Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
Define " large " buckler: Most bucklers are below 12" in diameter and exceeding this by too much turns it into a small shield not as convenient as a carry all the time shield to accompany a one handed sword.
The sword & buckler combination is to me functionally more like carrying a handgun when not otherwise armed with a rifle or in period as a primary weapon a polearm, missile weapon or a large shield and sword. The buckler & sword as more civilian carry or backup secondary weapons in my opinion. A small shield is not optimum to protect from missiles compared to a much larger shield and would depend a lot on luck in not being targeted elsewhere than where covered by the buckler. |
Tom Leoni estimates that an average 16th century large buckler was 30-35 cm diameter. That wouldn't be my choice either against short ranged arrows and thrown weapons, but its still a bit better than just a sword, especially with just the face to cover.
If someone is fighting in harness, they probably aren't using the weapons they carry every day. Longswords weren't normally worn on foot in the late 14th century either (I don't know of any late 14th century pictures of swords with a two handed grip worn at the belt with a diagonal suspension). I don't get the impression that men at arms used sword and buckler very much in the 14th and 15th centuries, but we have at least one picture of it.