Quote: “As an I.33 fencer, I regret to inform you that your buckler is less than useful.
The buckler is used to bind an opponents
shield and weapon, as well as to protect your sword arm from a counter cut while you execute an attack.”
The I33 combat is limited to a single type of combat where both opponents are unarmored and equally armed with sword and buckler. In the case in point, the armored Legionary wields a relatively short blade (about 20”-26”) and a large (4’ x 2’) shield against a spatha (30”-36” blade) and buckler wielding armored opponent. The tactics and techniques are very different here. The comments from George Silver are appropriate, and what I had in mind. The lack of a strap on the legionaries arm changes things a bit, but the mass of the shield is not in the Roman’s favor in an open field. Silver’s comments point out the problem. The buckler does not hinder the variable fight. Meaning that the range can be controlled, gauged, and manipulated by the less encumbered fighter. The spatha out reaches the
gladius by about 10”, so with a lighter shield and longer reach, the variable fight is definitely in the favor of the spatha and buckler fighter.
Quote: “The large tower shield is not going to be bound by your smaller buckler, and you're in a bigger risk from the thrust to your gut from behind the tower shield than a cut to your attacking arm. “
What I meant was that the Roman, in the variable fight, is vulnerable to strikes to his hand, if he extends beyond the reach of his shield. Even if the Roman strikes from underneath his shield, his sword arm is exposed. The longer reach of the spatha can then be used to pick shots and force the Roman to close the distance and engage at short range. But, since the buckler is far less encumbering (2lbs vs. the Roman’s 15lb.+) mobility is in the favor of the buckler-wielding fighter. Given that this is a 1-1 fight in the open, the buckler-wielding fighter should have room to maneuver. Now, if the circumstances were different, like a crowded city street or battlefield, then yes the buckler would not be an advantage.
Quote: “Additionally, a back sword refers to two things: a sword with only one edge, or a type of 16th / 17th century cavalry weapon. These are not used in sword and buckler fighting.”
This is how the ARMA website defined “backsword”
“The back-sword or Backe swerd was a less-common form of single-edged renaissance military cut & thrust blade with a compound-hilt (side-rings or anneus, finger-rings, knuckle-bar, etc.). Most popular in England with a buckler or target from at least the 1520’s, it was long enough for both mounted and infantry and favored because its single-edge designed allowed for a superior cutting blow. It was also popular in Germany. Back-swords may be related to later single-edged European blade forms and came in a variety of hilts and lengths. They also include later Hangers and hunting swords, as well as Mortuary-hilt and Walloon-hilt broadswords.”
ARMA has several world-renowned scholars, including the founder John Clemens, doing its research.
Quote: “I have fought some damn good buckler fighters with my heater shield”
Great! But, a heater is much smaller, lighter, strapped to the arm, and you are probably wielding a sword of equal length. Additionally if you are fighting SCA rules, shots below the knees as of limits (for safety reasons), but not in this case. So, I’m not sure how applicable your analogy is.
Quote: “I agree with M. Eversberg II, that there is no need to bother with sword arm. If it happens to be hit it, fine, but there is a whole lot of head, body and leg available to hit.”
Legs yes, but body and head are armored and the body is well covered by the scutum. Picking shots at range and forcing the Roman to extend makes his hand the obvious target. Flanking to his shield side stifles his ability to close the distance and forces him to leave the relative comfort from behind his shield. His head will also be a target, but then again, it’s also armored. Cut the unarmored hand with a spatha and the fight is nearly over.