​Borislav Krustev posted a video back in 2022 discussing myths in sword and buckler combat that he believes stem from the I.33 manuscript. In today’s post, I will discuss my thoughts on his points. Overall, I believe his critiques come from a point of view that anything not included in I.33 is wrong in the wider context of sword and buckler combat. In general, I believe that many systems with all weapons have their merit and just highlight different points of emphasis for techniques between sources.

​In general, I have a tremendous amount of respect for HEMA scholars who present their arguments in polite and professional ways. I have had the opportunity to discuss I.33 with Krustev, and while we do not agree on all things regarding I.33, I respect his opinions and the examples he uses as evidence. I plan to use blog posts like these to spotlight different opinions regarding I.33 to help the reader come to their own conclusions.

In the video, Krustev first argues against the idea that the type XIV is the correct sword for I.33. I agree with Krustev’s assessment that the type XIV sword is not the sword of I.33. As discussed in my post analyzing the different swords that could have been used in I.33, several different typologies could be featured in the art. To Krustev’s point, these terminologies are modern and not what was used in the early 14th century.
​
I have heard some I.33 scholars claim that the type XIV is the best type of arming sword for the I.33 system because the broad shape and shorter blade effectively allow for binding and attacks from the bind. While I enjoy using a type XIV when training, it is not the only type of arming sword for the system. I have used type XV swords and type XVI swords as well and have not found the techniques to be impacted. The ability to execute I.33 techniques with a given sword is subjective to the fencer and even with historical examples, there is quite a large variety of options for fencers when studying I.33.

Krustev’s second sword and buckler myth that he challenges is that leg hits are ineffective and quickly countered. Based on my interpretation of I.33, I do not believe I.33 utilizes leg attacks. The first play of the manuscript advises the fencer not to attack the legs. Later, in the ninth play, an attack to the right or left can be performed, but the target is not specified. In practice, these could be leg attacks in I.33, but this is not definitive evidence. However, just because I.33 does not showcase this type of attack does not mean they are ineffective. To that point, I agree with Krustev.

Andre Lignitzer and other sword and buckler systems feature leg attacks, which is evidence of their effectiveness. Furthermore, single-handed sword systems without the buckler also include leg attacks. So, even without a buckler, leg attacks are utilized. Given the leg attack being featured in other systems, it does not appear to be easily countered either if set up properly.
​
What I believe is universally true in swordsmanship is the riskiness of leg attacks, particularly as an opening action, as warned against in I.33. Whenever the sword is attacking low, it is not protecting high. The assistance of the buckler may add some risk reduction during this attack, but the risk of doubling or just being hit outright is still a concern. Perhaps the minds behind I.33 were so concerned with this risk that they chose to opt out of this attack entirely when attacking. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the leg attack is perfectly valid, albeit risky, as Krustev also states.

In his last point, Krustev challenges the idea that the buckler needs to cover the sword hand. He particularly focuses on the flattening of the buckler while the hands are practically touching. I agree with him to the point that having the sword and buckler hands separate is an effective fighting style. After all, according to I.33, all fencers use the seven common wards, which implies that those positions can be fought from effectively. Krustev also highlights that it is true that when the buckler is extended forward, the buckler does protect the hand. Where Krustev and I begin to diverge is in the use of the sword and buckler hands close together and the flattening of the buckler.
​
In I.33, the techniques intend to have the sword and buckler hands nearly touching, practically wrist to wrist. To do this, the buckler does flatten. Krustev argues that there is a more effective position where the buckler is slightly angled forward and to the side that covers the hands than flattening the buckler commonly seen by I.33 scholars. However, I would argue that the more critical area of coverage and contact point is where the buckler touches the blade of the sword, shown below:

​The main reason for this is that during binding actions, generally the sword is angled forward into longpoint, not perfectly vertical as shown in halfshield. This means that the contact point highlighted above is facing the opponent and covering areas a sword may slide down during the bind. The idea that this position while in halfshield does not protect the hand is even discussed in the manuscript. I.33 includes a play where a common fencer believes they can separate the sword and buckler of the I.33 fencer's hands while in halfshield. The counter to this strong cut is to turn the sword and buckler hands, then enter with an attack similar to a parry and a riposte. I believe this play highlights how the sword is still the primary offense and defense while the buckler is primarily focused on allowing the sword to stay extended. The fact that halfshield starts with the hand more exposed with a flattened buckler is more to set up the following actions than it is to protect the hands.

Now with that said, the position where the buckler is flat towards the opponent does appear in the Cluny Fechtbuch as shown in the example below:

​If the Cluny Fechtbuch is illustrating the Andre Lignitzer plays, then it is reasonable to assume that the buckler facing forward as  during binding actions Krustev describes is valid from a historical perspective. While I do not believe I.33 uses this positioning, I believe that both are valid and used to support different techniques with the sword.

I believe Krustev’s biggest criticism of I.33 is that it does not include techniques from other systems. If taken to the extreme, I.33 scholars may make the mistake of thinking that only the techniques of I.33 are effective, even if other systems state the contrary. In swordsmanship, the end goal is to hit the opponent without getting hit. If you do an action that is not explicitly in the source you study, but you hit the opponent without getting hit, you did something right. 

Given the source material of I.33, I cannot say definitely that the minds behind the manuscript would advise fencers to attack the legs or to attack with the sword and buckler separately. Nevertheless, these are essential parts of generic sword and buckler combat and likely something the authors of I.33 had to consider when making their manuscript. I have my opinions on what I believe I.33 would do to counter those techniques, but that is a story for another day.
​
And with that, I would like to thank Borislav Krustev for taking the time to create his video. Commentaries like this are important when HEMA scholars compare and discuss techniques and different sources. It is no secret that I am a fan of the techniques of I.33, but it is important to listen to the critics of the systems to find potential gaps or vulnerabilities. Through their critiques, we can all move towards refining our interpretations and moving closer to correctly interpreting the sources.

Throughout the history of martial arts, we see how the evolution of technology changes systems and techniques. For example, military sabre fencing in the early 19th century leaves the sword forward while defending against attacks, a technique far more risky without the assistance of the extra hand protection sabres had. In the case of I.33, it is likely that the techniques recommended are impacted by the weapons they are using.
​
Today, we will be analyzing what swords may have been used in the I.33 manuscript. This is not a post to say only these swords can be used with I.33 techniques. After all, I have used I.33 techniques with a baskethilt sword. Instead, this post is designed to add context to the time period of I.33 which could support the exploration of sword limitations by category in a future post.

Researchers and sword enthusiasts alike have tried to categorize swords of all periods to communicate what type of sword they are referring to. One of the most famous researchers on the categorization of swords is Ewart Oakeshott, who defined medieval sword categorization in his book Records of the Medieval Sword.

In his book, Oakeshott creates a list of different typologies to define medieval swords. The catalog of swords described in Records of the Medieval Sword lists examples of swords from Type XII, XIII, XIV, XV, and XVI dated from 1250-1350. This creates quite a range of potential sword typologies available in the time period of I.33.

These typologies are described as the following:

Type XII: “…the blade should have a noticeable taper, and an acute point, sand the grip should be quite short”. This type of blade has a fuller that runs two thirds down the blade and narrows to a gradual point.

Type XIII: “…a blade whose edges run very nearly parallel to a rounded point… very large blade 32”-40”…”. This type of blade would have a fuller that runs about half way down the blade. The length of the blade would also be substantially longer than some of its contemporary counterparts.

Type XIV: “…precise life-span between c.1275-1340. Its characteristics are a short grip and comparatively short blade which is broad at the hilt and tapers strongly to a sometimes very acute point.”. This type of blade would have a fuller about half way down the blade. The broad blade characteristics would allow for strong cuts while the acute point would allow for devastating thrusts.

Type XV: “The general outline, or silhouette, of this type is very much like that of Type XIV, but the section of the blade is totally different.”. Instead of having a fuller, the blade itself would be diamond shaped to allow for strong cuts while still being stiff enough to deliver thrusts.

Type XVI: “…sometimes impossible to distinguish whether such a blade is a XVI, or in fact a XIV… its lower blade tapers strongly, though it is flat, but it has a very stout diamond section reinforced point.” The main distinguishing factor between the Type XVI and the Type XIV is that the XVI blade is generally narrower than its broader counterpart, the Type XIV.
​
All of the above potential candidates of sword typologies listed above fit the functional characteristics of the I.33 sword. This creates a variation of potential medieval arming swords shown in I.33.

The art in I.33 leaves much to be desired when it comes to accurately identifying the medieval sword typology used in the manuscript. It is possible that the variation is due to artist skill or even that multiple swords were used as reference when the illustrations were created.

The blade shown in I.33 changes in length from image to image. Interestingly, there is a line that is sometimes present in the middle of the blade, possibly indicating a fuller was on the blade or that it was diamond shaped like the type XII or type XV. However, this detail is not consistently drawn throughout I.33 as shown in figure 3.

In many of the images of I.33, the blade appears to narrow to a distinctive point. Sometimes the blade is shown broader or narrower. The narrow blades could be an example of a type XV or a type XVI while the more broad swords could be the type XIV. In some cases, the fuller is excluded which could be an artistic limitation, or it could be an example of a type XV being used.

The pommel on the sword in I.33 also appears to differ in some images. In Figure 4, an acorn shaped pommel is displayed instead of the common disk-shaped pommel shown predominately in I.33. An acorn shaped pommel was more common with older sword typologies such as the type XII. 
​
This supports the proposed Oakeshott typologies to the historical examples found in the Records of the Medieval Sword.

​When I.33 was created, they had a specific sword in mind. Let's take the art literally and assume different swords were used throughout the manuscript, possibly the priest's and student's personal swords. A plethora of typologies are used. The early 14th century was also a turning point for armor, where plate became more common. This also drove the design of different swords based on the use case. There was also the practice of sword inheritance, which may have had fencers using older swords than what was popular at the time.

Today we will continue the series comparing the sword and buckler systems of I.33 and Andre Lignitzer. Today’s post will be discussing the sixth play from Lignitzer and comparing it to techniques shown in cross nineteen of I.33.
​
As a reminder, I.33 starts each of its 40 plays with a cross in the top left of the image. To compare Lignitzer’s system with I.33, a cross that is most similar to Lignitzer’s play will be selected. If the sixth play in I.33 is referenced, then it will be identified as cross 6.

​Both systems contain a way to remove the opponent’s buckler. Interestingly, both systems perform this disarm by holding the sword and buckler in the buckler hand, then use their sword hand to grab the opponent’s buckler. 

​One of the significant differences between Lignitzer and the I.33 technique is how the sword is held to counter the actions. The Lignitzer action is best described as half-swording where the sword is held about halfway down the blade with the buckler hand. In contrast, I.33 holds the buckler up towards the sword's crossguard with the buckler hand.

​It has always fascinated me how similar these techniques are. Paulus Kal also includes a technique like this and has a different way to hold the sword as well. The fact that these techniques are similar and replicated across two-hundred years of manuscripts has always made me wonder if it is truly coincidental. That being said, if you are trying to disarm the opponent’s buckler in the middle of a swordfight, maybe there are only so many ways to perform this action which results in these systems having similar techniques.