I am considering teaching myself I.33 fencing seince I've interest in the time period it was written in. I have generated the following questions:

1) What weapon are they using? As in, the Oakeshot Type? My guess is they where simple arming swords (Type XI?).
2) If I where a period man-at-arms, would I be using these techniques on the battlefield? Would I be using the buckler, or would I stick to the heater shield? (Heater in this case being as I know it, the typical Rounded V with a stright top, curved against your body)
3) Where there manuals for heater/arming sword?
4) What would be a good waster for practice? I guess any one handed one would do, and you all have reccomended Little Raven (If I recall correctly) as the best source for these.

M.

I think that Types XII and XIV are most like the I.33 swords. Some taper, and a decent point.

Well, I'm afraid that I can't answer the other questions right now, but as to question #1, I believe that instead of type XI, since most swords appear to be depicted as fairly short, quickly tapering and having a good point, you'd be better off with a type XIV.
Hope this helps,
Dan

Woops, looks like Chad got there first,
Dan

Someone told me about a particular battle in which a commander placed a large number of sword and buckler troops behind his line of pikemen. The idea being that men armed in such a fashion would be able to flood into any gaps which were created, and give a good account of themselves whilst maintaining the overall integrity of the line. I have no information on what battle it was, or if this was at all a regular thing.

Further, in the old days Buckler and Target were used 'somewhat' interchangeably, so they may have been what we would call sword and target men. (The ancients were not as hung up on definitions as we are.)

Any sword from the time period (XII, XIIIb, XIV) will serve nicely for sword and buckler use. The XI belongs to a earlier period.

Unlike sword and buckler, sword and heather fighting never became a sport, and so we do not have any fighting manuals covering it.
As for the battlefield relevance of I.33 ,the basic principles (binds, shield strikes, and so on) still hold true with a heather.
The exact techniques, however, will in most cases be different.
It should also be noted that the battlefield is a quite different enviorment from the dueling ground.
On the battlefield, large numbers of opponents, polearms, and so on makes passive defence more important.
Also, even in a loose melee, you do not have the time to engage in lengthy duels; It's a good way to be chopped down from behind, and your friends need your help.

When it comes to the guiges, we have lately begun experimenting with guiges that allow you to hand the sheild in front of your body while wielding a polearm. These can be used actively by griping the front handstrap; However, without the rear strap in place, they are less suited for parrying high blows.
what they do is provide passive defence against enemy polearms and charging swordmen, as well as a opporunity for a quick covert from polarm to sword and shield.

In a period artwork study by the Association of Renaissance Martial Arts, several bucklers are pictured in depictions of battlefield combat as well as being worn by individuals armored too heavily to be less than men-at-arms. One of the points of the article is that bucklers actually appear more often in period art than other shields. The importance of the buckler among the fighting class should not be overlooked. The article may be found here:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBucklerP2.htm

In the case of the sword and buckler as with other weapons, I would imagine that one must first learn how to use the weapon effectively in unarmored conditions to develop the control and coordination. This is not to say that unarmored combat equates to armored combat, but it seems silly to think of a professional fighter knowing his way around a buckler or any type of weapon while in armor but not knowing how to use that weapon out of armor.

Ms 1:33 represents one style of sword and buckler play in one area of Europe and during a specific time period. The combatants are depicted as monks who are not part of the fighting class unless they are a part of a military order. We don't know if that was the same way professional fighters would have employed the buckler or how exactly it would be used in battle. However it is one way and the earliest way we have in evidence of how the sword and buckler was used. It is also the only fighting system described in that time period. We have much more information from fight books from the 14th century and later.

If you want to learn how a fighter would have fought and with which weapons in the time period you are interested, I suggest finding period art such as the images already posted on this forum. While we can not be certain but must entertain levels of "likelihood," much may be extrapolated. Also, it is beneficial to learn the western martial arts that are available even though they might not be what you specifically are interested in. I would recommend learning sword and buckler from Ms 1:33 but also pursuing the longsword and sword and buckler combat extent in the German martial traditions which contains more material to study from than just Ms 1:33.

As far as waster, I personally recommend NSA for both product and service. I understand Raven Studios is popular, but I haven't personally dealt with them. Hollow earth produces wasters with the most aesthetic variety, however their customer service is extremely poor. If you go to a renaissance fair that they run a booth at you can handle several of their products and choose one that you prefer, but I do not recommend ordering from them. It is true that nothing handles or feels like steel but you can do pretty well with wasters (which were used historically by professional fighters as an acceptable simulator to steel).

On the Wood-vs-steel issue:

True, nothing feels quite like steel, and any serious practitioner should make extensive use of steel in their studies and practice,
BUT: for those of us who practice in public (by desire or necessity), swinging a steel sword--even a blunt one--can lead to unwanted attention and frantic calls from the neighbors to the police that "some wacko is out there waving a sword around!"
Using wood, however, tends to let you go about your business uninhibited.
And yes, wooden wasters can kill, and therefore control is very important (as it always is), but I would argue that the margin of error is slightly wider with wood.

As for the swords:
I echo what has been said before: pretty much any single-handed sword (within reason) should be just fine.

As for the waster:
New Stirling Arms is really good. The addition of metal weights into the hilt to more precisely mimic a "real sword's" balance and weight is a nice addition.
I've herd that Little Raven is good, too. Haven't come across any of their products, though.
Hollow Earth wasters are decent, but as has been said, buy them in person--not through the website.

Just my $.02

Hello Hugh,

Thank you for the source of that image.

Hugh Knight wrote:

Do you not believe that the fact that all extant sword & shield material is entirely unarmored would be therefore different from armored sword & shield?

To a certain extent it must have been, as armour affects the way you move and your vulnerability, but it remains that surviving images of sword and shield combat (with the exception of those using deeply curved shields) show a remarkable consistency and conform to the principles laid down in the German and Italian manuals of the 15th and 16th centuries. So, a bit different, yes, certainly - dramatically different, it would appear not. The bottom line is that all available texts we have telling us how to fight with sword and shield are in broad agreement and pictorial evidence suggests that at least as a first approximation the same system was ubiquitous throughout the history of large shield use. If you are going to discard the historically documented system of shield use then what do you propose putting in it's place?

Quote:

Also, you say that "the only factor that dramatically changes how shields are depicted being used is curvature". Do you not agree that the use of the guige dramatically effects shield usage?

I have fought with shields on guiges and it really doesn't make that much difference. I can do (and have done) all of the techniques shown in my Spada papers with a shield on a guige. The guige actually makes some techniques easier. Most of the shields you depict are deeply curved. Heavily curved shields are depicted in art being used less actively than flat or gently curved ones. I discuss this at length in Spada II, giving reasons and illustrating specific techniques. By less active I mean less offensively as contrary to modern common sense large shields were not moved to defend against attacks. This latter point is probably the central finding of my research into historical shield use.

Certainly experimentation with guiges is likely to reveal subtleties of which we were unaware, but I am confident that all competent historical sword and shield combat was based on the same basic principles as shown in the German and Italian manuals. Throwing out our only solid historical sources is most definitely not the way to go.

Cheers
Stephen

Greg Coffman: I've also done a bit of reading into/light practice of the Litchenauer (spelling!) style of Longsword combat, from an article we have here in our Features, called "The German Longsword." It's very interesting and I rather enjoy it (thouhg all the other remotly interested people here *refuse* to learn a style, as they consider it dumb or "below them". One day someone is going to get hurt...)

To others: I *would* look at period art, but beyond tombstones, I personally consider looking at art to learn about real historical things in the middle ages would be a bit like our great great great great great great great great great grandchildren watching movies to learn about how WE did _____________. It's medieval hollywood for all I know...

M.

So you are saying that we should just overlook one of the largest sections of potential supplementation to our knowledge base because it might be somewhat inaccurate to reality? Excuse me for being blunt, but that's insane!

I grant you that some artistic renderings of the period might be a little difficult to interpret because of the level of 3D depth and shading placement because of the style used during the middle ages, but that is hardly reason to discredit the entire plethora of combat art for the Medieval period. In the study of historical culture, you cannot just pick and choose what you like. Sadly many academics, including myself at times, fall into this for a number of reasons.
The best method is to look at whatever it is you have available and put it all together to make the previously unknown more clear. New findings will inevitably add new pieces to the puzzle over time and require reinterpretation and alterations in our comprehension, but you cannot just write off such a huge part of our understanding of Medieval culture.

Much of what we know about Medieval fashion, advancements in weapons and armour technologies, and religion stem directly from interpreting artistic renderings created in the period. Your argument could easily be used to say that because we don't have physical evidence of dozens of medieval garments outside of art that their is no proof to their actual existence despite the fact that artists represented them over and over again. The medieval artist did not generally operate from the same bias toward abstract art that many modern artist in all realms of creation do today. That was largely a post renaissance development in the Western world. Artist more often took great pains to render reality down to minute details. Why would this be any different for the representations of combat systems.

Take into account that most art was created by monastics for the majority of the Middle Ages. These men were the intellectuals of there era and likely not easily taken to misrepresentation of something so fundamental to medieval society as systems of combat. Many of these men lived in close contact with warriors, were warriors themselves, or were retired warriors who took vows late in life as a means to secure a good place in the afterlife. These were not men ignorant of what they were representing.

Being that we have no other hard evidence as to how sword and shield were employed during the High Middle Ages than art, what would you suggest? Even the M.S. I.33 itself is an artistic representation of combat. What makes it more or less valid than any other representation of the period? We trust it because we trust that people who actually lived in that time knew a little bit more than we do about the basics of how life in the era worked. Plus, when one actually does attempt to recreate many of they artistic combat interpretations of the period, it is often found that the feel natural and comfortable.

Don't waste historical resources, especially in a situation where they are limited, if they can help you at all.

To add to what Jonathan said, period artwork isn't the only source we have. We have a number of manuals which discuss the use of large shields. As they're generally later than the period of widespread shield use we have to ask the question, was this system of shield use new in the 15th century or was it the way shields had always been used. To answer that question I've looked at period depictions of shield use and have found them to be remarkably consistent with the system shown in the 15th and 16th century manuals. This suggests (not proves because art isn't video) that the recorded system of sword use wasn't new when it was recorded, but was based on the way shields were used in earlier periods. I am not basing a system on period artwork, but using period artwork to see whether the historically recorded shield system can safely be extrapolated back to earlier periods when shield use was more widespread, but unfortunately fencing manuals were not.

Remember that thousands of people fight on a regular basis with sword and shield and that the alternative to date has been making it up as you go along.

Cheers
Stephen

There are only so many ways to hold a sword and shield in a drawing, especially when the artist isn't all that great at perspectives.
Historical ilustrations are a bit like four colour WWII comics from the 50'. You might, with some luck identfy historical weapons and uniforms, but it is hardly a reliable source on the nature of WWII warfare.
Like their medevial counterparts, modern cartoonist know what soldiers LOOK like. This does not automatically mean that they know how they fight, and even if they have seen fights take place, that they will portray it accurately.

And if I was basing an interpretation of how medieval people fought with shields on artwork alone those would be valid comments...but I'm not. I am using medieval (and earlier) artwork to examine whether or not the system described in fencing manuals in the 15th and 16th centuries was likely to have been the way medieval people used shields. Almost exclusively I found stances and in some cases techniques identical to those shown in the manuals (and very different to the "common sense" stances and techniques used by re-enactors I've known or seen). Does this prove that shields were always used in an absolutely identical way - no, there are a lot of factors that produce subtle changes in shield use and the likelihood of shield use being completely unchanged over hundreds of years and many different shield shapes is not high. Does it strongly suggest that all shield combat was based on the set of principles which are present in the manuals, principles which are quite different to those worked out by re-enactors making it up as they went along? The answer to this must be a resounding yes!

Once you appreciate the underlying principles of big shield combat you can see them at work in illustrations all over the place and frankly it's hard to think that no one has come up those principles independently (maybe someone has, but I've not met them).

Cheers
Stephen

Brian Hunt from ARMA claims to have figured out the same principles independently in a discussion we had not long ago. I really wish he were not so busy with his Paulus Hector Mair polearms project. That way he would have been able to publish about it and we non-ARMAteers would have had the luxury of comparing the similarities and differences between his intepretations and yours.

Would metal "Stage Steel" series weapons from vendors such as Kult of Athena be sufficient for practice? I think Merc's Talor will be where I get my bucklers, unless someone has other suggestions.

M.