| Author |
Message |
|
Sean Manning
|
 Posted: Thu 16 Feb, 2012 9:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| 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.
|
|
  |
 |
Matt Easton
Location: Surrey, UK. Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Feb, 2012 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Manning wrote: | | Longswords weren't normally worn on foot in the late 14th century either |
There are almost as many period pictures from the late-14th to 15th centuries of longswords being worn in civilian life as one-handed swords. There are lots of examples from the 15thC. The 15thC treatises even give clear civilian self-defence techniques with a longsword used in or out of its scabbard - see Talhoffer, Fiore or Vadi for examples. It was fairly popular at that time to carry the sword in its scabbard like a walking stick rather than wearing it.
What is perhaps more relevant is that it was *illegal* to wear/carry any sword within city limits in many parts of Europe (England and France for example) for anyone below the rank of Knight (that includes the vast majority of men who fought as men at arms). So the majority of civilians could have only worn a dagger or baselard. This is part of the reason why messers and long baselards grew in popularity - because they got around the law by not being 'swords'. If you trust period art then relatively few people were armed at all in civilian life. This ties in with the fact that most murders recorded in 14thC English coroners' rolls were carried out with tools such as hoes, pitchforks, hammers and eating knives. There are quite few recorded civilian deaths caused by swords in the 14thC.
| Quote: | | 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. |
It depends how we define 'man-at-arms'. In the Agincourt lists soldiers are simply listed as 'archer' or 'man-at-arms'. Clearly not all of the latter were fully armoured. We know that by the Wars of the Roses many 'men-at-arms' were actually what we would call billmen, pikemen or halberdiers. If you look at Froissart's chronicles of that period it is clear to see that many such soldiers carried swords and bucklers and wore semi-harness, such as a brigandine over mail shirt, arm harness and helmet.
Matt
Schola Gladiatoria - www.swordfightinglondon.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria
Antique Swords: www.antique-swords.co.uk/
|
|
  |
|
Mackenzie Cosens
Location: Vancouver Canada Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 238
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Feb, 2012 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Arms and Armour Requirement in London 1380:
Precept was set to each alderman to see the men of his ward suitably armed with basinet, gauntlets of plate, habergeon, sword , dagger and hatchet, according to their estate and inferior men arrayed with good bows, arrows, sword and buckler |
pg 160 Daily life in Chaucer's England J. Forgeng & W. Mclean
| Quote: | | ...several of Chaucer's pilgrims set off for Canterbury equippped with arms and armour: the Kight wears his jupon, stained with rust from his mail coat; the Yeomen carries bow and arrows, dagger, sword and buckler; the Shipman carries a dagger; the Miler carries a sword and buckler; the Reeve carries a rusty sword. Like the pilgrims clothing, their chice of arms tells us something about who the are and how they wish to be precised |
pg 160 Daily life in Chaucer's England J. Forgeng & W. Mclean
So in late 14C England, we have support for men of inferior status to carry sword and buckler but men of greater status to carry longsword and axe.
We also have literary support for men of lower status carrying sword and buckler in a civilian context of the pilgrimage. Of course carrying weapons may be Chaucer telling something else about the pilgrims such as enforcing their status or telling us that the pilgrimage is not a safe little vacation.
So I think, if you are man of status and you want to reinforce that status, which is one of the reasons you have all that lovely stuff to begin with, you do not carry a sword and buckler, you carry a nice high status longsword or arming sword with a really nice expensive scabbard. This tells the world I have wealth and connections so don't mess with me, and if you do mess with me, don't kill me because I can arrange a really good ransom. 
mackenzie
|
|
|
|
|
Jimi Edmonds
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Feb, 2012 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heres a portion of a picture from Bruegel, well a print from the original picture C.1560, named Fotitude. Men with bucklers, falchions/messers, longswords and an arming sword. Note the original drawing was shown in a mirror perspective so when it was engraved and printed it all was the right way around...also note the longsword and buckler at the waist of the crossbow man, that if you can make it out sorry the pic is a little small.
 Attachment: 62.94 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Feb, 2012 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Easton wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | Longswords weren't normally worn on foot in the late 14th century either |
There are almost as many period pictures from the late-14th to 15th centuries of longswords being worn in civilian life as one-handed swords. There are lots of examples from the 15thC. The 15thC treatises even give clear civilian self-defence techniques with a longsword used in or out of its scabbard - see Talhoffer, Fiore or Vadi for examples. It was fairly popular at that time to carry the sword in its scabbard like a walking stick rather than wearing it. |
Could I see some examples of late 14th century art showing a longsword worn at the belt with an angled suspension? We see them fairly often on effigies, but with a vertical suspension- not very handy for walking around with. My source noticed a change to angled suspensions c. 1400, which we see in the eighth illustration of the Getty spear section where the fighters wear sword and dagger.
| Matt Easton wrote: | | Quote: | | 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. |
It depends how we define 'man-at-arms'. In the Agincourt lists soldiers are simply listed as 'archer' or 'man-at-arms'. Clearly not all of the latter were fully armoured. We know that by the Wars of the Roses many 'men-at-arms' were actually what we would call billmen, pikemen or halberdiers. If you look at Froissart's chronicles of that period it is clear to see that many such soldiers carried swords and bucklers and wore semi-harness, such as a brigandine over mail shirt, arm harness and helmet.
Matt |
I though that in the HYW men who couldn't afford full harness would be listed as hobilars, gros valets, haubergeons, coustiliers, etc. rather than being lumped in with men at arms. Do you have a source that suggests differently? Will McLean suggests that English records are more likely to record armed servants than French ones are because English servants often fought as archers and collected pay and French servants usually fought on horseback and were paid by their master. Steve Muhlberger seems sympathetic to the idea. But I'm not a specialist in the period ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Fri 17 Feb, 2012 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An Arthurian romance from the 1380s, BNF Francaise 343 (available online through the Mandragore database), shows the sort of vertical suspensions I am talking about. Horsemen's swords are often conspicuously vertical, and men in harness on foot usually hold their pommel forward with their left hand. I think they are trying to keep the tip of the scabbard out of the way. Men who wear neither harness nor clerical robes in that MSS usually wear a dagger.
Its good to know that there are references (or illuminations?) in Froissart that show men in fairly complete armour using sword and buckler. I suspected that it might occasionally be used, but I didn't have any evidence before the 16th century.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Feb, 2012 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Manning wrote: | Could I see some examples of late 14th century art showing a longsword worn at the belt with an angled suspension? We see them fairly often on effigies, but with a vertical suspension- not very handy for walking around with. My source noticed a change to angled suspensions c. 1400, which we see in the eighth illustration of the Getty spear section where the fighters wear sword and dagger.
|
People often misinterpret scabbard angles on effigies and brasses. As they typically depict the decedent laying down, not standing up, scabbard angles look funny. If the sword was angled, the hilt would stick up and would be easily broken off. The other end of the sword would seem to project down into the tomb.
Don't take those sculptures as reality in that regard. However, it seems you have other visual evidence. I just would hesitate to factor effigies and brasses into this discussion at all as they depict a reclined person who's no longer fighting (they're dead, after all ).
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Sun 19 Feb, 2012 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I agree that brasses and effigies often leave out details like straps and rivets (or had them painted on?), but there are so many from the late 14th century that show a hip belt with a scabbard attached and no other suspension that I take them seriously. Other media and genres of art support this. I would be happy to be proved wrong, because then a friend who reenacts an English knight in 1370 could wear a longsword much more comfortably, instead of having to do what Fiore shows and carry the scabbarded sword like a stick.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Easton
Location: Surrey, UK. Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Feb, 2012 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Manning wrote: | | I though that in the HYW men who couldn't afford full harness would be listed as hobilars, gros valets, haubergeons, coustiliers, etc. rather than being lumped in with men at arms. Do you have a source that suggests differently? |
Yes, the famous so-called Agincourt muster rolls. As far as I am aware they are simply listed as either men-at-arms or archers:
http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/soldier/database/Agincourt.php
Are you aware of an English muster roll from the period that does break down the soldiers into more specific types as you listed above?
If so, I'd be happy to know about it. The reason I'd be happy to know about it is because I am not aware of any hard evidence from this period (ie. the late-14th to early-15th century) for spearmen/billmen or similar soldier types in English armies, and I am wondering if they became more numerous in the later 15th century (to compensate for a lack of proper men-at-arms) and were not so much a feature of earlier English armies.
Regards,
Matt
Schola Gladiatoria - www.swordfightinglondon.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria
Antique Swords: www.antique-swords.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Easton
Location: Surrey, UK. Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Feb, 2012 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
p.s. I am aware that 14th century muster rolls do list small numbers of hobelars and mounted archers sometimes. These are both mounted though of course. I am primarily interested in what the average 'man-at-arms' listed in the Agincourt rolls was and whether these included a broad range of hand-to-hand troops, or whether at that time the English army had limited itself to two main troop types - a large body of archers and a small body of well armoured 'knights'.
Schola Gladiatoria - www.swordfightinglondon.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria
Antique Swords: www.antique-swords.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Feb, 2012 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Easton wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | I though that in the HYW men who couldn't afford full harness would be listed as hobilars, gros valets, haubergeons, coustiliers, etc. rather than being lumped in with men at arms. Do you have a source that suggests differently? |
Yes, the famous so-called Agincourt muster rolls. As far as I am aware they are simply listed as either men-at-arms or archers:
http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/soldier/database/Agincourt.php
Are you aware of an English muster roll from the period that does break down the soldiers into more specific types as you listed above?
If so, I'd be happy to know about it. The reason I'd be happy to know about it is because I am not aware of any hard evidence from this period (ie. the late-14th to early-15th century) for spearmen/billmen or similar soldier types in English armies, and I am wondering if they became more numerous in the later 15th century (to compensate for a lack of proper men-at-arms) and were not so much a feature of earlier English armies.
Regards,
Matt |
Not offhand, but I will see what I can dig up. I have always followed the conventional interpretation that "men at arms" meant men with full harness and a good horse (and probably a riding horse and a pack horse), and that men who couldn't meet that standard couldn't collect a man at arms' pay. According to Curry, Henry V's clerks were pedantic about numbers: if someone was given permission to bring 230 men at arms and 920 archers then they enrolled exactly that many men. Italian paymasters seem to have been similarly pedantic about equipment, but I don't know of any English confirmation off hand.
The ordnance of John II of France in 1351 divides gens d'arms by status (bannerets through vallets) and by equipment (gens d'arms and haubergeons), but that is before your period and French not English. It clearly distinguishes them from gens a'pied or infantry.
|
|
|
|
|
Johan Gemvik
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Feb, 2012 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding using bucklers with full plate armour, I don't have any medieval sources for this, but in modern day I know for a fact you can stun or even knock someone out in a heavy well padded helm with a buckler punch just by accident during full contact sparring. You can punch with the rim or the buckle, this happened with the rim and a pretty solid but still small diameter buckler (30 I guess). I expect you could do some serious damage with it if you really put your mind ot it, was strong and skilled with your fists.
"The Dwarf sees farther than the Giant when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on" -Coleridge
|
|
|
|
|
Jimi Edmonds
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Looking through period pictures, in this case the works of Pieter Brueghel the Elder, [16th C.] There are quite a few images of men carrying longsword and buckler, and a couple with people half armoured using longsword and buckler. In the few paintings with large armies most of the fully armoured are depicted with halbards and sidearms. Thinking about it I have seen an earlyer picture [cir. 15th C.] that had two fully armoured knights fencing longsword and buckler, but where I cannot remember.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Feb, 2012 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Easton wrote: | Are you aware of an English muster roll from the period that does break down the soldiers into more specific types as you listed above?
If so, I'd be happy to know about it. The reason I'd be happy to know about it is because I am not aware of any hard evidence from this period (ie. the late-14th to early-15th century) for spearmen/billmen or similar soldier types in English armies, and I am wondering if they became more numerous in the later 15th century (to compensate for a lack of proper men-at-arms) and were not so much a feature of earlier English armies.
Regards,
Matt |
I actually do have a set of sources now: Bruce McNab, “The Military Arrays of the Clergy, 1369-1418” in Joprdan, McNab, and Ruiz eds., Order and Innovation in the Middle Ages (Princeton University Press, 1976) pp. 293-314 with notes pp. 516-522. From 1369 to 1418, English kings obliged all clerics of military age in their realm to have arms appropriate to their state and means and be organized in twenties, hundreds, and thousands under their bishops for defense of the realm and the church. He gives an analysis, but just cites the original documents and quotes fragments.
In 1400, 1415, and 1418 each bishop had to send a list of the number and type of their armed men to Chancery. These have up to four classes: 1) well-armed men (homines armati/viri competenter armati) who seem to be armed with lances, 2) hobelars 3) archers, 4) “all who were arrayed with an assortment of arms, such as some combination of bascinets, glaives, shields, poleaxes, battle-axes, and gisarmes.” Not all had all four categories, since it seems that Chancery forgot to tell the bishops what classes to use. For example, the Hereford return lists “68 sufficiently armed men; 487 archers with hauberks, swords, bows, and arrows; and 540 personas familiares with hauberks, swords, axes, etc.” (p. 312) In contrast, the Bishop of Exeter in 1372 told his agents to list armed men and archers (p. 305).
From a brief read, I get the impression that the armed men tended to absorb other cavalry, and archers tended to absorb other infantry. Now that we have so many records, it seems like we need a good study of what "gen d'armes"/vir armatus meant in England and France during the HYW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Feb, 2012 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Finding depictions of armoured warriors; either in half armour or full armour, isn't that hard. Just going through my notes, here are sources I have to hand from roughly 1250 - 1400 AD:
Knight with buckler - Liturg. 198 - Choir Psalter - England c1350 - 1375
Armoured knight with sword and buckler vs. the devil - 14th c - ms 456_052ra - British Library
Soldier with half armour and buckler - Latin 757 - Milan 1385
Fully Armoured man at arms with buckler - Vadianische Sammlung 302 - Weltchronik - 137v - Swiss c1300
Multiple examples of armoured "knights" with bucklers - Royal 20 C VII - Chroniques de France ou de St Denis - Folio 133 and 137
Fully armoured knights/men at arms with bucklers - Holkham Bible Picture Book - Folio 34v, 40r
Man at arms with sword and buckler - Latin 9187 - Coutumes de Toulouse 34v - French 1300
Armoured warrior with axe and buckler - GkS 1005 fol - Flateyarbók - Iceland c1387
Fully armoured spearman wearing a sword and buckler at his belt - Français 598 - De Mulieribus Claris,142v - late 14th c
sword and buckler v sword and shield - Latin 10525 - Psautier de Saint Louis - French 1270
Foot soldiers fight with swords and bucklers in partial armour - Français 2649 - Chroniques - c1420
Armoured warrior with sword and buckler - Nouvelle acquisition latine 1673 - Tacuinum Sanitatis, 101v - Milan 1390
This is most certainly NOT an exhaustive list.
Now, we can't always tell if a fully-armoured figure is a "knight" or not, but really, what matters for our purpose is that sword and buckler is often shown a) in battle and b) with figures wearing substantial armour.
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Thu 23 Feb, 2012 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i cannot comment on the actual period authenticity of fully armoured men with sword and buckler,
but, i mentioned it in a post before, but having a buckler on hand, seems a no brainer, you dont neccesarily have to use it all the time on thwe field but if it just sits on the belt taking up almost no space,
but johan mentioned punching with bucklers, another method would be pressing the thing into someones face,
or, hell, getting in close and pressing your palm into his face and piercing him with your sword.
the aemma told me that fiore teaches the use of the arming sword without the presence of bucklers and daggers to accompany it.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Easton
Location: Surrey, UK. Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 241
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Feb, 2012 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: | i cannot comment on the actual period authenticity of fully armoured men with sword and buckler,
but, i mentioned it in a post before, but having a buckler on hand, seems a no brainer, you dont neccesarily have to use it all the time on thwe field but if it just sits on the belt taking up almost no space,
but johan mentioned punching with bucklers, another method would be pressing the thing into someones face,
or, hell, getting in close and pressing your palm into his face and piercing him with your sword.
the aemma told me that fiore teaches the use of the arming sword without the presence of bucklers and daggers to accompany it. |
More specifically Fiore says he will teach the sword without the buckler, by which we presume:
1- sword and buckler training was a common thing in his time
2- he's already taught you all the off hand techniques you need to know to apply them to bucklers, batons, hats and capes, whatever.
As to the sword & buckler in harness; its a strong, practical system for fighting in tight spaces. For example: raids in to towns, on bridges, fighting house to house. You will see those situations in a lot of illustrations mentioned above and more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Feb, 2012 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What Kel said, times three! In fact, I am going to teach a class on sword and buckler for the Fioreist, based on directly applying what Fiore shows with the sword in one hand.
Bucklers are like pistols - a good back-up for when things get ugly.
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
Mackenzie Cosens
Location: Vancouver Canada Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 238
|
| Posted: Fri 24 Feb, 2012 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Mele wrote: | What Kel said, times three! In fact, I am going to teach a class on sword and buckler for the Fioreist, based on directly applying what Fiore shows with the sword in one hand.
Bucklers are like pistols - a good back-up for when things get ugly. |
perhaps we will get some new incites when Brian Stokes presents at Fechtschule America.
image of sword and buckler France 1380 http://manuscriptminiatures.com/cy-commencent...logie/258/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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