The Armour Archive

I 33 Sword and Buckler Tournament

A copy of the manual can be viewed here:
http://www.aemma.org/knowledgeBase_H.htm

As part of the Historical Combat Series at Pennsic XX1 I would like to have a tournament based around sword and buckler fighting. I think SCA combat is at least somewhat relevant to the unarmoured combat shown in the I 33 manual, do to the fact that it seems to be setting up a for a victory after just one good blow or thrust. I’ve worked with the manual a bit over the past year. And found that while the techniques shown are difficult given gauntlets and rattan (rattan bounces to much) you can get some of the feel of the manual (and therefore hopefully some of the feel for period combat). I’ve found that basket hilts totally change the feel.

Looking at the manual what size range of buckler do you think is appropriate?

Would you be interested participating in a sword and buckler tourney?

Would you still be interested if you had to use a cross hilted sword?

Would you be more interested if the sword and buckler were provided?

Here is how I’m thinking of structuring the tourney:

Double Elimination if more than 16 folks turn out, round robin if less.

Cross hilted swords required. (Swords will be provided if you don’t have one)

Bucklers below a certain size (size yet to be determined, bucklers will be provided if you don’t have one).

Comments appreciated.

Asbjorn

IMHO --
I33 being an unarmoured system, you're best off doing it with Schlagers and beefed up fencing-rules armour.

(that "sidesword experiment" seems like the best SCA-rule place for it)

------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)

Oh, and a buckler somewhere between 16 and 20 inches should be just about where they are in the book
(just visualy comparing the images to the SCA buckler fighters)

------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)

Sounds great!

I'll play.

(^_^)

Lighter armour, yes, but not schlagers, they handle wrong. 3/4" rattan swords, but made to historical weight should be fine.

"Would you be interested participating in a sword and buckler tourney?"

Yes

"Would you still be interested if you had to use a cross hilted sword?"

ya mean every body will be fighting cross hilt? I'll play!

"Would you be more interested if the sword and buckler were provided?"

No thanks i already got one (in outrageous french accent)

Here is how I’m thinking of structuring the tourney:

"Double Elimination if more than 16 folks turn out, round robin if less. "

Counted blows or acted wounds?

"Bucklers below a certain size (size yet to be determined, bucklers will be provided if you don’t have one)."

Nothing above 16 inches.

As for doing it with schlagers. We'd all have to get rapier authorized first.

Use reular rattan.

I think he meant that since we alrady take single shots as kills or incapacitating, we emulate the unarmoured fighting in the manual already.
There is no way I can make it to pennsic, but I think a sword and buckler tourney would be a blast. I would love it if everyone was required to fight with cross hilted swords. You might want to give thought to providing the weapons and bucklers. I think paired weapons would bypass some of the issues you are talking about, and if the weapons are all done in the same style, I think the tourney would look extra spiffy.

Yeah I'll come!

In Stephan Hands class on I-33 he (I think) mentioned that some of the moves illustrated in the manuel required the shield to be small enough to pass under and around your opponents arms, hence the size would be around 14 to 16 inches. That was from my memory of the class, so it could be wrong.

If there is enough interest do one for each of the fighting systems, heavy and light.

Roderick

We had A Pa based on that Manual scrip here in the west. The bucklers we used were between 12 to 18 inches in diamater. Also we used hand and half swords with cross hilts with in line tips(no they are not leagal for general combat). I will say it was tuogh trying to figure out some of the forms though. It seems there are some prints that have missing information in them posted on the web. Also you have to keep track of which person is which in the manuscript.

If you have the tourney at Pensic I will come.

from Knoch

Hubby and I are keen on it. We're heavies, and I doubt would manage to pull together the equipment and auths to do schlager. Have buckler, will travel. (and for once his socks and underwear minimum levels of armor might be appropriate)

I was the knight of honor for the tournament Knoch mentioned. We tried to do a schlager version of it in parallel, and it sort of worked. Because they can't do large sweeping arcs like rattan fighters, the techniques they end up being limited to is only like 25% of the manual, so it's extremely tempting to revert to what our fencers usually do. It was still interesting for them, but rattan with a thrusting tip does make a better approximation.
That said, rattan is very bouncy, and our years of training are very much at odds with many aspects of the manual too. I have a big bruise on my thigh to testify how hard it is to keep your pelvis back and your legs out of range. It's hard to avoid just charging in and slogging it out like we've all got heaters or kites, but it puts you in that extremely dangerous "time of the hand" range. It allows a quick, but only moderately skilled opponent to turn the fight into a crap shoot with frequent double kills, which was really at odds with the idea of the manual.
To address specific questions- buckler sizes vary from roughly 10 inches to about 16, and as Roderick rightly pointed out smaller does have advantages in some grappling Steven Hand has explored. You really should be very explicit on how you want to handle any grappling if any. My favorite size is about a foot wide mostly for weight and mobility. I'd be willing to make a few more and bring them if you've got a size in mind.
A cross hilted sword, specifically a bastard sword has many advantages and really allows you to explore the style. The longer range and the ability to push on the pommel with the shield hand are both integral to many techniques. The handle has to be carved well, and a pommel weight would probably help a lot. Out of bad habit, I rely on the bottom of my basket hilt to keep my hand from sliding off the end of my sword, so a decent sized pommel might help.
I'm not fond of the idea of double elimination. It does provide a good opportunity to show off how good you've gotten with the style, but it gets in the way of folks experimenting with it which is a lot of fun even for people who were initially luke warm on the idea. Round robin may allow that experimentation, though several rounds of open challenges might move things along faster and give everyone more opportunity to play.
I held a little class before our pas d'armes explaining the intent of the manual, the basics of its stance, range, wards, and ideology. I then distributed copies of the manuscript to the most interested and influential attendees. This seemed to have a profound impact on how people played throughout the day.
I might recommend that any blow, including arms and legs be considered lethal because essentially they are, and there aren't any plates showing how to fight from the knees or with only one arm. The idea Steven Hand advocates that the sword and buckler should be kept together seems to stem from the sword arm being a prime target. Of Talhoffer's few plates on the style one is a hack to the arm. You might want to make this aspect clear to folks so there's no ill will if people try to be true to the style and target arms.
You might also want to include alternate victory conditions, such as a dropped weapon, a fall of any kind, or being pushed out of the lists. Of course all that might be too much to throw at folks at once, and get in the way of good vigorous combat.
I disagree with the idea that sword and buckler was a purely unarmored form. With only the most casual of research I've found half a dozen contemporary depictions (1230-1450 or so) of armoured fighters using the style. Most blows accepted as good, even in hard hitting kingdoms are really not good enough to incapacitate through decent armour. What we're doing is already essentially unarmoured or lightly armoured already.
Regards,
Sir Gaston de Clermont

(Gaston posted while I was making my reply so I'll address his points in my next message, time to go running).

I wasn’t as clear as I should have been and missed a point.

Because we are going off the idea of unarmoured combat, any significant wound is a victory. No knee fighting on my watch .

T-Bob is offering to make 6 bucklers, for competitors to use. Would you rather have 6 matched bucklers or 3 pairs, each pair a slightly different size?

How about swords, all the same dimensions or several pairs? Any volunteers to make swords once we decide on dimensions?

What to you think an appropriate sword for this work would look like? How long?

So far there doesn’t seem to be many issues with cross hilted swords.

I was thinking this tourney would have two prizes. One for the victor in the list, the second for the person who best embodies the fighting presented in the manual, judged on both techniques and appearance. I’d love to see a bunch of folks in 1280 era clothes with the armour hidden underneath (I know there isn’t much we can do about the helm). This way you would be rewarded for your appearance but not penalized for it.

More thoughts, reasons, complaints?

Asbjorn




[This message has been edited by Asbjorn Johansen (edited 01-17-2002).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
...Because they can't do large sweeping arcs like rattan fighters, the techniques they end up being limited to is only like 25% of the manual
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, that's why I said -- do it in the style of the "experimental" SCA-Sidesword - this thing here:
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/sca/sca-sidesword.html

Actually, even with the standard SCA fencing rules -- sweeping cuts CAN be done - one just has to be careful about how they land (I have occasionally used this to advantage).
For normal SCA - one would do the sweeping cut -- it would land with a light "placing" and then you pull across for the SCA-drawcut.

For purposes of the i33 fight, the rules can dispense with the drawcut and accept clean placement.

IMHO - basing myself on the intro to i33 at the HACA site, it is likely that the original was in fact done with placement only
(remember - it seems that folks are practicing this unarmoured)


Idealy, ofcourse, it seems that this is best played with "touch-force" rebated swords.
But alas, the SCA has no outlet for that.

------------------
Norman J. Finkelshteyn
Armour of the Silk Road - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505
The Silk Road Designs Armoury - http://www.enteract.com/~silkroad
Jewish Warriors - http://www.geocities.com/jewishwarriors
The Red Kaganate - http://www.geocities.com/kaganate
silkroad@spam.operamail.com (remove "spam" from e-mail to make it work)

[This message has been edited by Norman (edited 01-17-2002).]

I say make all swords and shields the maximum allowed size.

If it's bigger than that the you have to use a loaner.

14in bucklers and swords 39 inch blade, just a suggestion.

I wasn't aware of the details to the side sword fencing rules. Thanks for the link, Norman. I'm sure that would work better than the fencing we've already tried if folks are confident it's safe. Both the armoured and fencing approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, so playing with both can get us closer to the truth.
As a variety of shield sizes are presented in the manual, and presumably part of the purpose of the tournament is to explore its techniques, a variety of shield sizes would best fulfill that aim.
The swords mostly appear to be around 39 inches long, with a perpendicular cross hilt about a hand length wide. Wheel pommels, or possibly spheres seem to be the most common, though there are lobed, pomegranate and irregular shaped pommels are represented.
There are a few accepted certainties about I33 that need to be questioned. First, that these guys were monks. Despite the tonsure, and the reference to one of them being a priest, this is likely to be simply a construct for conveying the lesson. Students in much of the Middle Ages wore tonsures because their universities were clerical in nature. Most knights were expected to officiate in legal matters, so many studied in universities to gain familiarity with the law. The teaching device of priest, or professor, and the student is common to theological and philosophical texts of this era, used by contemporaries like Aquinas, and provides the reader with an easy analogy to understand who's who, and who is expected to know more. (That would be the priest, the fellow with the hood.)
Second, is that this form was completely unarmoured. There is definitely evidence in the Manesse codex of guys wearing swords and bucklers with regular clothes, and even fighting with them in their regular togs. But there are also a fair number of examples from a variety of sources of armoured folks fighting with bucklers.
Some of the custodiae in the manual make it very easy to generate amazing amounts of power. It's unlikely that it's coincidence.
So they probably practiced unarmoured, and possibly with touch kills, but this form was intended to be used by secular young men in real combat with deadly force, and at least occasionally was used against armoured opponents.
Regards,
Gaston

Here is A question for the 133 tourney. Would you allow grapuliing and the throughs it shows in the manual?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Asbjorn Johansen:
<B>I 33 Sword and Buckler Tournament


As part of the Historical Combat Series at Pennsic XX1 I would like to have a tournament based around sword and buckler fighting.

Comments appreciated.

Asbjorn</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Asbjorn,

Are you aware of any instances in which sword and buckler were used in a tournament proper by members of the knightly class? I was under the impression that this form was mostly used for unarmored brawling.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Rhys, is the Glaive a knightly weapon?
-V

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B>Rhys, is the Glaive a knightly weapon?
-V</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know what, V? I don't know. That's a very interesting question. One reads about the glaive being used by elite infantry such as The Duke of Burgundy's Guard (there's a famous painting of him kneeling with his guard stretched out behind him, all armed with glaives). Certainly most of the tournament combat iconography shows knights fighting with either poll axes or spears, but that doesn't prove knights never used glaives. Glaives are also frequently shown in paintings of battles, but whether the wielders are knights or merely men-at-arms we can't know.

Do you know of any examples of glaives being used in tournament?

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

First, I’m trying to do a tournament based around the I33 manuscript within the SCA armoured combat system. Now I33 shows unarmoured combat, I completely agree that there are many examples of armoured combatants using a buckler, but it is not shown in I33. You certainly can generate significant, amounts of power with some of the blows, that might be dangerous to an armoured combatant, but this particular manual seems to be focused on the unarmoured. Why use the SCA armoured combat system in a tournament based around unarmoured combat? Once you get rid of the silliness (kneeling to fight etc) SCA armoured combat allows for full power combat, which I think is important. It’s also the combat system I feel most familiar with, and it will have the largest number of possible participants at Pennsic.

Rhys, its definitely not chivalric fighting, or anyway a skill that would have been taught to folks of decent breeding (although I can imagine a bunch of squires in London getting in to trouble for fighting in the streets with them). I use the word “tournamentâ€

Why doesn't somebody ask Conn how he would run/present it?
-V

Were bucklers of the I33 style carried and used by the knightly class? I would say yes, and here's part of my evidence:
http://zr13.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/ebind_manessebilder/manessebilder?seq=127
http://zr13.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/ebind_manessebilder/manessebilder?seq=94
http://zr13.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/ebind_manessebilder/manessebilder?seq=69
http://zr13.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/ebind_manessebilder/manessebilder?seq=62
- that one is particularly cool since it demonstrates a move that's in I33, and the guy doing it lived when I33 was being written.

The Manesse codex, which these images all come from (I just hope the links work for everyone) is a sort of who's who of the German warrior poets of the 13th century. I believe all the major named figures are knights, in addition to being writers and patrons of the minnesanger (minne = love, sanger = song) movement. The images depict these figures carrying sword and buckler as civilian defense, and using them in what appears to be a tournament setting. By comparison, we don't question that this is a formal deed of arms:
http://zr13.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/ebind_manessebilder/manessebilder?seq=8
or this:
http://zr13.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/ebind_manessebilder/manessebilder?seq=22

In both the ladies are present, attentive, and it's been speculated that their finger gestures are either a form of indicator of their favor for individuals in the fight, or a form of betting. Anyway, they're knights, and they're fighting, and proud enough of it to have it be the way they're immortalized in the codex as their peers are while hawking, writing, jousting, and wooing ladies.

Secondly, the folks depicted in I33 are stated to be a priest and a tonsured scholar. As bad a reputation as either group got, neither are your classic brawlers. They are however of a class commensurate with the knightly class, and in the broadest terms they are part of it if you break down groups in Charny's manner to those who toil, those who pray, and those who fight.

So sword and buckler work was done by the knightly class as a relatively formal deed of arms that at least to the Germans ranked on the same scale as hawking as a noble pursuit.

I haven't found a full color copy of I33 on the web. There are a few color images in Dr. Singman/Forgeng's contributions to the Royal Armouries Yearbook 2 from 1997 which you can order from Leeds, and I know the Met in New York has a copy. The text he presents is more valuable than the images. I wouldn't expect his full monograph to be published until well after Pennsic.

Asbjorn, I like your take on dropped weapons and falls. It's a fine compromise. I'll endeavor to bring a few bucklers.

Gaston

I have no evidence whatsoever to back this up, but where sword and bucler probably weren't knightly tournement weapons, wouldn't they have been knight walk around weapons? What you carried when going about your business.
slainte,
Fearghus

------------------
"How long will we fight? We will fight until hell freezes
over. Then we fight on the ice."
Fearghus's Homepage

Gaston -- bravo!
I had no idea you are that much into this! Want to teach a colligeum/A&S class on it? I would love to learn some I33, but with all the other stuff going on, I need someone to start me off .

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Clermont:
<B>Were bucklers of the I33 style carried and used by the knightly class? I would say yes, and here's part of my evidence: <snip>

Gaston</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except I didn't ask if knights ever fought with sword and buckler; the evidence is clear that they did. I asked if knights ever fought in a tournament proper with sword and buckler. I certainly know of no examples of them doing so.

In each of the examples you gave the sparring was being done by *unarmored* men (or boys); for all we know, these pictures could have been meant to represent weapons practice in the courtyard with the ladies looking on. There's certainly nothing to suggest they were formal tournaments. Two of the hallmarks of the tournament to look for in iconography (note, please, that I don't say these are the only identifying characteristics of a tournament, just that they are two important ones when looking at iconography), I think, are armor and "display" (by which I mean crests, banners, etc. etc.). Neither of those are present here.

Other pictures in the MC are clearly intended to show knightly tournament combat, and there isn't a single buckler in the lot.

On the other hand, Asbjorn has elsewhere stated he doesn't intend this to be a true tournament, merely a contest to study I 33 using *unarmored* rules, so I withdraw my objection.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Becarefull for what you ask Clermont
when he is in the mode he can swamp you with information. I mentioned I should learn how to make A buckler and the next thing that happens is I get this Email.

There's a lot of variety in the bucklers we can document from this general
time period. This looks like it's all steel:
http://zr13.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/ebind_manessebilder/manessebilder?s
eq=62
Some of them look like they've got a brass boss:
http://zr13.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/ebind_manessebilder/manessebilder?s
eq=94
And some are "mamiform" (or shaped like a big boobie):
http://zr13.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/ebind_manessebilder/manessebilder?s
eq=69
A smallish round shield used by an armoured warrior on horseback with a
white belt:
http://home-4.worldonline.nl/~t401243/mac/mac10rA.jpg
A glaive used from horseback:
http://home-4.worldonline.nl/~t401243/mac/mac10vA.jpg
I wanted to dig up more buckler stuff, and came across this:
http://www.kb.nl/kb/manuscripts/ Go to their search engine, and try
plugging in "battle" as the description word. There's some amazing stuff in
there I'd never seen before.
There are links to some neat places here too:
http://www.keesn.nl/mac/mac_en.htm

Hey Dimitri I asked Him if he may teach A A.S. class on this. it sounds like he may. We will just have to figure out when and where.

From Knoch

We seem to be nearing agreement on a format and rules.


Combat Rules

Only cross hilted swords and bucklers under 20 inches may be used.

A solid blow to any legal target area is considered incapacitating.

Anyone who cannot recover a dropped weapon before their opponent can touch them with his sword has lost

Anyone who falls and cannot recover before their opponent can touch them with his sword has lost

There will be 2 prizes given, one for the victor in competition, and one for the combatant who best embodies the fighting portrayed in the manual (appearance will be factored in).


Syr Rhys has a good point, we use the word tournament to mean to many things within the SCA, we use it to refer to both our modern competitions as well as our more accurate recreations such as Pas de Arms etc. I hate to foster a misconception that this is a knightly, period tournament, but I’m not sure if a better wording is available. Ah the joys of words with changing definitions according to context. Any thoughts?

Asbjorn

I will be there.

From Knoch

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Asbjorn Johansen:
<B>We seem to be nearing agreement on a format and rules.

Only cross hilted swords and bucklers under 20 inches may be used.

Asbjorn</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Asbjorn,

I wonder if it doesn't make more sense to *require* cup or basket-hilted swords. The problem is that gauntlets, even accurate medieval gauntlets, severely limit what you can do with your hands. I have a pair of Roberto finger gauntlets, yet I still can't do a lot of the things I can do with my bare hand on the hilt.

Since you're attempting to simulate unarmored combat, doesn't it make sense to use what amounts to a bare hand on the weapon, i.e., a cup or basket hilt? I believe that by requiring gauntlets with cross-hilted swords what you're really doing is trying to *look* medieval without actually functioning in a medieval way, if you see what I mean. And, since this stuff is being done using rules that simulate unarmored combat (one good hit anywhere, etc.), using gauntlets doesn't even make things look right.

Using cup-hilted swords (they're better since basket hilts give swords a terrible balance) would also allow you to experiment with a rule that says that the cup hilt is as vulnerable to a good blow as any other target. It will probably take a while to learn to recognize when your cup hilt has been struck, but it adds a tremendous amount of realism to your fighting. I have actually been considering doing this in a more formal pas d'arme setting as well in order to take away the unfair advantage a cup hilt gives you, to wit, having the freedom of motion of a bare hand with the de-facto protection of a gauntlet.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

I can do just as much and more with my gountlets than I ever could have with A basket hilt. Also I would like to see more evidence that this was stricly an unarmored use in combat. Just because they are not wearing armor in it does not mean it can and was not used in armor. Those of you who think you can fight better with a basket hilt sword are only looking at it from A sport point of veiw. Not A recreation of the combat that was used. Also there are certain sword postions in the manuscrip that you can not use a basket hilt with. It will get in the way of the use of the buckler to often. I have worked on this some with Clermont. It is curently the style we are practicing.

I sugest take copys of it off the web and do some serious practis with it. Have it handy and work with some one who to is also interested in this. You will find that this is A very chalenging style. One of the hardest thing I have come to under stand is keeping my Buckler allways close to the hilt of the sword. This is A hard habit to form for with this style. Most of us are trained to use the Sword and Sheild seperate in are sport combat. In this style they work together at all times.

from Knoch

(nope still cant spell)

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I can do just as much and more with my gountlets than I ever could have with A basket hilt. Also I would like to see more evidence that this was stricly an unarmored use in combat. Just because they are not wearing armor in it does not mean it can and was not used in armor. Those of you who think you can fight better with a basket hilt sword are only looking at it from A sport point of veiw. Not A recreation of the combat that was used. </font>

If you are recreating a fighting style that was practiced without gauntlets, then how can fighting without gauntlets not be an aspect recreating that style? Even if the combat depicted in I.33 was done in armour, it would still be maille mitts and not plate gauntlets. As for I.33 being an unarmoured style, this seems to be supported by the Manesse Codex which show some of the same actual techniques done out of armour. There are some, such as the stop cut to the forearm out of the ? guard (forgot the name, it has the sword next to the buckler pointing straight down) which would be too weak to be very effective against armour, but is hard enough against a bare forearm.

Another good reason to have baskets to recreate a bare-handed (or maille-handed) style is the one Rhys mentioned: the ability to safely target hands. This might require some intervention by marshals because we are not used to recognizing blows to the hilt and they can easily pass unnoticed.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">One of the hardest thing I have come to under stand is keeping my Buckler allways close to the hilt of the sword. This is A hard habit to form for with this style. Most of us are trained to use the Sword and Sheild seperate in are sport combat. In this style they work together at all times. </font>

One training tip I've heard is to tie a 12" bungee between your wrists. I've discovered that a key to keeping the sword and buckler together is to make sure you keep them extended as the manual shows. If you hold your sword and buckler somewhat close to the body with elbows bent, the buckler has to stay behind and block while the sword strikes out. If you keep your arms extended, you intercept their attack near where it began and nearer to where the sword needs to strike, which helps the two stay together. This is especially true of the stab-knock, where the buckler blocks their strike as your sword thusts them in the face.

Iain

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by knoch:
<B>I can do just as much and more with my gountlets than I ever could have with A basket hilt. Also I would like to see more evidence that this was stricly an unarmored use in combat. Just because they are not wearing armor in it does not mean it can and was not used in armor. Those of you who think you can fight better with a basket hilt sword are only looking at it from A sport point of veiw. Not A recreation of the combat that was used. Also there are certain sword postions in the manuscrip that you can not use a basket hilt with. It will get in the way of the use of the buckler to often. I have worked on this some with Clermont. It is curently the style we are practicing.

I sugest take copys of it off the web and do some serious practis with it. Have it handy and work with some one who to is also interested in this. You will find that this is A very chalenging style. One of the hardest thing I have come to under stand is keeping my Buckler allways close to the hilt of the sword. This is A hard habit to form for with this style. Most of us are trained to use the Sword and Sheild seperate in are sport combat. In this style they work together at all times.

from Knoch

(nope still cant spell)

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, there are *no* safe gauntlets that will allow you to fight as well as you can bare handed.

Second, this was clearly a weapons form that was intended to be fought unarmored. The practitioners in I 33 are unarmored; the people using it in the Manessa Codex are unarmored, and there are plenty of references to it being used for civilian (i.e., unarmored) self defense all throughout the literature.

Third, I hate to say it (and I know it will start a firestorm), but I have downloaded this manual and done some work with it, and I have to say that until I see some critical work done on it by skilled martial artists that suggests other interpretations, I have to side with Dr. Anglo and others who argue that this isn't a realistic combat system, or that it's so poorly represented as to make it impossible to recreate. The fact is that moving your hand with your buckler causes your techniques to be so slow that anyone who doesn't do so will simply carve you up. (Note, that Talhoffer doesn't show these kinds of techniques!) My personal opinion is that these might be ending positions and that the hands aren't moved together, but we'll never really know.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I have to side with Dr. Anglo and others who argue that this isn't a realistic combat system, or that it's so poorly represented as to make it impossible to recreate. The fact is that moving your hand with your buckler causes your techniques to be so slow that anyone who doesn't do so will simply carve you up.</font>

It isn't so much that the hands move together, as that the buckler is always in position to cover your forearm. The primary defense in this style is to cut the attacker's arm as he strikes (a principle depicted in one of Talhoffer's bloodier plates). To keep your hand from getting cut off, you protect it with the buckler as you strike. If you begin from a guard with your sword back over your shoulder and the buckler held straight out, the buckler doesn't need to move very far to meet up with your sword arm as your strike brings it forward

The techniques where the sword and buckler move together while striking originate from the guards that have the hands held together at extension. In this case you are counter attacking with thrusts which are delivered more with footwork than handspeed, or cuts to the arms powered by the wrist and elbow into the attacker's forward motion.

It's these wrist and elbow cuts which make the system better suited to unarmoured civilian combat.

The place where someone who separates the sword and buckler will carve you up is the middle "time of the hand" range. I.33 sword and buckler (like any historical style) involves moving in and out of distance. When you stand and duke it out you need all the coverage you can get.


Iain


[This message has been edited by IainMcClennan (edited 01-29-2002).]

Rhys-
I have always thought that I33 looked sort of ridiculous. Of course, I dare not speak this way. It's a primary source.
-V