| Author |
Message |
|
Stephen Curtin
|
 Posted: Mon 20 Jun, 2011 6:26 pm Post subject: Rondel dagger and buckler |
 |
|
Just curious, but does anyone here know of any fight manual which deals with the use of rondel daggers with bucklers, thanks in advance.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
   |
 |
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Jun, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject: Re: Rondel dagger and buckler |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | | Just curious, but does anyone here know of any fight manual which deals with the use of rondel daggers with bucklers, thanks in advance. |
I don't know of any that specifically deal with a dagger in one hand and a buckler in the other, if that's what you're asking, however, there are two plates in Talhoffer's Fechtbücher which give hints about using a dagger *with* a buckler in the same hand.
http://www.marylandkdf.com/wiki/File:MS_Thott...A_119r.jpg
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/...;seite=244
The text associated with the plates really doesn't help us understand what we're seeing very much. The top one (the 1459 Thott fechtbuch) simply says this is the right way to fight against two people (paraphrasing), and the second one (the 1467 Fechtbuch) says that the sword and buckler are used to displace (it doesn't say what or how, but the implication is the figure on the right, who the text says is "preparing to attack"). Personally, I think the word displace (versetz) is being used here to mean to hold off the rear attacker, not to actually block an attack, because we never see actual buckler blocks in these early sources and because the plate doesn't actually show the rear foe attacking. I think the blood from a dagger thrust in the 1459 MS is telling, too, as it supports that notion--the dagger is a threat, not an actual block. Still, this is just supposition since the text just isn't sufficient to really tell us much, and I have been unable to find another source in my area of study that shows a similar technique from which we could learn more.
I know this probably isn't what you're looking for, still, I find it fascinating, and it's at least peripherally related.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
  |
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh, thanks for the reply, yes I was talking about a dagger in one hand and a buckler in the other. So, if there are no manuals dealing with this weapons combination, how do you think it would work? Would sword and buckler techniques still be possible or would it be closer dagger techniques, or would it be somewhere in between?
I am asking because I was reading about Irish Kern fighting at the siege of Rouen (1418 I think), and they are described as armed with short javelins, targets and long knives. Now I have a suspicion that what was meant by target, is what we would today call a buckler, as the two terms seem to be used interchangibly by some authors. Thats why I'm curious to find out if dagger and bucklers were used by other countries, and how useful would this combination have been?
Funny enough Hugh, the above images might have some relation to another weapons combination used by Gaelic warriors, the use of broadsword, targe, and dirk.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | Hi Hugh, thanks for the reply, yes I was talking about a dagger in one hand and a buckler in the other. So, if there are no manuals dealing with this weapons combination, how do you think it would work? Would sword and buckler techniques still be possible or would it be closer dagger techniques, or would it be somewhere in between?
I am asking because I was reading about Irish Kern fighting at the siege of Rouen (1418 I think), and they are described as armed with short javelins, targets and long knives. Now I have a suspicion that what was meant by target, is what we would today call a buckler, as the two terms seem to be used interchangibly by some authors. Thats why I'm curious to find out if dagger and bucklers were used by other countries, and how useful would this combination have been?
Funny enough Hugh, the above images might have some relation to another weapons combination used by Gaelic warriors, the use of broadsword, targe, and dirk. |
I'm sorry, I just don't know much about it. I study the combat of the 15th century, primarily, specifically the Liechtenauer school. In that period, I have found little or no evidence that bucklers were ever used as shields in the sense of being used for active blocking. Rather, they were primarily used as a substitute for gauntlets, protecting the hands as cuts or displacements were performed with the sword. They were also used to ward "zones" to limit the angles at which an opponent could attack (which is why you usually see them held out at arm's length from the body), or to pin your opponent's sword after you blocked his attack with your sword, or, to a much more limited extent, as striking weapons (none of my sources tells us anything about doing this, but we do see pictures of it in Talhoffer).
To use a buckler as you suggest it would have to be used for active blocking to allow you to close enough to use a dagger. This was certainly done in the later period--for example, Silver teaches this. Note, however, that the swords in Silver's day had elaborate hand protection so that the buckler was no longer needed to protect the sword hand. My suspicion, too, is that bucklers were larger in Silver's day than they were earlier, at least according to what a friend who studies that period has told me. In my school we use 9-10 inch bucklers and they are more than sufficient.
My understanding, too, is that the targe to which you refer was rather larger than even Silver's buckler. I think you might want to contact one of the broadsword people who study Page or one of those masters for more on this. I believe the Scots sometimes used broadsword and targe with a dagger held in the left hand behind the targe (as in the Talhoffer plates I showed above). That being the case, one of these later masters might say soomething about how to use the dagger.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh a question one might ask is how would one use a buckler if one didn't have a sword, or lost the sword during combat, or only managed to retrieve a buckler and not one's sword ( maybe having a dagger on one's person as a back up ).
Just guessing that apart from any system or period text to rely on one would do one's best to stay alive and " improvise " using other skills like dagger and wrestling skills and maybe apply larger shield techniques to the buckler.
If you have to drive a nail and only have a screw driver you wont use the tip of the screw driver as intended but use the handle as an improvised hammer with lesser efficiency than a hammer: So even if a buckler is normally not used with shield techniques if it's the only thing you have you use it as an inferior ( too small to be optimum ) shield.
I realize that this is only speculation and little can be based on period texts when talking about unconventional situations.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Hugh a question one might ask is how would one use a buckler if one didn't have a sword, or lost the sword during combat, or only managed to retrieve a buckler and not one's sword ( maybe having a dagger on one's person as a back up ).
Just guessing that apart from any system or period text to rely on one would do one's best to stay alive and " improvise " using other skills like dagger and wrestling skills and maybe apply larger shield techniques to the buckler.
If you have to drive a nail and only have a screw driver you wont use the tip of the screw driver as intended but use the handle as an improvised hammer with lesser efficiency than a hammer: So even if a buckler is normally not used with shield techniques if it's the only thing you have you use it as an inferior ( too small to be optimum ) shield.
I realize that this is only speculation and little can be based on period texts when talking about unconventional situations. |
Hi Jean,
I think you'd grapple. You might use the buckler as a set of "brass knuckles" for a powerful Mordstöße to set up the throw, but you wouldn't try to block with it--that's a losing proposition. I think your only hope would be to close inside your opponent's reach, rushing under as he cuts to grab him. We see this in Talhoffer 1467:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/...p;seite=67
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/...p;seite=68
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/...p;seite=69
Incidentally, this is one of the very few times Talhoffer uses three plates for a single technique, so I suspect he wanted to be very clear about how to do it.
Once you get him on the ground then you pull your dagger and go to work, or, better yet, pull *his* dagger and go to work as von Danzig suggests in his armored material.
Personally, I think you'd need the Devil's own luck combined with perfect timing to pull it off in a real fight, but it can be done.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Hugh, I guess closing in is often the best option if unarmed or less well armed than an opponent.
The first challenge is surviving getting in close and the second challenge is that if your opponent is also very skilled at wresting, and even worse, as skilled and stronger you are in real trouble.
Well, as in another Topic thread dealing with unarmed against armed combat running away fast or rather " faster " than the opponent is a good option if conditions/context permit.  
A lot of the more dangerous close in techniques can work if one has much more skill than the better armed opponent or one is very very lucky.  
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
Personally, I think you'd need the Devil's own luck combined with perfect timing to pull it off in a real fight, but it can be done. |
Oh, I wonder if perfect timing isn't really more superior capability to read the intent and timing as well as measure of an opponent so as to " beat " the normal reaction time delay that reacting " after "which would mean failure by being late to make the technique work ? ( Much easier with bad opponents who telegraph their movements in timing and technique chosen. ? )
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Thanks Hugh, I guess closing in is often the best option if unarmed or less well armed than an opponent.
The first challenge is surviving getting in close and the second challenge is that if your opponent is also very skilled at wresting, and even worse, as skilled and stronger you are in real trouble.
Well, as in another Topic thread dealing with unarmed against armed combat running away fast or rather " faster " than the opponent is a good option if conditions/context permit.
A lot of the more dangerous close in techniques can work if one has much more skill than the better armed opponent or one is very very lucky. |
Well, Döbringer says this about fighting 4-6 opponents: "The second advice is that which I want to say now, no man should be so stupid that his own fighting brings him injury. If you want to beat five or six men, then you will often get badly hurt since you can’t defend against every strike directed against you, and you will then be subjected to ridicule and scorn. You little fool who wanted to be the best, see what happened... There is no hurt or disgrace to run away from four or six. And when you turn and start to run away from him, then throw your sword across and run as fast as you can."
I suppose the same advice could well be applied to fighting when you've lost your weapon--run away! Personally, I would find grappling to be a last resort approach in that situation.
Oh, and I almost forgot: Fiore shows someone using his dagger to make an upper shield (I don't know what he calls in in Italian) to block a sword shot.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jun, 2011 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Oh, I wonder if perfect timing isn't really more superior capability to read the intent and timing as well as measure of an opponent so as to " beat " the normal reaction time delay that reacting " after "which would mean failure by being late to make the technique work ? ( Much easier with bad opponents who telegraph their movements in timing and technique chosen. ? ) |
I think that's all part of it. You have to read the intent *and* move at exactly the right moment. I confess I haven't practiced this as much with the unarmored German material (I have with the armored material, but you can get away with more in armor), but we worked on this extensively when I practiced jujutsu--there are a whole set of techniques called "tachi dori" for grappling against a sword-wielding opponent. There, we learned that reading your opponent and acting with perfect timing were both important parts of the process.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Melhop
Location: Wokingham, Berkshire, UK Joined: 24 May 2008
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Jun, 2011 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
The only dagger and buckler works I can think of are contained in the Bolognese tradition and utilise a large cross hilted dagger. I can't find my references right now, thought it was Marozzo but he has dagger and cloak.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Jun, 2011 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Melhop wrote: | The only dagger and buckler works I can think of are contained in the Bolognese tradition and utilise a large cross hilted dagger. I can't find my references right now, thought it was Marozzo but he has dagger and cloak.
Phil |
Well if you are carrying a sword a buckler and a dagger and for some reason you lose the sword using the dagger and buckler becomes an option.
Some daggers like a Cinquedea with an 18" or 20" blade is more buckler and short sword and would be used with the same grip as a sword rather than with an ice pic grip with a shorter 8" to 12" blade.
But as Hugh suggested earlier going into wrestling mode might be faster and a better solution than going for the dagger.
I can see someone in civilian wear/context having a large dagger might want to back it up with a small buckler that could also be used offensively like brass knuckles. ( If this was commonly done or not in period and in what regions I really don't know ?).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Melhop
Location: Wokingham, Berkshire, UK Joined: 24 May 2008
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jun, 2011 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I believe it was dagger and buckler due to a prohibition on the carrying of swords within city boundarys.Same can be said about cloak and dagger. In any case the OP asked about a rondel dagger and buckler, I have never seen any manual refer to this combination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Curtin
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jun, 2011 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Melhop wrote: | | I believe it was dagger and buckler due to a prohibition on the carrying of swords within city boundarys.Same can be said about cloak and dagger. In any case the OP asked about a rondel dagger and buckler, I have never seen any manual refer to this combination. |
To be honest Philip the only reason I asked about rondel daggers is, first they seem to be the most likely dagger to be in surviving manuals, and second they bare a resemblance to Irish scians, which I know there is no manuals about.
Éirinn go Brách
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jun, 2011 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Legislation wise, both bucklers and long daggers where baned in certain places. Swords where signs of status; Carrying a buckler or fighting knife could be seen as a indication that you where looking for trouble. Similar to why handguns are usually more strictly controlled than longarms.
Dagger and buckler might make for amusing sport, but as battlefield/street fighting combo, it would suffer tremendously from lack of range. You will be a lot better of than someone sporting just a dagger, though.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
Mackenzie Cosens
Location: Vancouver Canada Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 238
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jun, 2011 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing in Fiore (1409), that I have read speaks of bucklers, but he does talk about daggers.
"I am the noble weapon called dagger, and I am in love with close play. If you know my deceptions and my art, you will be skilled at every subtlety of the art of arms. And when it comes to putting a quick end to cruel combat, I have no equal. When I am in combat, I parry and thrust and perform abrazare (wresting for your life), and I'll disarm anyone with breaks and binds. Against me defensive arms or armor are useless." (translation: Tom Leoni, 2009)
In my opinion, Fiore telling us that daggers are really dangerous both in and out of armour and you really should to learn how to use and defend against one.
Fiore gives two defenses using dagger against sword, one to be used against a cut to the (left side) of head and the second against the thrust. In my interpretation of the technique, both defenses work better when you give the sword person an invitation (obvious opening to attack) and if the dagger person closes under cover in the time of the swordsman's attack to get to the close play (wrestling range). As with all techniques, its hard to do against someone who has a clue and does not cooperate : ).
mackenzie
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Jun, 2011 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | | Legislation wise, both bucklers and long daggers where baned in certain places. |
Social or legal prohibitions can make a very good weapon combination impractical to carry due to the reactions of people around you, but if they bothered to " prohibit carry " it does presuppose that the combination of long dagger and buckler was considered very effective and aggressive in a civilian context where most would only be carrying a dagger or knife of moderate size. ( Why band them if they where not an unfair advantage in the civilian context ).
As to battlefield use it's more backup or backup to the backup weapon situation although for an archer or a billman or pikeman a buckler and a long dagger could be a decent substitute to a buckler and sword.
Now, there are daggers and there are daggers: A long dagger with a blade 18" to 24" long is bordering/overlaping on the swords of the shorter kinds in reach. Very long rondel daggers, baselard daggers etc .....
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Jun, 2011 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Large daggers and bucklers wher banned as separate items. Carrying a dagger and buckler would just be wierd.
I have met people that use small roundshields and saxes for reenactment fighting. They tend to get feinted and killed a lot. You can get kills if with the dagger if the opponent messes up, or you manage to surprise him. But this goes for all weapons.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Jun, 2011 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Curtin wrote: | | I am asking because I was reading about Irish Kern fighting at the siege of Rouen (1418 I think), and they are described as armed with short javelins, targets and long knives. Now I have a suspicion that what was meant by target, is what we would today call a buckler, as the two terms seem to be used interchangibly by some authors. Thats why I'm curious to find out if dagger and bucklers were used by other countries, and how useful would this combination have been? |
Are you sure that the kern ever intended to fight hand-to-hand with their targets and long knives once they had exhausted their javelins? They were light troops, remember, and if they ran out of javelins then they were probably expected to just get out of the way except if they saw an opportunity to take the enemy by suprise--and if the enemy didn't see you coming then there was little need for any formal technique to use with buckler and dagger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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