There were some good bits and pieces in here, and may be historically interesting, but was too confusing to be an improvement over other texts from the last half of the nineteenth century.
To their credit, the authors understood that awareness of one's surroundings is more important to personal security than weapons, and said as much explicitly. With regards to fencing, I absolutely agree with a couple of their points, like the need to learn foil before sabre, and the significance of the draw cut (essential for practical fencing with edged arms, but generally forgotten by sport fencers). And I firmly agree with their opinion that the displacement of swords by firearms is tragic (inevitable after the development of a reliable, repeating handgun, but another example of replacing individual training and development with a capital investment).
I have mixed feelings about a couple of points. The overlap, consistency, and repetition between broadsword and singlestick sections makes sense, but is defeated by variety of approaches to cuts, guards, and parries. The emphasis on the hanging guard (a modern fencer's prime or one) makes sense with the heavy cutting blade of a broadsword, or with a singlestick, but is of limited (if any) relevance with a lighter blade or a point weapon.
Things I didn't like, in no particular order;
-The bit of sword history completely missed the essential relationship between changes in armor and metallurgy and changes in sword.
-In 1890, they discuss cavalrymen cutting shields...
-They use several systems for numbering the guards, cuts, and parries, when they could have used one. This may be the single biggest choking point for me. It wouldn't have taken much effort to make this consistent, and would have made the book much more usable.
-They recommend that only fencers be bayonet coaches. This is like saying only pistol marksmen instruct rifle marksmenship; this does not make sense, and seems very parochial and protectionist.
-They fail to offer a structured discussion of footwork. This is in competition for the greatest failing of the entire work. Footwork is as critical to fencing (or any combative art) as point work.
If you've got a historical interest, read and enjoy. If you're a fencer, pass on this one.
E.M. Van Court