Comparing I.33 to Bolognese: Commentary on Schildwache Potsdam’s Video

Two popular sources for sword and buckler techniques in HEMA are I.33 and the Bolognese sources such as Manciolino and Marazzo. Martin of Schildwache Potsdam produced a fantastic high-level view comparing the philosophy of the two systems and highlighted their similarities and some of their differences. Today, we will be discussing Martin’s analysis and providing some additional commentary on his video which can be found below.

​Summary of Martin’s Analysis

Martin highlights that both systems use starting positions and actions to counter those positions. Both systems also contain what the Bolognese sources define as the Gioco Stretto or narrow plays that utilize binding actions to strike at the opponent. However, the two systems differ because I.33 is hyper-focused on the techniques of the narrow play. At the same time, the Bolognese sources expand more into the Gioco Largo or wide plays where the swords do not engage in the bind and the sword and buckler are kept separated primarily. Martin then explains that the Bolognese counter to a I.33 fencer (or a fencer that only fights in the narrow play) is to pretend to engage in the narrow play while then hitting them with an action from the wide play. It is also advised to counter a wide play fencer by pretending to fight from the wide play and then to strike with an action from the narrow play.
​
Martin generally presents I.33 and the Bolognese sources as similar sword and buckler systems by describing the two as Posture and Counter-Posture systems. He acknowledges that the systems differ in the actions used to hit the opponent without getting hit. Both systems are bound by the intent to not be struck by the opponent and both acknowledge the value of the bind in word and buckler combat.

​Additional Similarities Between I.33 and Bolognese Sword and Buckler

In general, I.33 is a collection of narrow plays used to counter the wards which are excellent positions for executing wide play actions as defined in the Bolognese system. A I.33 fencer intends to use the obsessio or sieges to force their opponent to either retreat or bind. Martin’s video expands on the Bolognese advice that the fencer who controls the narrow play controls the engagement against the fencer who only uses the wide play. This is the root of the I.33 system, where the obsessio and binding actions dictate the fight and also something both systems agree on.
​
I.33 even includes similar advice on using wide play actions to counter the narrow play. In the introductory plays to countering the second ward in I.33, both fencers bind with their blades high. The play starts with one fencer in the second ward where their sword is above their sword shoulder. The opponent then counters with a schutzen or protection which is then bound against by the fencer that started in the ward. This bind can occur from the fencer attacking into the schutzen or by placing their sword into the bind.

From this position, the text in I.33 states that a fencer can deliver an attack to the left or right side of the opponent or deliver the tread-through attack of I.33. Interestingly, I.33 states that the attack to the left is the common fencer action while the priest and his students commonly perform the attack to the right.
​
Attacking from the bind like this without the assistance of a shield-strike is a similar piece of advice that we see in the Bolognese system, which advises entering the narrow fight and then striking with a wide play action. Admittedly, the Bolognese system has more wide play actions that can be performed from this bind than I.33, but striking someone from the bind  is prevalent in both sources. I.33 even goes as far as having a preferred strike in this scenario.

​Additional Differences Between I.33 and Bolognese Sword and Buckler

Another topic that Martin touched on in his video is the use of tempo and distance to strike at the opponent. Tempo highlights one of the bigger differences between the two systems. In I.33, the plays are presented in almost a chess-like manner where the fencers take turns performing actions. Even in the I.33 plays that include one fencer not responding to an action, this produces a delay or a passed tempo that the opponent can capitalize on.
​
In contrast, Manciolino and Marazzo build tempo exploitation into their systems. Their systems utilize feints and other delaying actions to create openings. However, this difference in the use of techniques like feints is not exclusive to I.33 and Bolognese sword and buckler. Other sources include discussions on feints, categorizing them as wasted actions that leave the fencer vulnerable to attacks. So the fact that two sword and buckler fencers differing on their opinions on technique is not unique to these sources.

Closing Thoughts

Martin did an excellent job explaining the similarities and some of the differences between the two systems. I thoroughly enjoyed his analysis of the sword and buckler systems. What I find most interesting is how similar the two systems can be even at a deeper level like when specific plays can be used as evidence of the broader advice of the other system. One system may focus on the narrow plays or wide plays verses the other but both systems feature the concept of these two types of fighting styles with the sword and bucker.
​
There is no doubt that these are different systems given the years separated and regional differences. However, by cross-referencing them we can start to identify universal truths about the sword and buckler fight as a whole.

Bonus Analysis of Similarities

At my last I.33 workshop, I had the opportunity to discuss I.33 and Bolognese sources with Will Philips of the Dallas Renaissance Sword Guild. He pointed out that I had misrepresented the Bolognese sword and buckler by over-emphasizing the use of attacks from what I.33 would consider wards. He also pointed out the narrow plays and the prevalence of those techniques in the Bolognese sources. His and I’s discussion led me to doing additional research into Marazzo which ultimately became the foundation of this post.

Thank you to Will and all the other HEMA scholars doing research and trading notes to better refine our understanding of historical fencing!