There is sword and buckler and then there is I.33. Though I.33 represents the earliest sword and buckler teaching we have, it does not seem to correspond to later sword and buckler teachings. Though halfswording may very well have been developed between I.33 and the next several manuals, sword and buckler had been around for a while, especially in unarmoured form as I.33 and the later manuals depict. Therefore, I don't think I.33 is necessarily representative of sword and buckler during the time in which it was written. It might be, it might not be. There are certainly other ways to fight with a sword and buckler, ways that we find in later manuals where the only condition which has changed would be blade type.

From period artwork we have many depictions of bucklers being used by fighters armoured to various degrees. So the buckler certainly would show up on the battlefield. I don't know that the way it was being used corresponds to the teachings of I.33 or not. The emphasis in I.33 seems to be that the sword hand should remain covered by the buckler most all of the time. This seems beneficial if the fighter is not wearing hand protection. Since the hands are often the closet target, it still seems wise to cover them even if mitten mail gloves are being worn. While a sword blow might not cut through the mail, a good hit to the hand can be bad news in many many ways.

Beyond I.33, the buckler can be used to cover the head or most anywhere else from about the thigh to the head. An armoured fighter still would rather take a blow on the buckler than take the hit. And there are many weapons which may do much more damage to an armoured fighter than a sword cut. Other trauma weapons can hit pretty hard and need to be blocked. Spears or a thrust from a sword needs to be warded against. Bucklers are great for this kind of work. One technique depicted in I.33 which can be seen in other manuals is wraping the buckler arm around the other person's weapon after using the buckler to stop the attack. When facing a spear one on one, it is important to be able to get control of the spear after getting past the point. This wraping technique works great for that.

In general, I think the buckler is underated. Proffessional fighters including knights would know there way around the buckler. And the buckler would give good service on the battlefield. However, I don't personally know how well I.33 would be on the battlefield.

Thrusting still works well against mail when using a sword. The I.33 includes thrusting though it does not illustrate it. It also includes something called a "thrust strike." Honestly, I get frustrated when trying to work with I.33 and don't get much out of it. But learning guards and then what you can strike from those guards is foundational when learning to fight. Learning how to bind and counterbind and win from the bind is also important. So in these areas I.33 is valuable.

I disagree with the premise that the sword and buckler fighter would necessarily be unarmoured or less armoured. Even considering an unarmoured fighter, the sword and buckler are sufficient for fighting against a fully armoured fighter during this time period. But fully armoured fighters might still choose sword and buckler for the battlefield and with good reason. Sword and buckler works very well.

I.33 is essentially an unarmoured style. The principal targets are the forearms and the face, targets which were not armoured except among men-at-arms. Civilians, pikemen, archers etc, who would have been likely to use sword and buckler as a civilian weapons combination or a secondary weapons combination on the battlefield did not in general wear forearm or face armour. If the forearms are sufficiently protected to be able to attack without covering the arm with the buckler then you aren't doing I.33 as this is absolutely fundamental to the system.

I.33 was not restricted to civilians. Apart from the PRIEST (not a monk) and the scholar depicted in the manuscript, we have the near contemporary Manesse Codex which shows identical techniques being performed by two unarmoured knights in a tournament setting. Identical and near identical techniques are also shown being used by men in civilian dress in Joerg Wilhelm's fechtbuch from the 16th century. Additionally, the concept of separate military and civilian arts was completely alien to the period, so if you'd asked the author of I.33 whether his was a purely civilian art you'd most likely have got a blank look.

Cheers
Stephen

Hi Stephen!

Great post.

You've really made a light come on over my head. I'm now wondering if the reason we see later German sword and buckler combat stressing the arm protection aspect less has to do with armour: that is, the almost light armour afforded by later medieval doublets. Thoughts?

I completely agree about the problematic differentiation between civilian and military combat. In fact, that distinction is likely a very late one; Tom Leoni has made some excellent points suggesting that even in the era of the rapier, such distinctions were not significant.

All the best,

Christian

Hi Bill!

Bill Grandy wrote:

That's an interesting point, Christian, and one I've never thought of in this context. The only problem I see with this is that Talhoffer certainly shows cuts to the forearm, and ones that apparently can dismember that arm.

I thought about this too, but look closely at the illustrations - the cut is to the wrist, not the fabric covered forearm proper. If your only vulnerable spot is the hand and wrist themselves, this lessens the risk considerably. The apparently looser clothing in I.33 would make the whole arm vulnerable.

[qoute]My own line of thought has always been that the later manuscripts were *ready* to cover the arm as necessary, but didn't feel the need to keep it covered constantly. For example, Lignitzer's first play advises to keep the pommel of your sword by the buckler at the thumb, and here he is describing something that is akin to the first play of the zornhau. It is a position where the sword is going to directly oppose the blade, so keeping the hand covered is a good idea. (and I know you know what the play is, but I'm describing it for everyone else reading. ;) )[/quote]

I agree with this idea - and, as you too know, it's the first two plays that invoke this extra protection.

Quote:

As an example where it may be preferable to leave the arm exposed is the wechselhau from Lignitzer's third play. Folio 53r and 53v of Paulus Kal show exactly how I'm interpreting this. I have attacked, and my opponet makes a counter attack (in Kal the opponent binds against the sword, but it is possible for him to attempt to cut at the arm in my interpretation as well). As my opponent's sword enters the distance, I immediately lift my buckler to pin him against the weak of his sword as my own sword changes through underneath to attack the leg. (and if you miss the leg, you cut back upward with the short edge of the sword against his sword, as in the nebenhut play in longsword, and so forth with the rest of the play) If I attempted the above with my buckler covering the arm, this closes off the line, and my opponent would be forced to counter in a different method. So here I believe leaving the buckler back will draw out a specific reaction.

Excellent analysis my friend!

Quote:

In other cases I feel it just doesn' t matter too much whether you keep the buckler forward or back, so the later traditions didn't bother.

Yes. Now, do bear in mind that the whole double thing is a very early hypothesis. I have to cogitate on this much more.

All the best,

Christian

I don't know any WMA techniques, but do have lot of live-steel re-enactment experience of combat in armour of that period.

I took a hit to the body from an arming sword last week, and it winded me through mail and a good gambeson. It wasn't a full force blow. I just think that its too easy to think of a sword blow against mail as useless just because it can't cut through. It is easy to forget that it's still 3 feet of steel and still has a fair amount of bludgeoning ability. I wouldn't like to think what a number of connecting blows with force would have done. Certainly not killed/wounded me - but definately put me in a very vulnerable position.

The key thing here, though is that hacking attacks against such armour must be big, hard swings to be able to bludgeon - which makes them easier to avoid. Smaller blows, draw cuts, false edge attacks etc. are totally useless. So I guess what I'm getting at is that it is more difficult fighting against an armoured opponent because your choice of effective attacks is limited, and so those attacks can be more easily dealt with.

Even on the grappling front. If I was unarmoured, I don't think I'd want to grapple with an armoured foe. Once close, all you can do with a sword is small hacking cuts or draw cuts. These would be useless against a mail armoured opponent, but lethal against an unarmoured person. You would have to be 100% certain that on closing he can't use his sword.

I think the key really is to keep your distance, use your manoeverability to try to stay alive long enough for half a dozen of your mates come and jump him from behind.

How that applies to I.33? - I don't know.