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 SimilaritiesAt 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!
0 Comments
It is no secret that I enjoy the I.33 manuscript. However, given the barrier in interpreting the art and text and the fact that medieval sword and buckler is not as popular in HEMA, I.33 is a relatively unknown system outside of the primary practitioners of the source. This has led to several HEMA practitioners having misconceptions about I.33. Today, we will dive into the two most common misconceptions about I.33 The first is that the techniques are not martially valid, and the second is that I.33 is an incomplete system. By tackling both misconceptions, I hope to clear some barriers for those interested in studying I.33. Are I.33 Techniques Martially Valid?For many people interested in swordsmanship, the idea that the system they are learning is ineffective can be a significant detractor to keep someone from learning a specific system. Unfortunately, the techniques in I.33 have been seen as techniques that cannot be used for self-defense. This generally seems to be due to I.33’s system looking different than other sword and buckler systems. In Dr. Sydney Anglo’s The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, he states in regards to I.33 that “the constrained sword and buckler fighting taught by the priest to his disciple does not look remotely as efficient as the free-flowing, better balanced techniques later expounded by Talhoffer and Marozzo.” When reading I.33, one must look at the manuscript as a collection of techniques the fencer gains when they pair their sword with the buckler. Very few of the I.33 techniques work without the assistance of the buckler. When the buckler is paired with the sword, the fencer can perform longer binding actions and deliver more attacks from the wrist and elbow than with equivalent singlehanded sword systems like Lechuchner’s messer. Talhoffer’s manuscript differs from I.33 by showing how to perform messer attacks and grapples when the buckler is present. Talhoffer first shows techniques that highlight this with just the messer, followed by a section showing the same techniques but with a buckler instead of a bare hand for the displacements. In a way, Talhoffer’s system is more like a sword with buckler than sword and buckler since the off-hand is optional for the techniques. In the context of the Bolognese system, I.33 is a hyper-focus on the concept of the narrow play or “gioco stretto,” where two fencers’ bind their swords, but neither has the advantage. The narrow fight is a minor part of the overall Bolognese sword and buckler system. However, Marozzo (a significant source for the Bolognese sword and buckler system), in chapter 162 of his Opera Nova, states that the fencer who knows both the narrow binding-like plays and the more flowing cuts and thrusts from what I.33 would consider wards, will control the fight. Furthermore, Marozzo taught the narrow plays separately from the wide plays and charged seven pounds for each class. So, even Marozzo sees the validity in the more bind-centric plays that I.33 offers. Is I.33 an Incomplete System? Periodically, commentators on I.33 will state that it is an incomplete system. New sword and buckler fencers looking for a source to study are generally directed towards Bolognese sources because of the inclusion of footwork, sword grips, and other fundamental aspects of swordsmanship. Others have stated that to get the most out of I.33, fencers must draw from other sources to learn swordsmanship fully. However, I.33 does contain enough techniques and a mindset to approach a sword and buckler fight that can make a sword and buckler fencer competent should they have to defend themselves with the weapon. While I agree that the Bolognese sources are more accessible for beginners to learn from, I think the appearance of I.33 being incomplete comes more from comparing it to other systems and noting the differences than it does from the number of techniques in the manuscript. Talhoffer and Bolognese sword and buckler utilize cuts and thrusts without the assistance of the bind. This is notably excluded in I.33. However, from the perspective of I.33, I believe the techniques illustrated and defined are specifically designed to counter the more free-flowing Bolognese and Talhoffer styles. I.33 chooses to siege, a specific position to provoke the opponent out of their starting position. The opponent will either enter the bind, retreat or do nothing. Throughout I.33, those three outcomes of sieging the opponent are discussed. So, while it is accurate to say that I.33 does not include cuts and thrusts from the basic wards like Talhoffer and the Bolognese sources do, it is not accurate to say that the exclusion makes I.33 incomplete. Instead that I.33 chooses to deep-dive into one area of the fight because it values the other style of fighting less. However, it is worth noting that I.33 does have some missing pages, particularly on the use and counters of two wards, fifth and sixth. Fortunately, later sections in the manuscript show how to combat thrusting positions like fifth and sixth, so while the complete set of techniques is incomplete, there still exist enough techniques to counter thrusting wards. Though I believe I.33 is a complete system and can stand on its own, cross-training with other weapons does help HEMA practitioners. My class covers Lechuchner’s messer, I.33, Talhoffer, Paulus Kal, and Lignitzer. All of the fencing masters bring their unique style to the medieval swordfight that benefits a well-rounded sword and buckler practitioner. For more data on cross-training in HEMA, I highly recommend the article on the topic at SwordSTEM. Closing Thoughts I.33 is a unique manuscript that focuses on a series of techniques a fencer can do with the assistance of the buckler. The system focuses on the fight's mindset and choosing to bind and secure the opponent’s weapon before moving in to attack.
However, not all sword and buckler systems approach the fight similarly. The Bolognese sword and buckler system prefers to keep the sword fluid and to move to find openings. Talhoffer similarly will move the sword to close on the opponent while utilizing messer-style attacks. This is the same as other fencing systems like Fiore and Lichtenauer differing. Being different and excluding some techniques other systems include does not make a system incomplete or ineffective. The authors of these sources had to choose what to include and what not to include. So for those that pick up I.33 and think the art style and the Latin text are cool, dive in and start learning about this effective and complete sword and buckler system. You will not regret it. Last weekend, I had the wonderful opportunity to conduct a lecture workshop at Uhuburg Castle. The lecture focused on judicial dueling in the 13th and 14th century of the Holy Roman Empire and introduced the visitors of the castle to the Saxon Mirror, Codex Manesse, and MS I.33. This post contains one of the lectures we gave and a series of pictures from the workshops throughout the two-day event. This event was an absolute blast and hopefully inspired other HEMA practitioners to help make history fun and tangible for everyone! About Uhuburg CastleUhuburg Castle is located in Helen, Georgia and is a beautiful work of art. It just opened up this year and is already selling out tickets with visitors. Rooms will be available for an opportunity to stay and see the night sky at this wonderful location. We had the opportunity to stay in the gatehouse as they renovate some of the other rooms and enjoyed our stay at the castle. The staff was wonderful and knowledgeable about the castle. We talked quite a bit about the process they used when building the castle. Unfortunately, I was unable to take the guided tour but based on what we learned about the castle from questions we had, I am sure it was informational for al the attendants. About 10 minutes from the castle is Helen, Georgia which is a small German village that features vacation activities like tubing down a river. It was great after a long day of working the event to go see the sites and experience the local cuisine. The Lecture We conducted the lecture every hour at the castle and began with a handout to the audience as a primer and visual aid for the attendants. We then introduced ourselves and what HEMA is all about. Then, we focused on the legal sources that structured judicial dueling in the Holy Roman Empire. This was used as a springboard to introduce the crowd to sword and buckler. Then we explored some biographical sources like the Codex Manesse to show that these duels and the use of sword and buckler were also documented. We then introduced I.33 as a manuscript that taught the use of sword and buckler. Danial and I then did light sparring in period clothing. We did not want these fights to be staged so we had a gorget, gloves, and a helmet on to keep us safe. We also have been training together for years and know each other well which goes a long way in staying smart with our sparring. After each exchange, we would talk to the crowd about what we saw, and what we were thinking during the exchange. Our goal was to highlight how tactical sword fighting was while also highlighting how fast it can be. After a short demonstration of light sparring with a sword and buckler to expose the crowd to the techniques of the manuscript, we would highlight that this was one weapon system, in one region, at one point in time. This allowed us to end the lecture by informing the crowd that different systems exist and martial combat changes with different weapons and different levels of protection. The WorkshopsAfter telling the crowd about the broader world of Western martial arts, it was time to show them. We had examples of mail armor, brigandines, and gambeson that people could touch and feel to see how protective these armor pieces could be. We also had a table of swords that people could pick up and feel for themselves. For anyone interested, we conducted mini-workshops with them using a sword type of their choice to show them one way the sword can be used. For sword and buckler workshops, we focused on the seven wards from I.33 and the attacks from them. for the longsword, we highlighted how nimble of a weapon it can be and how strong is countered with weak and vice versa. For rapier, we would place our swords in one position and have the student think about how they could place their sword so that if we both thrust at each other, they would be safe while striking us. Finally, we would teach the basic guards and how they are used for military sabre and then would go over the first play from John Taylor’s saber system. These workshops were designed to be about 10 minutes so people could swing swords and get an idea of swordsmanship. HEMA and Community OutreachOne of my favorite things about HEMA is teaching people about swords. It is just great to see peoples’ faces light up when they get to use a sword for the first time. It is also great to see people getting excited about history and their eagerness to learn.
We in HEMA have a unique knowledge of a piece of history that many people are interested in. Even if they are not interested in learning swordsmanship themselves, they are likely interested in the history around it and how it was done verses what is shown in the movies. I encourage everyone in HEMA to find ways to reach out to the community and help teach history to those interested. One of my favorite interactions at the event was with a woman who studied art history. She was more interested in the castle tour for its architecture. However, she attended our lecture and was enamored with the sources we had on display. By having manuscript examples from the early 14th century to the late 16th century, we could showcase how the evolution of art improved the ability to communicate techniques. She also highlighted several other details in manuscripts like the Gladiatoria that we would not have seen in earlier manuscripts because of the evolution of art styles. Those types of popcorn style conversations was exactly why we kept the lecture short and opened up the remainder of the hour until our next show for freeform questions and answers. Sometimes we were asked questions where we had to say we did not know but many times the questions were about the sources we had on display and the weapons people could try. So, please, reach out to your community and help make history fun for all! |
Proudly powered by Weebly