[Michael Sandoval]

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about whether type X, Xa, or XI swords would be appropriate for buckler work. Specifically, the Albion Chevalier.

In the various manuals and from people have discussed about historical practice, swords of type XIV, XII, and XVIII seem to be prevalent. I'm wondering if, even though I.33 is the earliest manual, that people were using the buckler much earlier. Would the Chevalier type of blade be historically plausible?

Also, how do you think the Chevalier would work for the nimble cut and thrust play that buckler work often seems to require? I have an Albion Jarl, which is a beautiful sword. However, it's not built for this style of fighting.

Love to know how the Chevalier compare to other Albion swords, too--

Thanks for any and all feedback!

[Peter Johnsson]

Hello Michael,

The Chevalier would work very well for sword and buckler play, I would say. It has fairly long reach but is quick and nimble.
Other swords in the NG lineup that would work well are:
Poitiers (-very, very nimble!)
Lancaster (-also very responsive and fast)
Squire
Kern
Sherriff
Yeoman

Also good, but *slightly* more blade presence (a useful feature depending on your physique and personal style)
Knight
Laird
Condottiere
Doge
Machiavelli
Kingmaker

But this is just me
I am sure you will get input from users and enthusiasts on the forum.

[Michael Sandoval]

Thanks, Peter,

I think it's very interesting how nimble I hear the Chevalier and Oakeshott are--I had this stereotype in my head that blades were evolving to become less blade-present and thus more "fast"... So I was, at first, surprised to read about swords from an earlier time period handling more quickly than one from a hundred years after (like the knight). I do imagine that 1) there was a large variety of a particular type existing within a certain time period, and 2) "evolution" doesn't necessarily mean better , just better suited to a different set of circumstances.

As I wrote, I love the Jarl--but I wouldn't call it easy to control. I would also write that its an excellent sword. But meant for a different kind of fighting (and for someone with much meatier wrists than I!). It would tire me out in buckler play. I imagine that the Chevalier would be easier to control. Certainly, the geometry and POB would help.

I do wonder if the length of a sword like the Chevalier would somehow impede 'proper' buckler training. The I.33 Albion sword is 31", and the Albion XIV's a few inches shorter...

[Peter Johnsson]

Looking at period art you see all sorts of swords being carried together with a buckler.
I think it would be a mistake to regard the technique of sword and buckler so specialized that you need a specific weight, length and balance for the sword to behave properly.

As long as it is a good sword that is not too heavy, it should be possible to use with a buckler.

Saying that, there are of course those swords that many would agree are perfect for sword and buckler work.
When I posted the list of recommendations I had in mind what I think are those characteristics that most favor and appreciate with sword and buckler swords.

I am sure a good swordsman can answer your question about length much better than I can. A longer blade will give you an advantage, but a shorter blade can also be used to your favor.

Some swords are made to be used with a shield. The viking swords are very good examples of this. They can only really be appreciated when you hold a shield in your other hand.
Some of the NG line swords are also more suited to be used with a larger shield.
I can understand that you may expect the Oakeshott and the Chevalier to be such swords. They may be very good for use with a larger shield as well, but their heft and weight makes them very agile and responsive weapons. You tend to favor such swords for quick sword & buckler work.

Looking at historical swords it is not so simple as all earlier swords are heavier and slower than later period swords. There is a very wide spectrum of variation between individual swords.

[Greg Mele]

Really, Peter has the right of this - part of the brilliance of sword and buckler play is its versatility; even 16th c buckler play, such as the Bolognese school, which clearly favors a longer, tapered blade will work well with an older-style sword.

Indeed, when I practice Bolognese fencing I use *both* a custom 16th c piece from Arms and Armour and my Albion I.33; despite a 6" blade length difference, a different blade width, and obviously a very different hilt, the basic actions of the system remain intact. I often make these comparisons to specifically show how 16th c sword and buckler play evolved from an earlier weapon, and how a good swordsman adapts to the weapon in hand.

I would say that most of the weapons that Peter mentioned would all play very well with a buckler, whereas a more blade-heavy weapon, like my Gaddhjalt, really would be better served with a long-shield or being wielded from horseback.

[Michael Sandoval]

Thank you, both, for very thoughtful responses---

I'm wondering if people know when the buckler first came into use. Certainly before I.33, no? 12th Century?

[Greg Mele]

small, center-grip fist shields appear well before the Middle Ages, being used by the Parthians, Thracians, etc. Of course, precisely HOW they were used is the question.

Relative to medieval Europe, they appear in isolated fashion throughout the period, becoming a standard side arm for spearmen, archers, etc in the later part of the High Middle Ages (c.1100 - 1350). You see them in 12th c art, they are commonplace in the 13th.