Note that the recording is about 3½ years old…
Roland Warzecha runs the school http://www.dimicator.com/ and he publishes a fully illustrated e-book series on buckler combat.
[quote=“Alberic, post:20, topic:3146”]
the buckler primarily protects the swordhand, is used together with the sword to block,
[/quote] Exactly, that is the first an primary use.
This normaly only changes if the sword of the enemy is “secured” by the own sword. But then the bash is normally just a nice bonus when, for example, the buckler-hand is used to grab the enemys arms to throw him.
[quote=“ThomasAagaard, post:21, topic:3146”]
Note that the recording is about 3½ years old…
[/quote] Right, that is quite some time, the sword and buckler fight is still being “rediscovered” and newly interpreted. As far as i know there are only two big interpretations at the moment: Roland Warzecha (who has a very direct attack) and Herbert Schmidt (who goes out of the line and attacks from the side).
what “fight book” do Herbert Schmidt use?
Roland Warzecha study I.33. So if Schmidt use a later “book” then that might be why?
Or is it simply two different interpretations???
(later = longer swords = easier to step offline and stay in range)
[quote=“ThomasAagaard, post:23, topic:3146”]
Roland Warzecha study I.33. So if Schmidt use a later “book” then that might be why?Or is it simply two different interpretations???
[/quote]Exactly, they have Different Interpretations and the difference seem to become bigger every year.
The Problem is, that there is no information about the legs, which one is in front in the stances (and the pictures are as unclear as possible), so if they are changed, the whole dynamic and techniques are different.
I.33 does seem to show quite long swords, and Roland uses rather short swords. If people are coming up with different styles for different sword lengths, then that’s nice.
Hm, do you think?
They do not seem that different to me. The swords that are used are normally about the size and length used in the time of the i.33 and the techniques do work. And the images in the I.33 do have some problems with perspective (buckler seen from the side are massive, swords are alway shown from the side etc.)
Some centuries later there are techniques with buckler and longsword and they are quite different…
You can’t use the illustration from early stuff like I.33 or the Bayeux Tapestry to judge thing like sword length.
Using the archaeological sources we know what type of swords was in use by ca. 1300 when I.33 have made.
These are the swords that were buried with a 180cm (5’11") tall man who died or was buried in 14th century Finland. The short sword was made in 950-1050 AD, and the 120cm (47 inch) sword was made between 1050 and 1200 AD.
Sources:
http://janfast.blogspot.in/2014/01/new-info-regarding-dating-of-janakkala.html
Hello, i agree on the part that bucklers shouldn’t be starter shields like in other games. But i don’t agree on the point that bigger shields are strapped on hand. Viking, Slavic round shield were held the same way in the middle, not strapped on hand. Also when i would choose to go to a battle i would take a bigger shield, when i would go for a walk in a town i would take a buckler. Buckler was more used for duels and could be carried everywhere as it could be handing from hip. But a big shield offers more protection against arrows or blows in a battle.
But it is also more in the way 
viking shields was typically 80-105cm in diameter and have a centergrib. That is a good deal larger then the standard in most west European reenactment groups.
[quote=“ThomasAagaard, post:30, topic:3146”]
viking shields was typically 80-105cm in diameter and have a centergrib
[/quote] And they were used in complete different circumstances than a medieval battle.
I did try the big viking (or better said allemannic) roundshield and i would prefer a smaller, lighter shield every time. But that might be a personal favor.
About the sword: A good reference for swords is albion europe, they have very high quality swords and as historical accurate as possible (and also quite expensive, and they seem get more expensive every year -.-).
The I.33 in their Maestro Line has a total length of 97 cm (37,99") and a blade length 79 cm (31,26"), that is about the size that is used for the I.33 today and probably also has been used back then.
The design and specifications are by Peter Johnson, one of the best if not the best sword-smith nowadays, he has a vast (historical) knowledge of swords and sources.
At least in Europe medieval era is dated from fall of Rome, vikings were fighting in early medieval battles. How is this not a medieval battle? I doubt people were running with bucklers in a castle siege. The shield was always adjusted to the setting, round shields to shield walls, bucklers to street fighting atc…
Bucklers were not just used in “street fighting,” They were used by many soldiers in full on battles, from soldiers to knights.
in response to one of the earlier concerns about having a sharpened buckler, i would imagine that they didnt mean like a sword edge, probably more like a splitting axe or something, enough to break the skin perhaps but not enough to be a personal or everyday hazard. as to spikes, he seems to be thinking of a targe
Quite the opposite actually. I can’t think of any commander that put his least equipped and worst fighting man on the front ranks. Those farmers with flails and wooden clubs were usually only used in battle once it had been won, to kill or capture routing people. The primary purpose of the poorest in an army were actually mainly not concerned with battle but every other thing an army needed to keep moving or manual labor involved in building your own fortification and ruining that of the enemy.
2 Likes
bucklers had spikes on them
No not a targe, a buckler,
http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm#_ftnref3
Plenty examples of them with “spikes/pykes” on them, references, drawings, even a surviving example from the Jamestown settlement.
You can see the one they discovered in Jamestown here:
http://apva.org/rediscovery/page.php?page_id=166
I didn’t mention that they were only for street fighting. They were really good for such situations also carrying a huge shield was bothersome. The shield usage depends on situation. If we imagine a warrior with no armor that goes against archers what shield will he use a buckler or a pavise? I just wanted to say neither smaller nor bigger is better as they are suited for different situations. But i personally would take a larger shield in unarmored combat my opponent can take buckler if he wants. Btw to go against a knight with a buckler and sword is somewhat suicidal, especially if he is using a poleaxe.
Jamestown = way later than the early 15th century = pretty irrelevant.
I havn’t done any sort of statistics on it, but based on illustrations I do believe that most bucklers did not have spikes… since it was an item you would wear hanging from you belt, and any sort of spikes would at the least be unpractical and at worst dangerous to other people…
The topic of shields, is complicated because there are thousands of forms and uses