During the first round of the tournament, I noticed that the arm strapped shield was at a serious disadvantage to the center grip shields and even the buckler I’m used to using for I.33. Using the targe, I was unable to adjust the angle of the shield to respond to off-line attacks, and it was virtually useless for locking down an opponent’s blade. In addition, it offered little to no protection for the sword hand, as nearly all attacks ended up extending beyond the shield. I lost all of my matches in that pool, including one 0-5 route.

For the second round of pools, I switched to a 19-inch, center held buckler made by Cold Steel that the tournament host had available as loner gear. I had an immediate improvement in results and felt far more comfortable while fencing. I was able to utilize techniques I was more familiar with, and covering off-line attacks was far easier when I was able to quickly adjust the angle and position of the shield. With both arms able to extend fully, I was also able to protect my sword hand (vital when using an arming sword) with the buckler instead of being forced to extend past the shield every time I attacked.

That’s not to say that certain limitations didn’t exist using the 19-inch shield. It was certainly much harder to attack around, and even the plastic buckler was tiring to hold extended compared to a steel 12-inch buckler and even the targe.
​
I can see where arm strapped shields would be advantageous in a battle line, especially if using a spear or other polearm that would allow the hand to remain back.  However, for one-on-one sword fights (duels or street fights), a center held shield certainly seems to be far more versatile and protective. Given the choice, I’d carry a buckler before a targe or rotella. 

Kyle’s experience is one more data point we can use to continue to explore different manuscripts. George Silver’s ranking of weapon sets has always fascinated me. Thank you, Kyle, for sharing your thoughts and adding to the growing research we have in HEMA!

I’d also like to give a huge thank you to Arena Weapon Arts for hosting a fun tournament that helped us further learn about historical swordsmanship! 

For someone who named a blog “Funky Buckler”, it has been noted that I rarely use funky bucklers. These petite defensive off-hands came in all sorts of shapes and sizes, yet most of my HEMA career has been spent with good ole fashioned round bucklers.

That ends today.
​
Or rather, it ended months ago when I began my analysis of the famous buckler shown in Hans Talhoffer’s later manuscripts, commonly known as the Talhoffer buckler. How does this bizarre buckler impact combat? What are the pros and cons of such a shield? Those are the questions I intend to answer in today’s blog post all about the Talhoffer buckler!

​Hans Talhoffer was a fencing master in the mid-15th century. He created several manuscripts between 1448 and 1467 that primarily focused on different dueling traditions of the Holy Roman Empire. For example, while his manuscripts feature sword and buckler, a common judicial dueling weapon set referenced in the Saxon Mirror, his manuscripts also contain comments on rules for dueling and legal structure around it. Additionally, Talhoffer features drawings of weapons and warcraft items like siege ladders that may hint at a general fascination with warfare by the author.

​Defining the Talhoffer buckler is not as straightforward as it may seem. The bucklers shown in Talhoffer’s manuscripts take on several shapes and sizes. In his first manuscript to feature sword and buckler combat, published sometime between 1446 and 1459, the fencers are illustrated as both using classic round bucklers with pronounced spiky bosses. However, in his second known manuscript, this odd buckler begins to take shape. 

​In Talhoffer’s personal manuscript, created in 1459, a buckler with several prominent features is depicted. Both fencers are shown with a leaf or teardrop-shaped buckler with a bulbous boss and small spikes covering the buckler face. The tips of the leaf or teardrop shape curve away from the fencer, potentially to create points where a blade can be caught. Furthermore, the edge of the buckler is not rounded but instead features little crescents breaking up the uniform shape. Interestingly though, this manuscript also depicts a fencer with a round buckler similar to his earlier work.

​Finally, in the last known Talhoffer manuscript, published in 1467, we see a similar buckler to the oddity in his 1459 work. However, the spikes covering the face of the buckler have been removed. Additionally, some of the bucklers shown in this manuscript have a smooth edge instead of the edge with the cutouts as mentioned previously.

​Unfortunately, we do not have concrete evidence linking any museum bucklers to the famed fencing master. We also lack any evidence of the more exotic buckler styles of Talhoffer besides what is depicted in his manuscript. With Talhoffer’s fascination with medieval dueling equipment and mechanisms for war, perhaps he wanted to design a buckler that best served himself and his clients in the art of sword and buckler combat. Perhaps he went so far as to commission their creation. After all, seeing a person with this unique buckler would be a clever way to market that the famed fencing master trained the individual.

Whether or not the buckler was literally used in the period or just a concept in the mind of a fencing master has not stopped modern manufacturers from creating their own take on the famous buckler. For this test, I purchased a Talhoffer Buckler (that unfortunately appears to no longer be available online), more similar to the leaf-shaped design as opposed to the teardrop-shaped buckler. The buckler also did not feature the spikes on the face, which puts it more in line with the buckler depicted in Talhoffer’s 1467 manuscript.
​
The main reason I went with this take on the Talhoffer buckler was because my training partner, Lane, has owned a Talhoffer buckler for years. His buckler is available online and features the teardrop shape.

When I first started this experiment, I set aside six months where I would train almost exclusively with this buckler. I was concerned that using it would take some getting used to when compared to my preferred round bucklers. However, that could not have been further from the truth.

The first thing I noticed was how seamless the transition was from a round buckler to the Talhoffer buckler. Even when using techniques from I.33’s first ward, where the sword and buckler hands are kept close, the buckler never seemed to get in the way. Furthermore, although I expected the cutouts along the buckler's edge to create gaps and reduce the effectiveness of my cuts gliding along the edge, the edge did not seem to affect the flow. Overall, my fencing felt as fluid and crisp as ever. Shield-knocking to create openings for my sword was a breeze since the buckler's curves could easily lock down opponents’ swords. I did not feel that binding in the style of I.33 was impacted, and I did not encounter a technique from that source that needed to be modified to use with the Talhoffer buckler.

Where the Talhoffer buckler truly shone was in the open fight, where the sword and buckler were kept separate. Not surprisingly, open fighting or short binds to initiate grappling is what Talhoffer’s sword and buckler system was all about. With the inclusion of this buckler, suddenly letting my opponent strike my buckler became a greater liability for them. I have observed that defending with the buckler will keep me safe; it normally does not disrupt the tempo of my opponent. However, with the unique shape of this buckler, my opponent’s swords would deflect off in strange ways or get stuck in a way that would allow me to close and strike them.
​
Overall, I was blown away by how easy it was to use the Talhoffer buckler with prior experience with round bucklers. I do think it is noteworthy that Talhoffer’s early work features round bucklers, so making a new buckler that expanded on that design appears to have been part of his goal.

As mentioned earlier, Lane has been using a teardrop-shaped buckler with spikes for years. I have had the…. Ummm…. fortune to fight against that buckler many times. The most notable part of the buckler when fencing is how much area it can protect. With the extended teardrop shape towards the bottom, Lane has been able to protect his legs with relative ease compared to a traditional round buckler.
​
Furthermore, I have experienced my attacks feeling trapped after hitting the buckler, whether it was because the strike stopped in one of the curved sections on the edge, or if it was a thrust that was slid and got tangled with one of the spikes. From what I have observed, the major value of this buckler design is its ability to prevent an opponent from striking the buckler, sliding off to strike a different area, a common technique in the Andre Lignitzer sword and buckler plays.

The buckler shown in Talhoffer’s manuscripts is a genuine oddity, but certainly appears to be martially inspired. I could see a fencing master looking at a buckler and saying, “This is good, but it could be better,” and inventing this strange buckler. I like to think that Talhoffer himself was able to experience the effectiveness of his creation. This buckler is efficient, well thought out, and deadly. A perfect complement to Talhoffer’s sword and buckler plays that use a mix of open fighting and grappling to strike the opponent.
​
What are your thoughts? Have you had a chance to experiment with this style of buckler? Leave a comment below!

A surprising amount of effort goes into creating bucklers. These simple little pieces of defense have highlighted numerous construction features that intrigue me. Whether it is the use of hinged nails for wood paneling or the double rivet I prefer for the handle on my training bucklers, all parts of the buckler are fascinating.
​
But what about buckler liners? These prominent buckler features are under-represented in today’s HEMA circles due to the low use of bucklers made of materials such as hardened leather and wood. However, thanks to the buckler project we did last year, I have had a lot of time to observe bucklers with liners. Today, we will explore my observations in buckler liners and some aways.

​Liners on bucklers are a common inclusion in artist representations of bucklers. If we focus on manuscripts around the late 13th century, we can find several examples of what appear to be liners on bucklers:

When looking specifically at the I.33 images, some show a liner while others do not. It is impossible to know what material the bucklers in the illustrations were intended to represent, but analysis of historical examples can lend us more insight.

​Liners were made of many materials, such as leather, rawhide, manuscript paper, and metal. Unfortunately, there are very few examples of leather and rawhide liners due to the passage of time. However, some bucklers made of wood planks can be found with a metal liner. It is also worth noting that many historical leather bucklers fold the metal at the edge of the buckler face, creating a liner-esque feature to enhance the longevity of the buckler.

​One of the biggest takeaways I have on buckler liners is the durability the liner adds. When comparing two leather bucklers, the one with a rawhide liner lasted far longer. Along with deep gouges into the leather face of the buckler, strong attacks cause the leather to bend and warp slightly from the boss. 

​In contrast, while the buckler liner was chewed up from attacks, the rawhide material lasted much longer and protected the face of the buckler. In the image below, you can see the face of the buckler with the liner which was used much longer in sparring than the buckler without a liner shown above. In another example, Jerod’s buckler from the buckler construction project used a leather liner. While his liner did not last as long as the rawhide liner, it equally protected the face of the buckler. For our wood bucklers, liners appeared to be critical in keeping impact against the wood blanks to a minimum. The wood split immediately for several wood bucklers without liners when defending a strong cut. 

​An interesting change occurred to my buckler when I first added the rawhide liner to it. When the rawhide was drying, it shrunk and warped the buckler's face to become concave. This made the buckler effective at catching points of blades during thrusts, allowing the blade to be trapped momentarily, which helped create openings for my sword. We have historical examples of concave bucklers, but it was fascinating to discover a way to create one myself accidentally.  

It is worth noting that I did not test the liner against sharp weapons. The characteristics and durability would dramatically differ if trying to stop axe heads or sharp blades. While we know bucklers were used in combat, it is hard to tell how many fights they could survive before being replaced. 

However, the durability of these bucklers while training is noteworthy. Assuming we train similarly to how they trained in the past, then buckler liners would have extended their usability much longer than without. Furthermore, the buckler liner is an easy enough item to replace (especially if leather or rawhide is used), which makes the bulk of the buckler long-lasting.
​
And longer-lasting gear means more reps for practice.