Frate’s 1876 text, except he also shows the distance between the head and the hand in parry of 1st from the side:

Left: "Fig. 38. Parry of 1st."
Right: "Fig. 39. Parry of 7th."

Rossi also states that for the parries of 1st and 7th the grip and the sabre are “a little forward” of the prescribed position for the 2nd movement of the molinelli, yet just like Del Frate, this is not referring to the above illustrations of the parries.

In his 1915 treatise Poggio Vannucchi (another Radaellian) gives two forms of parry of first:

"Parry of angled 1st: blade perpendicular to the ground and to the left of the body, looking under the forearm with the hand in 1st above the head and about 20 centimetres in front of the forehead, forearm bent to form a right angle with the sabre, edge to the left.
Parry of 1st in line: arm extended at the height of the shoulder, edge obliquely to the left, the point a little lower than the hand."

His hand positions are unique to his system, as he gives one for each of the 9 parries, including also separate versions for "angled 1st" and "1st in line":

"The position of 1st in line, back of the hand to the left, edge diagonally up to the left. Position of angled 1st, back of the hand turned to the rear, the point of the sabre perpendicular to the ground, edge to the left."

Thus we see that while his parry of "1st in line" seems closer to Masiello's parry of 1st, his "angled 1st" seems identical to what is described by Del Frate in 1876 and Rossi in 1885.

So what is "a little forward" then? Due to the consistency shown in all the images, particularly those for parry of 1st, it seems one can only conclude that the parries are no more than a few centimetres forward from the 2nd movements of the molinelli to the head. The likeliest explanation in my view is that Del Frate wanted to make sure that fencers were not placing the sabre too close to their bodies when performing the parries, such that they place themselves at risk of having their parry collapse on the opponent's blow and getting hit in the process. When performing the molinelli it is easier for this mistake to occur as the sabre is drawn further back after the 2nd movement, thus a fencer may end up with their sabre closer than is ideal for a parry when performing the 2nd movement of either molinello.

Translation - I fondamenti della scherma italiana by Poggio Vannucchi

Below you may find my translation of Poggio Vannucchi's 1915 treatise I fondamenti della scherma italiana, or, in English, The fundamentals of Italian fencing.

Translation

Scans

This treatise is interesting not purely for its Radaellian sabre content, but because of the fact that it so closely resembles the original Radaellian sabre system, showing not much variation from that seen in the 1880s by the other Radaellians. Together with his colourful introduction, Vannucchi appears to try to hearken back to the good ol' days of fencing, before the adoption of the recently officially-sanctioned compromise Neapolitan-Radaellian system.

Vannucchi constantly reminds the reader to ensure that the student shows good 'precedence of the blade' instead of 'precedence of the body'; that is, presenting a threat with the blade before moving the body forward to attack.

If nothing else it is worth reading the introduction, as it gives a great insight into the development of fencing as a sport from the perspective of an ageing, devout Radaellian.

The 1881 Milan Fencing Tournament

By the late 19th century Northern Italy was experiencing somewhat of a resurgence of interest in the art of fencing, with Giuseppe Radaelli and his school in Milan playing a large part in this. With the city of Milan set to host an International Exhibition (basically a world's fair) in 1881, the Milan Fencing Society took the opportunity to promote Italian fencing on the world stage by holding an international fencing tournament, the first such tournament to be held in post-unification Italy. The tournament attracted the biggest names in Italian fencing at the time such as Salvatore Pecoraro, Masaniello and Eduardo Parise, Salvatore Arista, Giordano Rossi, Ottavio Anzani, Tommaso Cavallo, Gaetano Barraco, and many other distinguished gentlemen as competitors, judges, and spectators.

128 fencers took part in the tournament, yet only 12 of them were from outside of Italy. Of those international fencers, 8 were from France and 4 from Austria-Hungary. Due to it taking place in Milan (the location of Radaelli's fencing school), a large proportion of the fencers present were Radaellians. The tournament was held at the Castelli Theatre from the 6th-8th of June.

The tournament regulations, administrative proceedings, and discussions were published in Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma tenuto in Milano nel giugno 1881 ("Report on the international fencing tournament held in Milan in June 1881") by Domenico Cariolato and Gioacchino Granito, who were both members of the tournament's jury. The scans of this book and my translation of it may be found below.

Translation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_9iviKiK9SnsZAhJTUSyvTUEY5hYH9IV/view?usp=sharing
Scans: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3184008

Yellow highlighting indicates uncertainty in the translation, red highlighting shows where I am sure that the translation does not convey the proper meaning. Special thanks to Bibliothèque nationale de France for providing the scans.

Tournament Format

The tournament's judging and proceedings were run by a jury of between 13 and 18 members depending on the day. Half the members of the jury consisted of gentlemen elected by the tournament's organising committee, whilst the other half were gentlemen elected by the tournament's competitors.

Prior to the tournament, all competitors were required to undergo an examination, in which they would bout in front of the jury with another randomly assigned competitor in order to determine if they were skilled enough to attend the tournament and to place them into a category based on their fencing skill, with 1st Category fencers being the most skilled, and 3rd the least. Competitors were further divided into "Maestro" and "Amateur" categories, that is, whether they were professional fencing masters or amateur fencers.

The criteria by which competitors were judged were:

• Perfection of the guard
• Variation of invitations and attacks
• Speed of the riposte
• Preservation of measure
• Parrying with the weapon and with measure
• Knowledge of tempo
• Precision of all movements and courtesy of manners

It is interesting to note that only one of these criteria (that being "Speed of the riposte") could be said to be a somewhat athletic criterion. The other 6 seem to correspond more to artistic and aesthetic sensibilities.

The two weapons used at the tournament were the sabre and the sword (here referring to thrust-only fencing with various foils), with two different events for each weapon. The first event was the Exhibition (or Academy), which were exhibition bouts between fencers of the same category (using the same weapon). These bouts were a display of artistic skill, and points were not tallied for touches, therefore they had no singular winner.

The second event was what was called the Pool, however this was more in line with what a modern tournament would refer to as an Elimination event. Fencers of the same category (only 1st Category fencers were allowed to take part in the pool) would bout to a single touch, and the last remaining (untouched) fencer was the winner. The regulations state that the Pool was not intended to be a measure of objective skill, but rather luck. Nevertheless, a prize was awarded to the winners of the maestro sword pool and the maestro sabre pool.

As an interlude during the tournament's second day, the audience was also treated to a Mensur-style demonstration bout by two of the Austrian competitors, Johann Hartll and Felice Scheibler, the former being Maestro d'Armi at the Royal Court in Vienna.

Prizes

The top prize that was to be awarded at the tournament was "Best Fencer of the Tournament", who was the fencer that the jury felt best embodied the aforementioned criteria. Two medals were donated to the tournament, with the instructions that both be awarded to the "Best Fencer of the Tournament", yet the jury decided that it would be better to award them to two individuals. After a heated debate (see the following section "Controversy"), one medal was awarded to Salvatore Arista, champion of the Radaelli school, and the other to Baron Ottavio Anzani, an amateur Neapolitan fencing champion.

The fencers who took part in what the jury deemed to be the "best bouts" for each weapon were also awarded prizes. Winners could choose either 200 Lire or "a work of art of equal value". Prizes were awarded for the three best 1st Category sword bouts, the two best 1st Category sabre bouts, the best 2nd Category sword bout, and the best 2nd Category sabre bout.

Best 1st Category sword bouts: Ottavio Anzani and Masaniello Parise, Salvatore Arista and Giovanni Pagliuca, Paul Ruzé and Ottavio Anzani
Best 2nd Category sword bout: Salvatore Sirigatti and Carlo Guasti
Best 1st Category sabre bouts: Salvatore Arista and Gaetano Barraco, Giordano Rossi and Salvatore Pecoraro
Best 2nd Category sabre bout: Cristofaro Locascio and Giovanni Cavanna

The winners of the sword pool (Salvatore Arista) and sabre pool (Luigi Scarrani) were awarded 500 Lire each, and the runner-up (Federico Belusso) of the sword pool was awarded 200 Lire. The four fencers who took part in the best 1st Category sabre bouts then took part in their own mini sabre pool in order to determine the winner of two sabres donated by Johann Hartll on behalf of the Viennese Fencing Society. The winner was Salvatore Pecoraro.

In addition to these prizes, every fencer admitted to the tournament received a commemorative medal according to the category they were placed in. Those placed in the 1st Category received a gold medal, those in 2nd a silver medal, and those in 3rd received bronze, such as that shown below.

Controversy

When it came to determining the winner of the medal (donated by the Ministry of Education) for the "Best Fencer of the Tournament", a heated debate arose between those who believed it should be given to Salvatore Arista (a Radaellian), and those who thought it should go to Ottavio Anzani (a Neapolitan fencer). The main contention was that although Anzani was an objectively superb fencer, he only participated in the sword tournament, whereas Arista performed excellently in both sword and sabre. Those in favour of Anzani maintained that the conditions for this prize did not stipulate that the winner had to have participated in both weapons, yet the supporters of Arista felt that his performance in both events showed him to be more of an all-round distinguished fencer.

Eventually the jury decided to take it to a vote, which yielded 8 in favour of Anzani and 10 in favour of Arista, thus the medal was awarded to the Radaellian. Unhappy with this result, several of Anzani's supporters resigned from the jury. After much pleading and discussion, all members of the jury returned after agreeing to the compromise that the second medal donated to the tournament (by the Milan Town Hall) would be awarded to Anzani, with the same merit as that awarded to Arista. Thus there were two "best fencers" of the tournament. When writing about this event in 1884, Arista would claim that the whole affair was motivated by a bias in many members of the jury towards Neapolitan fencing and against the Radaellians. This included the two men who wrote and published the tournament's report, with Arista saying:

... read the report of the Tournament of Milan, written by two gentlemen whose constant and sole flaw consists in an obvious bias in spite of the truth.

Several members of the jury (including one of the authors of the tournament report) who voted for Anzani would later be put on the Commission that would replace Radaelli's method as the regulation sabre method with that of Masaniello Parise, the Neapolitan maestro, in 1884. One of the members of the Commission would be none other than Ottavio Anzani himself.

The Report

The report begins with "Considerations on the History of Fencing", where the agenda and biases of the writers become almost immediately apparent. They maintain fencing is that which is done with swords, while for sabres it is specifically sabre fencing, that is, an almost secondary form of fencing. They then go on to establish what they believe "Italian fencing" to be, which is the Southern or Neapolitan method, such as that detailed in the treatise "The Science of Fencing", published in 1803 by Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti, clarifying that:

... we will only note that although the Spaniards were the ones who brought to us and spread this most perfect school, we Italians have developed and brought it to such a degree of perfection to allow Rosaroll in the last century and at the start of this century to dictate, with help of Grisetti, a fencing treatise which is the most perfect and precise work that is known in the art of the sword.

This is in comparison to the sword fencing practised in Northern Italy at the time, where it was quite common to fence in a "mixed" style, incorporating both French and Italian techniques while using a foil that had features from both the traditional Italian foil and the French foil. This mixed style was offensive to many of the purists from Southern Italy who believed Neapolitan fencing to be the true "Italian fencing", as it was "uncorrupted" by French influence (despite, to their own admission, their method being originally brought to Italy by the Spanish). This lamentation continues throughout the introduction, with the authors giving little care to discussing the widely-acknowledged merit of Radaelli's sabre fencing system being taught in Milan.

Following this section, all 32 regulations of the tournament are listed, which detail the tournament's format and how the jury would run the event. Next come the minutes of each session, which list the members of the jury at the time and a brief summary of the day's proceedings. It should be noted that much of the detail (such as the bouts and results) is left out of these minutes and is instead placed in "attachments", which appear in the proceeding section in a somewhat confusing order. At the end of the minutes and attachments, there is an almost-comprehensive list of the names of men who attended the tournament, including both participants and some special spectators such as the celebrated fencing master Cesare Enrichetti.

After a brief explanation of the ordeal surrounding the awarding of the "Best Fencer of the Tournament" (see above), the authors then give their own observations and conclusions following the tournament. Much of it is in line with their biases seen in the introduction, with a large amount of praise given to the Neapolitan fencers such as Anzani and Parise (not undeserved, I should add). When acknowledging the excellent performance of a Radaellian, the authors always seem to find a way to clarify that their performance is due to something other than the merits of the Radaelli school, for example:

In Giordano Rossi, strong in the Radaelli system, beautiful and composed in guard, we found a tight play, due to his frequent fencing with fencers of the Italian school. Pecoraro owes the speed of his parries and ripostes to his special talents more than to the Radaelli school. If he, accompanying his natural dispositions, decides to study the true art, which in addition to improving his play, would allow him to vary it more, and he would undoubtedly become one of the best fencers in Italy.

In the last few pages, the authors' agenda becomes even clearer as they summarise their thoughts with the following points:

Now that the reader has the possibility of knowing as much as us, we think it appropriate to summarise what has already been said, and to do so we will start by declaring frankly:

1. That the Tournament has responded perfectly to the informative idea that promoted it, showing the incontestable artistic superiority of fencing with the Italian Sword, normally called the Neapolitan School, and the merit of its representatives.
2. That for the sabre, with slight modifications and some improvements in part mentioned by us, the method used by the best sabre fencers of the Radaelli school — who with practice have modified and perfected the written regulations of their school — is acceptable.
3. That among the young men who frequent the Scuola Magistrale there are splendid members who are unfortunately wasted with a bad trend.
4. That the Scuola Magistrale’s incorrect trend is all the more deplorable since, having finished their military service, a large number of young men leave there and spread throughout Italy with the name of maestri and teach with serious harm to the art.
5. That an urge for the unification of fencing in Italy has been given by the Milan Fencing Society, followed by the Turin Society; and we hope to see it gradually imitated in the rest of Italy.
6. That we deplore the fact of seeing that anyone can make themselves a fencing master, and as such deceive the public by peddling education that he does not possess.

The authors of the report remind the reader that due to Radaelli's illness at the time he would be unable to continue running the Scuola Magistrale in Milan (in fact he would die the following year), therefore it should be closed, and a new, more Italian school should be opened, headed by someone who gives as much attention to the sword as Radaelli gave to the sabre. In the year following the publication of this report, this very change will be put in motion, thus closing the school that Radaelli founded in 1868 and opening a new school in Rome, headed by one Masaniello Parise.

Bibliography

Arista, Salvatore. Del progresso della scherma in Italia: considerazioni sull'impianto della nuova scuola magistrale per l'esercito fondata in Roma nel 1884. Bologna:Società Tipografica già Compositori, 1884.

Cariolato, Domenico, and Gioacchino Granito. Relazione del torneo internazionale di scherma tenuta in Milano nel giugno 1881. Naples: Tipi Ferrante, 1881.

Fondazione Adolfo Pini. "The Expositions in Milan (1881 and 1906)." Storie Milanesi. Accessed 25 March 2018. https://www.storiemilanesi.org/en/insight/esposizioni-milano-1881-1906/.

Gelli, Jacopo. Resurrectio: critica alle osservazioni sul maneggio della sciabola secondo il metodo Radaelli del Generale Achille Angelini. Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1888.

⸻. Bibliografia generale della scherma con note critiche, biografiche, e storiche. Florence: Tipografia Editrice di Luigi Niccolai, 1890.

Parise, Masaniello. Trattato teorico pratico della scherma di spada e sciabola: preceduto da un cenno storico sulla scherma e sul duello. Rome: Tipografia Nazionale, 1884.

"Il Torneo di Scherma." Rivista Illustrata Settimanale, 12 June 1881, 3.

I fondamenti della scherma italiana by Poggio Vannucchi

** EDIT: My translation of this treatise may now be found here. **

Below you will find the link to scans of Poggio Vannucchi's 1915 fencing treatise I fondamenti della scherma italiana ("The fundamentals of Italian fencing"). The book is split into two sections, one for sword and the other for sabre. Vannucchi was a Radaellian, and he makes no attempt to hide his loyalty to the great maestro, dedicating the book "To Giuseppe Radaelli, maestro and renewer of the art of fencing, with devoted memory".

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rh21hfu3yd8V-Zo5vHauwgz49w7N9DQQ

In the introduction, Vannucchi states that Radaelli founded his system on the axiom: "the parry does not exist", which Vannucchi then explains as meaning "if the blow is well struck, with all the desired requirements, it is not possible to parry it". He then goes on to decry the "decadent" state of modern fencing, criticising the regulation system of the time (that of Pecoraro and Pessina).

Vannucchi's sabre system does not deviate dramatically from Radaelli's, leaving most of the terminology the same (even continuing to use the word coupé, unlike most of his contemporaries). However his guard position has the arm and sabre (his being straight blade with a Radaelli hilt) in a straight line, extended horizontally at shoulder height with the edge turned diagonally up. He is also unique in that he describes two different types of parry of 1st. One is called "alta angolata", with the arm and sabre at a right angle as described in Del Frate's manuals, the other is "in linea", with the arm extended at shoulder height as described in Masiello's treatise (and many others).

Thanks to Biblioteca Universitaria Bologna for providing me with the scans.

1853 Italian Cavalry Sabre Exercise

Today I present the scans of the Italian military sabre exercise Istruzione pel maneggio della sciabola approvata dal Ministero della Guerra ("Instruction for the handling of the sabre, approved by the Ministry of War"), released in 1853 in Turin, which was then in the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. Since certain parts of the scans are difficult to read, I have also provided a transcription.

Original  |  Transcription

This short manual instructs cavalrymen in basic positions on foot (e.g. attention, flank left, etc.) and sabre exercises performed as if on horseback. Although it does not contain the Radaellian method, it is most likely the system that Radaelli was instructed to use during his volunteer military service in 1859. It therefore serves as a good insight into what Radaelli was responding to when he was developing his own cavalry system in the 1860s.

Here is a short list of some of the notable features of the sabre system detailed in this manual:

• The basic guard position is similar to Radaelli's parry of 5th.
• The "semicircle" parries seen in the 1873 cavalry regulations are also taught here.
• Cuts are numbered 1 to 6, identical to the English cuts.
• Thrusts are done with accompanying body movement.
• The molinelli exercises are performed entirely with the wrist and are not done on horseback.

Special thanks to Biblioteca Benincasa Ancona for providing the scans.

Radaelli's Military Campaign in 1859

If you have read Jacopo Gelli's short biography of Giuseppe Radaelli, you may remember that he served in the Monferrato Light Cavalry Regiment in the 1859 campaign against the Austrian Empire. Today I'm going to go over some of the details of that service, including an account of his squadron's action in the Battle of San Martino written by the commanding captain.

Much of this information comes from a 1908 book named Patria Esercito Re ('Homeland, Army, King') by Leopoldo Pullè, which is essentially an autobiography of his proud military career. Most importantly for us, though, is that in 1859 he served in the same squadron as our Giuseppe Radaelli.

Leopoldo Pullè

At the beginning of 1859, tensions between Piedmont-Sardinia and the Austrian Empire were reaching an all-time high due to the large military mobilisation taking place in Piedmont with their ally France (for a more detailed run-down of the political situation at this time I would encourage you to do your own reading on the Italian Risorgimento). Piedmont-Sardinia and France were mobilising for war against Austria in an effort to unite the Italian Peninsula. By February 1859 rumours of the coming war were all through the streets of Milan, which was then in the Austrian dominion.

With the great desire to see the Austrians kicked out of their homeland, about a dozen Milanese men, including Radaelli and Pullè, decided to flee Milan to avoid possible conscription in the Austrian army and to instead volunteer in the Piedmontese army. They crossed the Ticino River and went to Vigevano, where the Monferrato Light Cavalry was posted, the second squadron of which being under the command of Captain Gerolamo Avogadro. With more and more volunteers joining them in Vigevano over the coming weeks, Avogadro had the task of turning them into effective cavalry soldiers. Among their intensive training over the following months, Avogadro taught them a method of thrusting on horseback that was supposedly of his own invention. Here is how Pullè describes its execution:

The man on horseback, with his sabre in hand, had to prop himself up on the stirrups, tighten his knees, rise from the saddle, turn the left hand over and grip the horse’s withers between the thumb and index finger, and thus by leaning the body as far forward as possible, he strikes, then immediately goes back into guard.

This description closely resembles the method of thrusting on horseback described in the 1873 Cavalry Regulations, which was the implementation of Radaelli's sabre system on horseback. It seems possible, then, that Avogadro's method had some influence on Radaelli.

With their training completed and war being declared at the end of April, the volunteers joined the Monferrato Cavalry's 2nd squadron, with Avogadro taking command. The Monferrato regiment consisted of four squadrons, each with about 100 men. For a few weeks these four squadrons provided protection and reconnaissance as the Austrian army attempted to out-manoeuvre the French and Piedmontese armies. Once the majority of the French forces had arrived by mid May, however, the Austrians started pulling back eastward, at which point the allied forces took the offensive.

The allied forces were victorious in several engagements over the next month, with two squadrons of the Monferrato cavalry taking part in the Battle of Montebello; however, it wouldn't be until the 24th of June that Radaelli's squadron would take part in any action. On this day in eastern Lombardy, the French-Piedmontese forces unexpectedly came into contact with the Austrians. The engagements took place over a front of about 18 km centring on the town of Solferino, from which the battle takes its name. The Italians, however, engaged the Austrians about 7 km to the north of Solferino, near the town of San Martino. Below is the report written by Captain Avogadro himself, addressed to the regimental commander Alberto La Forest de Divonne, of his squadron's action on that day:

During the day of the 24th June, at about 12 o'clock, Your Lordship commanded me to escort the 5th Battery commanded by Captain di Bassecourt. When the battery was in position, one section was protecting its left flank, the other its right flank. With the retreat ordered, a platoon of each section spread out in open order to cover and protect the retreat of the artillery and a few battalions of the Pinerolo Brigade, who carried out a textbook retreat under deadly fire. In this action I lost the brave soldier Noirat, who was severely wounded in the thigh and died immediately after the surgical operation; his horse died on the spot. I am very grateful to be able to report to the commander of the Corp that the soldiers all kept a praiseworthy composure, even though it was the first time they had truly been under fire. The lieutenant Count Girolamo Fè conducted himself admirably well; not only by staying firm, but by showing great intelligence in transporting his section where it was needed, in due time; especially since a gun controlled by his section was missing its limber due to it having left a moment earlier for ammunition. Sergeant Martinoli distinguished himself in helping and guiding the young scouts and was the last to retreat, not wanting to leave the field without leading Noirat to safety. In order to inform Your Lordship well of each individual, one should not omit saying a few words of praise for the medic in 2nd [Squadron], who tended to several wounds under cannon fire, ahead of his squadron, and was admired by those who saw him.
The scout platoon on the right side commanded by the brave Cav. Della Rovere advanced to the right, and being informed by the infantry that a farmstead was occupied by the Austrians, they took action. Sergeant Crescio was the first, then Cav. Della Rovere accompanied by Corporal Contat, volunteer soldier Pullè, Corporal Ravoire, and soldiers Rischis, Deambrogio, and Mandreri; and they forced fifteen Tyroleans including their captain to surrender.
The captain handed over his sabre and sash to Cav. Della Rovere, the prisoners were divided with the infantry, and our men continued to hastily push back many Tyroleans who were harassing in the countryside.
With the retreat ended, and after a brief rest, the squadron resumed its escort of the 5th Battery; and if I am not mistaken, at around 4 o’clock, seeing that the infantry, tired and weary, were retreating in somewhat conspicuous groups, I brought the left section forward, and through cries and good example my soldiers encouraged their brothers-in-arms to move forward. On this occasion I lost the soldier Rasino, struck in the head by a ball. The volunteer soldier Franchelli, who stayed out of rank for special service, distinguished himself on every occasion. He rallied many deserters and once succeeded in leading a very large group onto the Bianca farmstead with the cry: Long live the King!
The section commanded by Count Fè encouraged other squads to advance. At the last slope the charge was struck by three cannons, but the death of Colonel Carminati rendered our efforts vain. The artillery advanced greatly. After a brief rest, helped rather strongly from the left through the effective use of artillery directed by Major Thaon di Revel, the position was finally occupied.
The artillery took position; part of the infantry too, and I—with the consent of the head of general staff Cav. Ricotti—brought myself along with the whole squadron to the right flank of the artillery, as it was the weakest side, covering myself with the slope of the hill.
The cannons on both sides had almost stopped firing; only the musketry on the right flank made itself heard. When this suddenly became stronger, and our exhausted infantry hastily retreated, I immediately sent out a request for assistance, and seeing the position so strongly threatened, I immediately sent Cav. Della Rovere, with the platoon in open order, to cover our retreat. Having seen myself that I had to deal with more than 500 men, I brought forward the whole squadron and had them charge in a column against the Austrians, perpendicular to our right flank. After the first charge I rallied the squadron, and charging towards our front I managed to sweep up the plateau and drive them back to the valley. The few infantry that were still found on the plateau pursued the enemy and victory was sealed with the cry of Long live the King and Long live Monferrato.
Everyone did their duty, but yet there were those who distinguished themselves among the good ones. Della Rovere’s horse was wounded and died the next day. This young man was admirable all day. Sergeant Crescio and the volunteer Franchelli did as much as they humanly could, and even the former, wounded in the first charge, carried on the second charge and only withdrew on the order of his captain. Corporal Chaperon, the bugler Giaj-via, corporals Feroglio, Rossi, and Astesiano; Sergeant Martinoli, volunteer Radaelli, Turati, soldier Gamba, Corporal Contat, Corporal Beauquis, Corporal Raviore, Corporal Domange, soldier Colletta, soldier Cucaredo, and volunteer Pullè. In short, it was a true challenge; everyone wanted to be the best.
Colonel, I am glad to also have been able to add a laurel leaf to the crown already made in Montebello, work which will not be the last.

For this action at San Martino, Avogadro was awarded the Gold Medal of Valour and the squadron was 'put on the order of the day' by the army (essentially equivalent to a mention in dispatches). As we can also see at the end of this account, both Pullè and Radaelli are given honourable mentions by Avogadro for having performed admirably in the day's action. Radaelli and Avogadro would continue to be in contact following the war, with both of them serving in the Monferrato Cavalry again in 1866. When Settimo Del Frate (who also volunteered with the cavalry in 1859) wrote his 1868 manual on Radaelli's sabre system, it was dedicated to one Colonel Gerolamo Avogadro.