As many of you know, I’m passionate about sharing the incredible fencing system of I.33 with as many people as possible. One thing I’ve learned over the years is that everyone absorbs information differently. Some people thrive in structured classes, others enjoy diving into books or blog posts, and some learn best through hands-on experiences. Finding new and engaging ways to connect people with I.33 has become one of my favorite challenges.
​
Today, I’m thrilled to announce Custodia / Obsesseo—an educational card game designed to make learning the core techniques of I.33 fun, approachable, and easy to pick up. Whether you're a seasoned HEMA practitioner or someone discovering the manuscript for the first time, the game encourages players to recognize guards, understand counters, and reinforce the tactical relationships that make I.33 such a fascinating fencing tradition.

You can purchase it on the game crafter now using the button below:

The artwork, created by the incredibly talented Ashley White, reimagines the manuscript's iconic illustrations in a vibrant, cartoon-inspired style that is both charming and instantly recognizable. Every card has been carefully designed not only to look great, but also to teach. By clearly highlighting the techniques each action counters according to the manuscript, Custodia / Obsesseo transforms every game into a learning experience while still delivering fast-paced, competitive fun.
​
The game features an engaging solo mode as well as a 1v1 mode, so whether you are killing time between pools at your next tournament or looking for an engaging HEMA-themed game to teach others about historical fencing, be sure to get yourself a copy of Custodia / Obsesseo!

Want to get the most out of your game and own a 3D printer? Be sure to pick up the travel case STL files!

Huge shout out to Jerod Dunn on making this case a reality!

I.33 is a fascinating manuscript full of interesting techniques and exciting imagery. Just as exciting as the manuscript is the history and world around it. Taken at face value, the manuscript presents the depiction of a clergy member and a student partaking in combat. The leading theory of the origin of the manuscript was that it was produced by secular clergy, likely associated with a cathedral.

However, this raises the question: why? The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 declared “Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood” which took aim at the clergy’s involvement in single combat or duels. Furthermore, why write a manuscript at all to teach swordsmanship instead of utilizing oral teaching methods to educate students in martial arts?
​
Today, we are going to discuss three books that I found to be useful when exploring the world around I.33. Through these sources, we will get a gleam of why people of I.33’s time wrote manuscripts, the secular legal structure surrounding the people, and the conflicting allegiance that a Germanic cleric in the Holy Roman Empire of 1300 may find themselves writing sources on martial arts.

But first, I would like to give a huge shout out to Taylor Hodne. We had some conversations recently on I.33 which inspired this post. Thank you again for reaching out, Taylor!

The Medieval Craft of Memory is a collection of texts and pictures that explore the trained art of memory. Much like humans today, the people of I.33’s time were also concerned with knowledge being lost to time. The various sources, ranging from the 12th century and the 15th century, explore various teaching topics such as techniques on using imagery and text together, composition connections, and examples of contemporary teaching methods from the time of I.33. This collection of primary sources shows us some of the knowledge the author, or authors, of I.33 were aware of when they sat down and asked “how do we capture these sword and buckler techniques so they can be passed down through generations.” For example, I.33 uses repeated verses and self-referencing sections, which these sources explore how best to do it for success.
​
I was unaware of these sources for a long time until Keith Farrell mentioned them to me. So, a huge thank you to him for providing the additional context on why manuscripts were created in the first place.  

​The world of the Holy Roman Empire around 1300 is very different than our world today. However, what remains the same is the importance of law and its impact on individuals’ daily lives. The Saxon Mirror, written around 1220–1235, is a foundational lens into the legal world around I.33. It is a systematic written record of customary law as it was practiced among the Saxons, later recreated and written throughout the Holy Roman Empire. The manuscript covers inheritance laws for items such as weapons, which could explain how contemporary individuals studying I.33 may have received their swords and bucklers. It also includes the structuring of common judicial duels, which involved the use of sword and shield (which, based on later art, appears to be center-gripped round shields like bucklers). It even includes laws on what is to happen if a clergy member is assaulted with a weapon in a city.

​Rounding out this list, and the only non-primary source, is a book I found immensely helpful in understanding the power dynamic between the Holy Roman Empire, its people, and the Papacy. The Two Powers presents the wider world, shedding light on why the German clergy would have been banned from participating in duels by the Fourth Lateran Council, though they may have ignored that decree to celebrate their secular culture in the Holy Roman Empire. The book also sheds light on the Prince-Bishoprics that were beholden to both the emperor and the pope, and that were also hosts to many cathedrals and the beginnings of early universities.

No one can fully understand the historical context of I.33 by reading just a few books. There are entire doctorates who focus on this world, which requires lifetimes of dedication to understand. However, for us HEMA practitioners, the more historical context we can understand, the better we can comprehend the whys behind the manuscripts we study.
​
So, as scholars of our arts, we seek knowledge and explore the various topics HEMA relies on. Our sources are not just an exploration of martial arts but also lenses into art history, legal history, biomechanics, and more! Whether we realize it or not, we are contributors to those fields as well through our activity and love of historical fencing.

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.