Today, we have an excellent opportunity to showcase another guest writer. Ryan Hancock heads the longsword curriculum at Vier Blössen Historical Fencing. They also actively practice Meyer's rapier system and, of course, sword and buckler. Join us today as Ryan provides a complete interpretation of the Andre Lignitzer sword and buckler techniques. We hope this interpretation helps guide you in your sword and buckler studies!

​Lignitzer's sword and buckler is a sword-with-buckler system that consists of six short plays, each of which has one-to-one counterparts within many of the early German longsword manuscripts. I interpret these plays as sword-with-buckler plays rather than sword-and-buckler plays, meaning that a buckler isn't mandatory for the success of these actions but acts as an aide to ensure the safety of the actor.

During the time period when the Lignitzer plays were produced, arming swords were beginning to become less common as a popular sidearm and dueling weapon. In contrast, longswords and messers were becoming more and more fashionable. As such I don't think that an arming sword is mandatory to perform these actions; in fact, many of our artistic sources of the time depict messers, falchions, arming swords, and even longswords being used with bucklers.

Note that this play can be done from both sides regardless if you're left or right-handed, but for brevity's sake, I am just going to describe it from the right side.
​

1. Here, we start with a cut from below, starting on the right side.
2. If your opponent strikes from above toward your left then rotate the long edge of your sword into the cut and with a step bring your sword and buckler together in an ox -esc position to defend the blow.
3. Then thrust or cut to their head behind their sword and buckler while your buckler covers.
4. If they move their buckler out to your right to defend themselves, then transfer your cut under their buckler and strike their leg.

This is another play that can be done from both sides, but in my experience, it works better when done from your non-dominant side—in my case, the left.
​

1. Here we have another cut from below directed against an opponent's strike from above but this time your sword should make contact with theirs with the short edge and should direct their blow out to the side all the while making a step out off the line with your left foot.
2. Next, quickly strike from above to the opening created toward the head.
3. The aforementioned strike will most likely not land, but it does well to entice your opponent to move their sword and buckler toward your left. You can then dip your point below their weapons and thrust to the face on the opposite side while moving your buckler to cover theirs.
4. If they move their buckler to cover the thrust, the momentum from that pushing motion can be used to cut toward the right leg instead.

This play I see as working best against a fighter who prefers to wait and react against your initial attack.
​

1. You start by performing a thrust from your upper right side, with a step with the right foot, over their buckler arm.
2. Don’t commit to the thrust too hard because once they begin to respond dip the point of your sword down circle through to the otherside of their buckler. Ending with a thrust to their body with the long edge of your sword facing up and your sword a buckler arms crossed.
3. If they parry this thrust in time, then redirect it to a cut to the right leg.

When studying sources for historical fencing, we often come across similar techniques between two separate sources. For example, Meyer’s cross has overlapping cuts with Henry Angelo’s sabre cut diagram. These comparisons can be useful when learning and interpreting techniques because many techniques of the sword are grounded in the simple application of the weapon and its limitations.

While it is obvious that my favorite source to study is I.33, I also have a enthusiasm towards Fiore and his system. So today, we will be exploring the similarities and differences that can be found between Fiore’s Long Tail Guard and I.33’s fifth ward. Through this exploration, I hope to better contextualize fifth ward and its use in sword and buckler combat. However, first, there is a disclaimer we must cover.

While similar techniques can be helpful when interpreting other techniques from other systems, it must also be done with a healthy dose of skepticism. Comparing techniques that are not quite the same can lead to misinterpretations of techniques. Furthermore, culture and context can also dramatically impact the use of a specific technique. All of these factors must be considered when comparing techniques of different sources.

That being said, I.33 states that “all combatants, or all men holding a sword in hand, even if they are ignorant of the art of combat, use these seven wards…” The manuscript does not make a distinction between sword and buckler and, instead, chooses to state that all fencers use the seven wards. With this general statement being made, to better understand I.33, we can analyze other sources’ guards to see which ward it fits into in I.33’s descriptions. 

When visually inspecting the two sword positions, there are a number of differences largely brought on by the type of swords being used. For example, because Fiore uses a longsword, he has both hands on the sword. This is not something I.33 has to worry about, which also opens up the shoulders of the fencer so they are not as pulled to the sword side as Fiore shows. This leads to Fiore’s long tail guard to be shown with the left shoulder leading more than I.33’s fifth ward shows. Finally, I.33’s sword position is slightly angled, while Fiore’s sword extends straight from the wrist.
​
There are some similarities in the art. For example, both appear to have their left leg forward with their sword low to the right side. Both fencers are also shown on the balls of their feet, particularly their right foot, which is kept back with the sword. However, while the images are not perfectly similar, the manuscripts’ texts show a large overlap between these positions and the techniques they perform.

In Fiore’s Getty manuscript, he introduces the Tail Guard and its applications. In the manuscript, he states, “This is the Long Tail Guard that extends behind you down to the ground. She can attack with a thrust, and can also move forwards to cover and strike. And if she passes forward while striking downwards she can easily enter the Narrow Game. This is a good guard to wait in, because you can quickly transition from it into other guards.”

In the first pages of I.33, the text describes fifth ward as “give the fifth to the right side” while showing the sword positioned back. Unfortunately, due to damage to the manuscript, the introduction image of fifth ward has largely been lost but later images of the ward are shown in the manuscript. In a later section of the manuscript, the actions from fifth are expanded on when the text states that “the one standing in the guard has only two things to do: first, he can deliver a thrust; second, he can deliver a blow, dividing the shield and sword.”
​
From these descriptions, it appears that both I.33 and Fiore agree that this position where the sword is back and to the right both can deliver a thrust. Furthermore, the strike to separate the sword and shield in I.33 is also a downward strike similar to the cut Fiore describes. If we generalize Fiore’s concepts of covers to be positions the sword can be moved to in order to cover lines of attack, then being able to move into sieges from the fifth ward also aligns with the techniques Fiore uses from long tail guard.

Based on the similarities defined by the manuscripts, it seems reasonable to assume that the author of I.33 would consider the long tail guard a form of a fifth ward. Both positions keep the word low on the dominant-hand side of the fencer. Both positions thrust or deliver high cuts, and both positions can cover lines of attack to secure openings to exploit while sword fighting. 

By performing an analysis like this, we can better understand the technique I.33 is trying to communicate in its two-dimensional art style. While comparing the images of Fiore’s Getty manuscript and I.33 can give us a vague resemblance of the two sword positions being similar, the text certainly links the two positions. 
​
Is analysis like this always clean? No, and it certainly can come with some risks of misinterpretations. However, using similarities and identifying differences, we can move closer to fully understanding I.33 and its sword and buckler system.

This week, I had the wonderful opportunity to present a research paper at the Saint Louis University History Symposium. My paper was on clerical combatants of the thirteenth century and how they relate to I.33. It explored clerical involvement in judicial duels and warfare while also highlighting the duality of the imperial law and culture of the Holy Roman Empire and the papal law of the Vatican.

Fortunately, the university graciously let me record my presentation and share my research with you! So, without further ado, let's dive into Clerical Combatants of the Thirteenth Century!

​The thirteenth century was a time fraught with strife that saw numerous factions, particularly the Roman Catholic Papacy, partake in armed conflict. The Holy Roman Empire featured numerous landowning clerics and religious institutions arming themselves and participating in conflicts over land, power, influence, and matters of faith. Clerical combatants required training which led to the creation of instructional manuscripts such as Fecht 1. This paper will explore the world surrounding thirteenth century clerical combatants, particularly in the Holy Roman Empire, to provide more historical, social, and cultural context to better understand why an instructional manuscript on sword fighting may have been created in the early fourteenth century by the clergy.

Fecht 1 was produced around the early fourteenth century and contains a systematic approach to the use of a sword paired with a buckler, a small shield held in with a center-grip of generally no more than 20 inches. This weapon pairing was common between the thirteenth century and sixteenth century for personal defense and was seen in sporting, personal-defense, and battlefield application. the written text of Fecht 1 primarily contain Latin vocabulary supported by German terminology in fencing techniques, highlighting the German origins of the manuscript. The images in the manuscript depict a priest, a scholar, and a female fencer named Walpurgis, as characters to assist in the instruction of the techniques with the sword and the buckler. 

Unfortunately, the author of the manuscript is unknown. Fecht 1 references someone named Lutegerus in one verse but not in a definitive enough way to indicate that they are the swordsman behind the manuscript. Modern scholars of Fecht 1 such as Jeffrey Forgeng suggest that a community of secular clerics were the origin of this manuscript based on the inclusion of a clerical character in civilian clothing and the inclusion of a female fencer (Forgeng, Origin, 2018). The manuscript was also looted from a monastery in the mid-sixteenth century by Johannes Herbart von Würzburg during the Franconian Campaigns of Albrecht Ⅱ which possibly indicates a Franconian monastic origin.

Fecht 1 refers to clerici as a source for advanced techniques performed compared to common techniques which provides further compelling evidence of clerical origins of the system presented in the manuscript. The manuscript is written as a set of instructions that indicates what a fencer should do if they are taught by the priest, a character of the manuscript. Fecht 1 also makes a point to separate the ordinary fencer from the one trained by the priest to indicate where specific techniques are being performed instead of what is perceived to be common techniques. 

Fecht 1 further elaborates on the concept of advanced techniques compared to common techniques in the opening pages stating, “These seven parts are used by ordinary combatants; the cleric holds the opposite, and Luitger holds the middle” (Royal Armouries, 1300-1320). According to the manuscript, the seven parts likely refer to the seven custodia or guards that all fencers use. The opposite likely refers to the obsessio, specific techniques used to counter the common fencers. The middle is held by Luitger may be a blending of both the common and the clerical techniques.

 Of note is the claim that the cleric holds the opposite. This frames what the manuscript separates as special techniques owned by the cleric, designed to oppose those practiced by the common fencer. As with many martial arts, it is unlikely these techniques were invented in a vacuum. Instead, these methods were likely learned and passed down from previous generations of swordsmen, and formally recorded in Fecht 1. 
​
It is not clear whether Fecht 1 is capturing techniques for self-defense, judicial dueling, or larger conflict due to the techniques being demonstrated between a priest and his students. However, the lethal intent of the technique is evident in the manuscript. Numerous techniques in the manuscript include the use of a thrust which is particularly deadly. Even in later centuries with more advanced medical practices, surgeons documented the lethality of thrusts and the difficulty in preventing death when fencers received such wounds (Ravaton, 1768). Further evidence on the manuscript’s lethal intent can be found in advice such as “you should enter with a thrust without mercy” which indicates that the technique is executed without mercy for their opponent (Royal Armouries, 1300-1320). This would support the use of Fecht 1’s techniques with varying degrees of success in lethal engagements such as trial by combat, self-defense, and war.

While Fecht 1 stands out as being the earliest known manuscript about instructional martial arts, it is just one manuscript of a much larger collection of fechtbücher. Other Germanic examples such as the MS 3227a written in the late fourteenth to early fifteenth century also include instructions on the use of weapons similarly to Fecht 1(Liechtenauer, Döbringer, Marcus, & Graecus, 1400s). One common source of Germanic fechtbücher comes from the tradition of trial by combat. (Marsden, 2016). However, this form of combat and the church’s involvement was contested between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy.

The Sachsenspiegal was an influential German law book first written around 1220 and widely distributed across the Holy Roman Empire throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth Century (Library of Congress, 2023). It described a judicial duel format in which the participants could wear any amount of linen and leather while leaving their feet and head bare in the front. The weapons they were allowed to use included a sword and a round shield made of leather or wood similarly to what is depicted in Fecht 1 (Wolfenbüttel, 1358-62). However, while Germans were partaking in this practice, clerics has another source of regulations to manage.
Clerical reforms of the late twelfth century aimed at reigning in clerics, their conduct, and their involvement with secular judges. A canon of The Third Lateran Council in 1179 declared that a cleric should not become a legal advocate in matters before a secular judge, “unless they happen to be defending their own case or that of their church, or acting on behalf of the helpless who cannot conduct their own cases” (Council Fathers, 1179). This canon would create an environment that would allow clerics to be involved with trial by combat for their own defense, defense of the church, or helping one that cannot conduct their own defense. However, in the early thirteenth century, the Papacy formally established their position on the matter of trial by combat in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. The eighteenth constitution from the Fourth Lateran Council that stated “Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood” (Council Fathers, 1215). This constitution would be in direct conflict to the secular laws regarding trial by combat and clerical participation with such judicial rulings. However, the canon laws of the third and fourth Lateran Councils had mixed results on reducing German clerics’ involvement with trial by combat. 

Shortly after the Fourth Lateran Council’s conclusion, a duel took place in the cathedral courtyard of Cologne witnessed by the count, the bishop, and other clerical dignitaries. (Kellett, 2012). Another trial by combat occurred in 1251 in Gent which occurred in the courtyard of St. Bavo’s Cathedral which was the seat of the diocese at the time (Kellett, 2012). Furthermore, in Hans Talhoffer’s 1459 CE manuscript, he describes conditions where one must defend their honor in a duel (Talhoffer, 1459). Most noteworthy is Talhoffer’s inclusion of techniques for the Franconian, a group largely governed by a Prince-Bishop, tradition of mace and club dueling (Elema, 2019). Based on Talhoffer’s work, it would seem that some Prince-Bishoprics were still allowing forms of trial by combat which could create an environment where the clergy could find themselves in judicial duels.

 While Fecht 1 being specifically intended for judicial dueling has been disputed, there is no doubt that a system instructing a combatant on specific techniques for combat against one other opponent with a like weapon would be a usable system for judicial combat. This is further highlighted by the relation of Fecht 1’s instruction of the sword and the buckler and the description of a common dueling format in the Sachsenspiegal. Regardless of Fecht 1’s deliberate use case for trial by combat, it is not the only manuscript connecting the clergy to the instruction of martial arts.
​
In later centuries after the creation of Fecht 1, there are numerous clergy members associated to other traditions in swordsmanship. The Lichtenauer tradition, a Germanic fencing system dating back to the early fourteenth century, features a fencing masters named Hanko Döbringer who is said to be a priest (Cod.HS.3227a, 1389). Later in 1491, a priest by the name of Hans Leckuchner would produce a manuscript involving the use of a messer (Lekuchner, 1491). Like many manuscripts of the German Fechtbuch tradition, the techniques involve fencers dueling like what is seen in Fecht 1. While the weapons are different, the fact that clerics of the Holy Roman Empire were still involved with swordsmanship in later centuries adds credibility to the idea that Fecht 1 was just one example of techniques learned clerical combatants. However, clerical association to combat was not relegated to just the academic setting of fechtbucher.

The clergy’s involvement in war and conflict was nothing new in the time of Fecht 1’s creation. Clerical combatants had been participants in war throughout the centuries prior to the creation of Fecht 1 including famously Bishop Odo of Bayeux in the Bayeux Tapestry (Tapestry, Eleventh Century). However, what was new in the thirteenth century was the church’s codification of warfare and self-defense.

The twelfth century saw the church embracing new philosophies regarding Christianity and its relation to self-defense and justified warfare. The Decretum Gratiani compiled by Gratian made the case that the right to self-defense was grounded in natural law while the right to wage war was grounded in the law of nations (Law Explorer, 2015). By the thirteenth century, the church’s acceptance of self-defense and just war was solidified by the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX which emphasized the importance of the Decretum Gratiani within the papacy (Reno, 2011)
​
This, along with the Fourth Lateran Council's call for new crusades, highlights the church's institutionalization of combat and warfare in the thirteenth century. Armed conflict is one of the potential use case for Fecht 1 given how common the pairing of a sword and a buckler was in the thirteenth and fourteenth century. It is just as likely that the environment of church-sponsored violence emphasized the need for the clergy to defend themselves. Furthermore, some clergy found themselves in unique situations to lead armies and function as nobility alongside their churchly duties.

​By the 1300s, centuries had passed where bishops and abbots were seen on the battlefield in the service of royal armies (Friend, 2015). This site was not unique to Germanic kingdoms either. However, the Prince-Bishoprics involvement in the Holy Roman Empire’s political struggles gave many of the Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire military obligations, whether for imperial service or for protecting and expanding their own borders. 

Furthermore, with the military activity seen by the heads of both spiritual jurisdiction and temporal authority of their territories, it is even possible that bishops bolstered their knightly ranks by inducting their knights into minor clerical orders to serve both administrative duties and military duties in their prince-bishoprics. While not German, one of the most famous knights who held minor clerical orders was Jacques le Gris of the infamous Last Duel of 1386 (Jager, 2004). A Prince-Bishop’s control of the land and early universities provided a plethora of ways to draw from clerical sources to maintain their control over their land. Conflicts such as peasant uprisings, and the defense or expansion of territory required military force, which prince-bishops had to manage just as much as any other feudal lord of the century (Arnold, 1989). 

For example, In 1213, a battle between the forces of Henry, duke of Brabant and Hugh of Pierrepoint, bishop of Liege, took place over a land dispute brought on by the passing of a noble without a son (Richard, 2000). Hugh of Pierrepoint rallied his army and his allies to counter a raid conducted by the duke of Brabant which resulted in the bishop successfully repelling the raid and protecting his land. After the battle was won and the Brabant dukes army was fleeing, the bishop’s army pursued, killing many while the wounded were mutilated and no quarter was given (Schnerb, 2010). 
​
Clerics of the thirteenth century were involved in more than just territorial disputes for their Prince-Bishoprics. Clerics participated in warfare in Padua, an Italian city part of the Holy Roman Empire at the time, during a dispute between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy. In 1237, Padua was captured by Ezelino III Da Romano in the name of the emperor and for twenty years, ruled over with an iron fist. 1257, lord Gregorio, the patriarch of the Holy See of Aquileia and sponsored by Pope Alexander III, led part of the army to siege Padua and liberate the city from Ezelino III Da Romano (Patavino, 1262). In this example, bishops (or the higher-ranking Patriarch) are called upon by the church to partake in military actions against other nobles in the Holy Roman Empire. This not only highlights the value that the church places on clerical combatants, but also the church’s investment in the affairs of the Holy Roman Empire that results in armed conflict.

If conflict at home was not concerning enough for the thirteenth century imperial clergy, numerous crusades occurred throughout the thirteenth century. This gave clerics opportunities to partake in military roles with the rise of religious military orders as well as service to their local nobility. It also created the situation where clerics may find themselves in military conflict even if they were in traditionally non-combat roles such as Papal Legates.
​
Non-clerical individuals in the thirteenth century also found themselves with a unique path to earning the title of cleric. Religious Military Orders were sponsored by the church, which granted clerical status to individuals of these orders. While many of these orders started with humble beginnings, like protecting pilgrims on their way to the Holy Land or establishing hospitals, their use as a military force was quickly recognized as a helpful tool for medieval Christendom. Members of the Holy Roman Empire need not look further than the Teutonic Order.

In March of 1198, the Papacy formally recognized the Fratres Domus Hospitalis Sancae Mariae (Brethren of the German Hospital of St Mary), which would later be known as the Teutonic Order (Nicolle, 2007). By 1221, they were officially recognized as an independent internal order. he largely German religious, military order saw combat ranging from the Crusades to the Baltic regions in the thirteenth Century. The order even established an independent kingdom in the conquered Baltic region for a time with its unique style of rule in the region. The order was led by a council-elected Hochmeister (Grand Master), with provinces governed by lower-level landmeisters (Cartwright, 2018). Generally, the Ritter (Knights) came from aristocratic German families, while German settlers were allowed to join the order but typically served as priests or half-brethren (halb-brüder) (Cartwright, 2018). 

One major areas of conflict the Teutonic Order participated in during the thirteenth Century were the Baltic Crusades. These Crusades, taking place between the 12th and 15th centuries, aimed at converting non-Christians in Prussia, Livonia (modern Estonia) and Lithuania to Christianity while also reducing the number of raids into Holy Roman Empire territory. 

Much of the Baltic Campaigns military activity can be found in the Rhyme Chronicle of Livonia, written around the end of the thirteenth Century by an anonymous author likely associated with the Teutonic Order (The Rhyme Chronicle of Livonia, Late 13th Century). The manuscript collects numerous accounts of war from sieges to raids to battles that all took place in the thirteenth Century during this campaign. One example of a Baltic Crusades battle took place In 1242 where the Teutonic Order received one of their greatest losses in the Baltic Crusades. The Ice Slaughter, taking place on the frozen Lake Peipus, featured two fairly even armies with the Bishop of Dorpat contributing around 300 knights and 1,000 Estonians to the Teutonic Order (Heath, 1989). The Russians ultimately prevailed with more than 400 Germans killed though the Rhyme Chronicle of Livonia estimates higher losses (Heath, 1989).

This paper does not intend to conclude that Fecht 1 originates from a Prince-Bishop or a military order like the Teutonic Knights. While the manuscript was looted from a Franconian monastery in the 16th Century, there is no definitive evidence to link it to the prince-bishopric of Franconia (Forgeng, History of the Manuscript, 2018). Furthermore, the clothing style in the manuscript matches neither the knightly garb nor the half-brethren garb of the Teutonic Order. It also does not include the insignia of prince-bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire.
​
Instead, this paper aims to show that Fecht 1is a byproduct of the relation between the clergy and conflict in the thirteenth century. From studying the history of clerical combatants of the Holy Roman Empire, many clerics, especially those with aspirations of knightly ranks, would need martial training. Dr. Forgeng’s hypothesis that the manuscript originates from secular clerics associated with a cathedral does seem plausible. If the origins of the Fecht 1 techniques are clerical, then the methods that are captured in Fecht 1 likely derive from personal experiences of clerical combatants from the thirteenth Century. It is also possible that the techniques from Fecht 1 originated came from other martial combat of the time and were purchased through employment or enrollment with a cathedral-like establishment to better train the future clerical combatants of the fourteenth century.

Cod.HS.3227a. (1389). (D. Lindholm, Trans.) Retrieved from https://www.hroarr.com/manuals/liechtenauer/Dobringer_A5_sidebyside.pdf

Council Fathers. (1179). Third Lateran Council. (P. E. Online, Trans.) Retrieved from Papal Encyclicals: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum11.htm
​
Council Fathers. (1215). Fourth Lateran Council. Retrieved from Papal Encyclicals Online: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm#66

Dresden, S. S. (1350). Dresdner Sachsenspiegel. Retrieved from http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id272362328

Gunterrodt, H. v. (1579). De Veris Principiis Artis Dimicatoriae. Wittemberg: Matthaeus Welack.

II, F. (1231). Frederick II: Statute in Favor of the Princes, 1231. Retrieved from Fordham University: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/fred2-princes.asp

Lekuchner, H. (1491). The Art of Swordsmanship. (J. L. Forgeng, Trans.)

Liechtenauer, J., Döbringer, H., Marcus, & Graecus. (1400s). Hs 3227 a. Retrieved from https://dlib.gnm.de/item/Hs3227a/html

Patavino, R. (1262). The Chronicles of the Trevisan March. (J. R. Berrigan, Trans.)

Reno, E. (2011). The Authoritative Text: Raymond of Penyafort's Editing of the 'Decretals of Gregory IX' (1234). RetrievedfromColumbiaAcademicCommons: https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8PK0P3Q#:~:text=The%20Decretals%20of%20Gregory%20IX,institution%20within%20medieval%20European%20society

Royal Armouries. (1300-1320). Fecht 1. (J. L. Forgeng, Trans.)

The Rhyme Chronicle of Livonia. (Late thirteenth Century). (A. R. Mullen, Trans.) Retrieved from https://deremilitari.org/2016/09/descriptions-of-warfare-in-the-rhyme-chronicle-of-livonia/
Wolfenbüttel, H. A. (1358-62). Book I. In unknown, Wolfenbuttel Manuscript (M. Dobozy, Trans.).
 

Arnold, B. (1989). German Bishops and their Military. German History Vol. 7 No. 2 , 162-183. Retrieved from https://deremilitari.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/arnold.pdf

Barrow, J. (2015). Bishops and cathedrals. In J. Barrow, The Clergy in the Medieval World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cartwright, M. (2018, July 11). Teutonic Knight. Retrieved from World History Encyclopedia: https://www.worldhistory.org/Teutonic_Knight/

Forgeng, J. L. (2018). History of the Manuscript. In J. L. Forgeng, The Medieval Art of Swordsmanship (p. 7). Leeds: Royal Armouries Museum.

Forgeng, J. L. (2018). Origin. In J. L. Forgeng, The Medieval Art of Swordsmanship. Leeds: Royal Armouries Museum.

Friend, N. E. (2015). Holy Warriors and Bellicose Bishops: The Chur arriors and Bellicose Bishops: The Church and W ch and Warfare in. San Jose: San Jose State University.

Heath, I. (1989). Armies of Fuedal Europe 1066-1300. Wargames Research Group.

History Maps. (2023). GREAT INTERREGNUM. Retrieved from History Maps: https://history-maps.com/story/History-of-Germany/event/Great-Interregnum

Jager, E. (2004). The Last Duel. New York: Broadway Books.

Kellett, R. E. (2012). ROYAL ARMOURIES MS I.33: THE JUDICIAL COMBAT AND THE ART OF FENCING IN THIRTEENTH- AND FOURTEENTH-CENTURY GERMAN LITERATURE. Oxford German Studies, 32-56.

Law Explorer. (2015, December 7). The Rights of Self-Defence and Justified Warfare in the Writings of the Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century Canonists. Retrieved from Law Explorer: https://lawexplores.com/the-rights-of-self-defence-and-justified-warfare-in-the-writings-of-the-twelfth-and-thirteenth-century-canonists/

Library of Congress. (2023). Mirror of the Saxons. Retrieved from Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/2021667916

Marsden, R. (2016). Historical European Martial Arts In Its Context. Tyrant Industries.

Nicolle, D. (2007). Teutonic Knight 1190-1561. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Patavino, R. (1262). The Chronicles of the Trevisan March. (J. R. Berrigan, Trans.)

Schnerb, B. (2010). Battle of Steppes. In C. J. Rogers, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology. Oxford University Press.

Skoda, H. (2021, October 15). Medieval trial by combat: the real history behind The Last Duel. Retrieved from History Extra: https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/medieval-trial-by-combat-real-history-behind-last-duel/

Tikkanen, A. (2023). Concordat of Worms. Retrieved from Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/event/Concordat-of-Worms