[Brian Hunt]

Didn't expect to see my name come up in a thread on a forum I only occasionally read. First let me counter a little bit of Lafayettes statement and say I independently came up with a similar (not the same) set of principles and guards to those researched by Stephen Hand before the publication of his first Spada article. I have long used similar wards or guards to two of the three he first wrote about. Stephen Hand termed them "Outside" and "Medium", I used to call them "Open" and "Closed" positions. I always found the "Open" position to be the best starting position to fight a single opponent and "Closed" to be good for group combat or to "slam the door" on your opponent while engaged in single combat. The place where I have disagreed with Stephen in the past has been over the use of what he calls the "Inside" ward and he and I have discussed it in the past on another forum awhile ago. As a summary, I feel that the "Inside" ward should never be used as a static guard and at best is something you may use to pass through for a bind or a press. I also feel that the "Inside" ward really only works well with a center held shield, and not so well with a shield that is strapped to your arm such as a rotella or a heater. One of the major and important differences between Stephen's research and my own conclusions are that his ideas came out of historical documents and artwork (good for him!), my conclusions originally came from trial and error - a much less respectable way to arrive at a system if you are looking for a historical basis for your conclusions (when I started 20 years ago I had no idea of the existence of the manuals I now research and study although I ran into a reprint of Capo Ferro that I couldn't read at the time so I could only look at the pretty pictures and try to extrapolate from them). I have since looked for validation and proof in the manuals and historical artwork for a basis of my previous experimentation and have seen a large number of my original conclusions to be validated in manuals such as the I.33, Digrassi, Capo Ferro, Marrozo, Paulus Hector Mair, etc. However, I currently have too many other projects in the works to give sword and shield the complete research time necessary before an article could ever be written about my own conclusions (maybe in the future after I get other projects wrapped up).

Both of Stephen Hand's article's on sword and shield are interesting and worth the purchase of Spada I and II. They are worth reading, he reaches interesting conclusions, a large number of which I do agree with. I still find duelling shields to be an odd place to look to for ideas on how to fight with smaller shields (something he has been given way too much grief over in the past), but I certainly agree with him that the later 15th and 16th century works on shield use are very similar to artwork of the past and may come out of a long tradition of how to use a sword and shield. I also agree that a deeply curved shield is a much more passive defense than a much flatter, or even a flat shield. As I often say, a shield or buckler is a fine weapon and one of the best knuckle dusters I have ever found. You can attack with it, defend with it, bind with it, press with it, etc., much like you can with a sword. While a shield may not cut you, it can certainly cause a great deal of harm if used correctly.

All the best.

Brian Hunt

ARMA member
GFS

www.paulushectormair.com

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Ah, that's just the sort of thing I was looking for, though I must admit it's quite unexpected!

[Stephen Hand]

Dear Brian,

Thanks for the positive comments. Regarding coming on guard in the Inside Ward, here is what I wrote in my Spada II paper,

"A minor point in the previous paper was the supposition that the Inside Ward shown in Talhoffer could be adopted as a starting position in a fight. I no longer believe this to be true. There is no evidence in Talhoffer of the Inside Ward being used as a starting position in a fight, nor in the rotella systems of Agrippa and Di Grassi that were consulted in the original paper. The idea was speculative and was presented as such. Continued testing in bouting found coming on guard in the Inside Ward to be of limited use and vulnerable to feints. Therefore, in the absence of any positive evidence that it was done, it is safer to assume that it was not." (p. 51)

I find that if you've moved to Inside Ward and the fight is continuing that the techniques I showed in the Spada I paper from Inside Ward are valid and I use them. The most mechanically sound way to get from Inside Ward back to Outside Ward is by slope pacing forward and right with the right foot (or indeed back and left with the left) and rotating the shield as appropriate. However, I would now never start a fight in Inside Ward for the reasons expressed above.

Cheers
Stephen

[Brian Hunt]

Hi Stephen,

Your Welcome. I always try to give a positive, constructive criticism when discussing other peoples research and interpretations, even when I disagree with some of their conclusions. That is the way that I would like people to discuss any research I may publish, so I always try to give the same curtesy to others.

As for your new conclusions on the inside ward from your second article, I agree with you on the limited possibilities that the inside ward presents. I have often felt that what may look like an inside ward in some of the artwork of the day may actually be a middle ward with the left shoulder forward and the torso turned to the right. (please note that I am using your definitions for the sake of clarity). However, the discussion of fighting tactics is a little off topic for this section of the forum, so I will leave things as they lie. If you would like to discuss things further, maybe we should start a new thread in the off topic section.

Back on topic, in Las Vegas at the antique arms show earlier this year, I got to handle Albion's prototype for their I.33 sword. This has a great balance and will be a perfect blunt for anyone studying the I.33 or any other form of sword and buckler. Although I think that a large number of the sword and buckler techniques found in the manuals have a strong base in the I.33 and frequently use the same wards and techniques found therein. Therefore anyone studying sword and buckler will find that a sword good for the I.33 is also good for later Master's versions of sword and buckler combat. Another good sword for sword and buckler would be a good cut and thrust sword. I have seen evidence that a cut and thrust style sword may also have been used in the 16th century with a form of I.33 type fencing. With that said, I have one of Albion's I.33 swords on order and I am looking forward to when they actually ship it.

all the best.

Brian Hunt
ARMA Member
GFS

www.paulushectormair.com

[David Evans]

I had the chance to lay my hands on a copy of the Wallace collection armour catalogue and ended up having to email David Edge and Tobias Capwell on the subject of Bucklers, targets and rondaces. Tobias is convinced that there is NO period defination of a buckler or target. A buckler ISN'T a small shield, the examples listed in the Wallace can be up to 22" across with arm grips or a single hand grip. Our modern defination doesn't fit the real world.

As to I.33 and it's place in the medevial world. I just simply do not buy the idea that I.33, or any of the fightbooks into the 16th Century, are NOT based on a style used for warfare. It just doesn't seem to make any sense, even more so when you consider the opening verses in the longsword style under Ringeck et al. I don't buy a fencing style taught for one to one combat and a massed warfare style. That simply doesn't make any sense to me. My closest example to me is the way I have been taught to shoot in the Armed Forces. From the simplest training, learning to group consistently at a fixed range, to applying the taught skills whilst moving I have been taught one way to shoot. There has never been any other way to shoot. Based on this I can't see someone spending a prolonged period of time learning to fight with sword and buckler, only to not bother when engaged in a massed brawl.

[Stephen Hand]

Dear David,

While I don't know of any period definition of what was a buckler and what was a target, historical fencing manuals are fairly consistent in how they illustrate these items. With the exception of the square targets shown in some manuals, bucklers are fairly consistently centre grip shields approximately a foot in diameter while targets are equally consistently strapped shields two to two and a half feet in diameter.

In any case, when studying the system of a particular master you should use the tools described or shown by that master. If there are 22" bucklers it's irrelevant to my study of the I.33 system except perhaps at an advanced level where we might consider how the system would enable us to defend ourselves against someone armed in a different fashion.

Cheers
Stephen

[David Evans]

Stephen.

I shouldn't write late at night and quickly! The Wallace Collection's supply of Bucklers and targets are mostly 16th Century in origin. I'd emailed Tobias because I couldn't see a single factor that sseparatedbucklers from targets. Both could be metal or leather & wood, both could have single hand grips or arm grips. Both could be up to 24" across in size. I think I've posted picturers from the Wallace of one of their targets here before, showing a single hand grip, somewhat similar to Viking shields, dated 1560 of Italian origin. Tobias's viewpoint is that the 19th Century collectors who started naming things confused the issue for us. He doesn't believe that the period users of the terms, buckler and target, applied them in a consistent manner.

I suspect that therefore, where is there is no clear pictural evidence, it would tricky to say that because a primary source says buckler it means a small 12" across shield. Unless there is a description of the item in question you'd have to be wary of what style of shield the author means. In a fightboook this should be fairly easy, try out the techiques taught and see what happens!

[Stephen Hand]

But David my point was that the historical fencing manuals DO illustrate bucklers and targets and ARE consistent in how they depict them. Bucklers are fairly consistently depicted as centre grip shields of approximately 12 inches in diameter while targets (except for the square targets sometimes mentioned) are just as consistently strapped shields of 2-2.5 foot diameter. So in this important group of sources at least, period users are quite consistent in how they applied the names.

I would be asking who named the items in the Wallace Collection.

Cheers
Stephen

[David Evans]

Stephen,

Had an odd thought last night. Various people in the Arms & Armour Museum world are fairly convinced that 19th Century collectors shagged up the whole " This is a......" naming thing. This makes it somewhat difficult to be sure of the subject without pictural proof, i.e. I.33 clearly shows a small shield and talks of bucklers. Result....


So. Could it be that any shield that is meant to be held by a single hand grip placed within the centre of the back of the shield was refered to as a Buckler by period users and any shield that is strapped to the arms is everything else?

Or, Is it that shields held centrally by a single hand grip and under a given size are bucklers, anything larger is a target/Rondace etc..?


I know that Fight books from the various sources frequently show very clearly in woodcuts what they're talking about. But not all sources carry useful pictures.

[Brian Hunt]

Hi David,

quick correction, the MS I.33 uses the world "schilt" which translates as "shield", not buckler.

all the best.

Brian Hunt.

ARMA member
GFS

www.paulushectormair.com

[Elling Polden]

The term Buckler is derived from "bukel" or bulge, the old germanic word for bulge, or shield boss.
In order of terminology, a buckler is a sub-class of shield. However, since most other bossed shields where largely phased ou by the 13th century, the word probably became the name of a specific kind of shield, as period sources distinguish between shields and bucklers, at least in scandinavia.

[M. Eversberg II]

Hey, I have not posted in a while, but here I am again.

Thanks for being a big help, even with what must have been asked many times before.

I have managed to get myself an unused Hanwei practical one handed sword, which was recommended here, from eBay.

I was wondering if any one here had a preferred company they would recommend for a buckler? I am currently looking at Merc's Tailor, but I'm open to suggestions.

M.