| Author |
Message |
|
Craig Shackleton
|
 Posted: Fri 25 Feb, 2011 6:31 pm Post subject: Buckler position according to Clerus Lutegerus (RA I.33) |
 |
|
In this thread: http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=216071#216071
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Craig Shackleton wrote: | | I hope that helps, although I'm starting to stray pretty far from the topic of the design of the buckler itself! |
I'd actually love to see a more thorough description of your interpretation, which seems very original. At least I've never seen anyone advocating that kind of position with a buckler before. I'm willing to bet you don't advocate it just for the sake of complexity or originality though  Perhaps start a new thread?
Personally I don't believe in this position at all (as of now) for the following reasons:
- I don't think any artist (medieval or otherwise) would depict a fighter whose buckler's flat is facing the viewer with a side view. OK, they didn't have perspective nailed down at the time, but to this level. You might argue that this is some form of encoding, but I'd follow Occam's razor and say that it means indeed that the buckler is held just as it looks when the position makes physical sense
- I can't clearly see why the third guard, for example, would be depicted in I.33 with the profile view or the front view for the buckler, if the side view is in fact some sort of encoding for the very special position you advocate. I haven't checked all the plates, perhaps this happens to other positions as well
- The buckler has been used a lot and has been depicted a lot in later treatises, when perspective was perfectly understood. All the treatises I know show bucklers held face forward, flat towards the opponent (not in all positions of course, but in some at least): I've just checked Marozzo, Lovino, Di Grassi...
- Even the text of di Grassi is explicit:
| Quote: | | If a man would, that the Buckler work the said effect, to wit: that it may be able with his smallness to cover the whole body, he must hold and bear it in his fist, as far off from the body as the arm may possibly stretch forth, moving always the arm and buckler together, as one entire and solid thing, having no bending, or as if the arm were united to the buckler, turning continually all the flat thereof towards the enemy. |
Does the position obscure the vision? Yes, of course, but they seemed to think that the advantage was worth it.
On the practical side, I figure it exposes the hand a bit too much, and gains only a clearer vision. Plus the position won't really make sense with a larger shield, it would be a specialized skill for the small buckler.
I hope you don't find me impolite for raising these matters, I guess a lot of people will give or already have given you the same questions, and I'd like to know what your answers are. As I said I'm all for thought-provoking interpretations
Regards, |
I don't find it impolite at all! I appreciate your honest but polite commentary.
I will be gradually posting my interpretation in detail on youtube, starting this Sunday, so you can see more there.
A few explanatory points right now though.
The images in I.33 have a number of unusual perspective features. I tend to think of them as something like cubism or an exploded view of what's going on. The perspective of certain features just doesn't correspond with others. In particular, many of the images show features that I believe are presented as though the viewer were seeing them from the position of the opposite combatant. The main two features like this are the bucklers side on, and the priest's hood which in some images appears to be hanging in the front. These images I tend to interpret as back-weighted positions similar to some in Fiore. Thus the opponent would see the hood.
If the oversized, side on bucklers represent the buckler facing squarely at the opponent, I don't know what position the other representations might depict. If they show the same position, why make the consistent distinction?
In my interpretation, the stance and hand position work together so that although the buckler is not square on, it is facing your opponent, more specifically it is facing your opponent's leading threat, which is usually their buckler. And in fact, my system allows you to turn the buckler towards your opponent without either shifting your feet or adjusting your grip, by rotating your hand.
The picture I posted is in some ways misleading, because from the angle it is taken it appears that my buckler hand is exposed. I partly chose a picture where you could see the hand for clarity, It's partly hard to judge how exposed I am because there is no opponent, and partly I'm holding my buckler a little more online than I intend. This last is partly because I'm not facing an opponent to align correctly with, and partly because I pretty much never use this guard. I.33 tells me that it is mostly useless, and I agree!
As to the specialized skill with the buckler, absolutely! There is very little correspondence in my experience between large shield use and buckler use. The shield is used primarily to cover the body and block attacks, where the buckler is used to cover the hand and pin your opponent. They can do each other's jobs, but not well.
I also have not seen that hand position in any other manuscript for buckler. Oddly, the position is illustrated much as I do it in I.33 itself! In the lower image on p.58 we see the priest holding the shield inverted, but across his sword hand. Which means that if the images are literal, the position is used in at least one instance. But I don't think this image is literal either. The other place where we do see this hand position used is in McBane's sword and targe instructions. Ironically, I found this in an essay in Spada by Paul Wagner drawing connections between I.33 and highland sword and targe, but this is not a connection he made, as he doesn't (or at least didn't) use the same hand position as me.
Thanks again for your comments, and I'll update this once I post my videos.
Ottawa Swordplay
|
|
   |
 |
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Feb, 2011 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craig,
The next time we meet at an event, we must find time to compare notes between Lutegerus and Bolognese sword and buckler...
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Feb, 2011 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm much more familiar with longsword than 1:33 but I did take two 12 weeks courses in 1:33 using the more standard interpretations with a lot of rotating the buckler in the hand by loosening one's grip and rotating the buckler in the grip.
I took a one day seminar with Craig last November and this rotation where the forearm is basically pronated and supinated allowed changing the buckler from one side of the sword to the other very efficiently and without loosening one's grip and it did seem very efficient and not making thing " more complicated " in fact I perceived it as much more economical of motion, fast and very secure in that the wrist didn't have to make weird or weak contortions.
Since I am far from an expert in 1:33 sword & buckler I can't really say for sure how this general gripping principle affects or changes the way many of the techniques are executed but it did seem very viable during the seminar.
As to the angle of the buckler being more edge on or at an angle versus being strait on towards the opponent I didn't see any weaknesses in the interpretation making the hand more vulnerable or the buckler less able to defend the hand but it did seem that the edge of the buckler was well positioned to strike the opposing buckler or slip past it to bind the opponents arm.
Whether Craig's interpretation is the right one or better I'm not qualified to say but I came out of the day seminar feeling I had learned general principles I could better apply rather than a list of guards and wards/counters with no underlying principle except as a list of tricks i,e, I feel I got more out of that day seminar than the whole 24 weeks of classes I had as previous experience although I'm certain that my previous experience helped a great deal making sense of a day seminar and get more out of it.
Whatever one may conclude about Craig's interpretation I can say that Craig is a great and effective teacher and it was a pleasure learning from him. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Shackleton
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Feb, 2011 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@ Steven: I very much look forward to it!
@ Jean: Thanks for your kind words! You re always welcome to come up. I still need to make it to Montreal some time.
Ottawa Swordplay
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Feb, 2011 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Shackleton wrote: | @ Steven: I very much look forward to it!
@ Jean: Thanks for your kind words! You re always welcome to come up. I still need to make it to Montreal some time. |
And I have permission to use a training room at my Gym when there are no scheduled classes in session and if a non-member pays the daily rate at the Gym ...... or in Spring/Summer/fall there is a local park in walking distance. ( And I have different types of training swords in matched or nearly matched pairs. 
Might come to Ottawa again but would wait for slightly warmed weather.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic