[Mikael Ranelius]

Did Men-at-arms fought with sword and buckler, or was its use restricted to "lower" troops like archers and spearmen?

[Craig Peters]

http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm

[Steven H]

The short answer is clearly "yes".

That paper is quite thorough in providing the evidence to prove it.

[Hugh Knight]

Actually, I think the answer is "mostly no" as long as we're talking about men at arms on the battlefield. Certainly every class used sword and buckler in civilian self defense, that's not open to debate. But after looking at literally thousands of iconographical references I have found that fully-armored men at arms (and that's the definition of a man at arms, really) are almost *never* shown with bucklers. There is one famous exception (and I'll post it so you can look at it), but that picture is almost unique. The simple fact is that medieval men, just like us, were individuals, and you can probably find an example of *any* weird deviation if you look hard enough, but that can't be used as "proof" of something being normal.

A regular shield is of a lot more use to a man at arms if he wants to use one; a buckler just isn't that protective by comparison. So the only real reason for using a buckler is when you want something less bulky, and, in fact, I can find *no* examples of armored buckler use prior to the late 13th/early 14th century--men at arms used heaters, kites, etc. After armor began to be mostly plate shields in general were mostly unnecessary, and while you occasionally see them, they are clearly falling out of fashion partly because the superior armor rendered them unnecessary and partly because the superior armor required two handed weapons. That means that the buckler was mostly used by lightly-armed support troops (e.g., bowmen and billmen) who wanted something for defense that wouldn't interfere with their normal gear. You will, at most, see billmen with a pretty comprehensive harness, but they're lacking gauntlets, etc.--and again, they're *billmen*, so they want a backup that won't interfere with their primary weapon. Men at arms usually seem to carry longswords and/or daggers and no buckler when they're armed with a two-handed weapon.

Another somewhat odd exception is military saints: St. Michael, for example, is often depicted in full harness but carrying a buckler; clearly there's some kind of Catholic significance to this, but I don't know what it is.

But go look at the iconography; you'll be hard pressed to find an example of a man at arms armed with a buckler except in the picture I attach below, and frankly, with only one (or even a handful) of examples, you have to assume it's an artistic error or a weird guy doing something rare and uncommon. That's the problem with teaching people about any medieval subject: You tell people what the norm is, then they go and find some weird exception to "prove" their pet theory, forgetting that you can do that with anything and that such exceptions only prove the rule.

[Craig Peters]

Hugh,

You need to take a closer look at the ARMA article, since there are several more images there. Also, notice the figure in the lower section of your second image. He's the fourth from the right, with two hands on an axe, and it looks like he's about to be shot with an arrow. You'll notice that he's wearing mail under his tunic. Whether or not he's a man at arms is up for debate, but he certainly isn't a lightly armoured man if he's wearing mail. And I'd be willing to bet that even if the illustrator did not depict it, many or most of the other troops with tunics would have had mail underneath as well.

[Hugh Knight]

[Greg Coffman]

I think the evidence strongly supports bucklers being used by men-at-arms on the battlefield. Hugh, I'm not sure what ARMA article you looked at but I will try to post some of the many pictures that show heavily armed individuals with bucklers.

[Greg Coffman]

These aren't wierd acceptions. These are the norm.

[M. Eversberg II]

Yes, men at arms (which are not always cap a pie in harness) did use bucklers. Strong evidence supports it, and it's even in some fightbooks.

As a side note



I think someone got pranked!

M.

[Steven H]

I'll agree that the buckler is not the norm for a man-at-arms, but the 'weird exception' connotation goes too far.

John Clements article showed, by my count, at least 15 cap-a-pied armoured soldiers with bucklers. I excluded Saints for the reason Hugh gave, as well as excluding images that I felt were questionable even if I suspected that under the their jupon/surcoat(?) they had full harness.

But in many of those scenes there are plenty of other men-at-arms without bucklers.
And they are not grouped together into formations of all buckler wielding soldiers, so I suspect that we may just have evidence of variation due to personal taste. Even in our modern military where everyone is issued identical kit, some folks still bring along their own gear based on personal preference, availability etc.

Mikael-
Are you asking because of an interpretation/kit you want to put together?

[Steven H]

[Merv Cannon]

I have 28 images on file of various combatants using bucklers in war....from archers through fully armoured. I dont suppose that's too many really but there would be many more out there....thats just what Ive found.
But what Id really like to point out that the Buckler is NOT just a little shield ! It is also an offensive weapon ! Thats one reason that its gripped in the fist. The fighting technique is quite different really. To understand weapons and shields its important to use them in accordance with the period manuals !
Thats why my learned friend and group leader believes so strongly in demonstrative archology. He has pointed out very many faults written by 'scholarly' authors who obviously have never bothered to try to use the item about which they profess so much knowlege, much of which was also gained from books written by other authors who have also never used the item, etc.
But certinally Bucklers were also a prefered " little shield " for the traveller to take on the proverbial pilgramage too.

Cheers

[Elling Polden]

Sword and buckler is a very decent backup option. While not a primary combo, it is certainly a good choice for a polearm wielding heavy infantryman to carry a sword and buckler.
A sword and shield or polearm wielder might have the edge on him on a level field, but when swords come out, ranks have probably broken anyway.
In any case it is superior to a plain arming sword.

[Mikael Ranelius]

Thanks, interesting article and interesting points made

Steven H:

I was thinking of a late 14th century equipment for a lower man-at-arms, i.e. a well-to-do gentleman that fought armoured together with the knights but who couldn't afford the latest italian high-quality armour. I guess more like this guy rather than this guy

[Hugh Knight]

[Gary A. Chelette]

I have many years in SCA combat using both full shield and bucklers. One thing I know is that with a buckler, you'd better be light on your feet! Heavy plate or even chain can slow you down and cause you to exit the party real quick. I used flankers in lite armour and bucklers to run in and harrass spearmen and archers. They had to be quick and mobile. They also worked very well as backup on a shield wall when the troops came crashing through.
Men at arms are like many knights, how much could they afford?
I have read of poor knights going into battle with only a gambson, shield and club. Are men at arms any different?
Also take in account that those paintings are done by artist, not warriors. Not everything in those paintings is accurate, just like the Blonde hair, blue eyed Jesus.
The use of the buckler by anyone depended on the wealth and skill of the person as well as what kind of fighting there was to be.

[Craig Peters]

[Hugh Knight]

[M. Eversberg II]

All knights where men at arms, but not all men at arms where knights. I'm sure many men at arms carried less equipment than others either through A) lack of personal funds or B) loss in battle.

M.

[Hugh Knight]