One of my go-to tournament arming swords is the Full-Contact I.33 Sword by Regenyei Armory. I first purchased this sword back in 2018, and unfortunately, it finally broke while sparring at the end of 2023. This sword has been a workhorse for me through the years, and I am excited to review it for you today! MeasurementsBelow is a table including the measurements I took of my sword I purchased in 2018 and my 2023-purchased sword. I also included the reported measurements from Purpleheart Armory and HEMA supplies converted from cm to in. Note that the measurements of the 2018 sword were taken after years of use and after the sword was broken. DurabilityThis sword has been one of the most durable swords used in my class and proved to be low maintenance. One of the advantageous of this sword and why I suspect it gets the “full-contact” label by Regenyei is the blade construction which lacks a fuller and has well-rounded edges. The lack of fuller makes cleaning the blade simple because it is a flat surface. The rounded edge reduces the chance of chips and burs forming. After nearly 5 years of use, I have never had to file the edge of the blade for safety purposes. The 2018 blade is still generally smooth after years of use as seen in the following image. However, the sword is not invulnerable. The first issue that occurred was the crossguard becoming loose. This happened because the handle's wood core was compressed and chipped enough to free the crossguard. I tried to extend the handle with leather spacers and attempted to use washers to secure the crossguard, but eventually, it would come loose again. However, this has occurred with most of my arming swords from various makers given enough time. Another issue was that the wrap on the handle eventually had to be replaced. This is a common issue for cord wraps because they begin to unravel once they are struck and the cord is cut. Brittany Saint Leafy has an excellent video on re-wrapping a cord wrap on a sword that one of my students has used. I opted to use a leather wrap to replace the cord wrap, which did not have to be replaced after being applied. The sword ultimately broke from a strike against the pommel from a Regenyei messer that sheared the pommel from the blade. Since the sword is peened, repairing it was not possible without serious blacksmithing. This was not the first strike against the pommel the sword had received, so it was likely just multiple strikes against the pommel that eventually led to the failure. CostAt the time of writing this review, in the United States, the sword can be found at Purpleheart Armoury for $240.00 plus shipping and handling. Alternatively, the sword can be found for $300.00 plus shipping and handling at HEMA Supplies. Aesthetics The Full-Contact I.33 Sword by Regenyei Armory is about as simple as a sword can get in HEMA. Without a fuller and with the blade being flat, the sword loses a great deal of aesthetic value. While the sword is balanced well and feels like other swords I have, the Full-Contact I.33 Sword lacks the look of a sword to a certain degree especially when compared to Regenyei’s other I.33 swords available. Feel and HandlingWhile this sword lacks some features that make it look more like a sword, the handling of the full-contact I.33 sword certainly feels like a sword. This sword handles like the Standard I.33 Arming Sword I by Regenyei, which features a diamond profile on the blade. The sword has a great binding presence while effectively being weighted for cutting and thrusting actions. With the tapering of the blade, the sword is well balanced while still having enough weight and feeling to feel present in the hand. While using this sword, you can feel how it is moving and the responses in the bind, making it very effective for executing I.33 techniques. The blade also has some flexibility to protect fencers when receiving a thrust. However, like many arming swords, the flex is not as much as seen in the longer feder blades of longsword in HEMA. Commentary on it being a “I.33 Sword”This sword is excellent in binding and can execute cuts and thrusts. The crossguard is a great size for keeping the sword hand safe while not getting in the way of buckler actions when the hands are kept together. I have had no problem executing I.33 techniques with this sword and have chosen to use this sword over others in HEMA tournaments. However, One of my bigger pet peeves in HEMA gear is advertising a sword for a specific system. Regenyei advertising this sword as an “I.33” sword is like Albion advertising their “I.33” sword or other companies making “Fiore” swords. For new fencers, it can be helpful to be directed to a specific sword for their study source. However, this type of marketing can also give the wrong impression of what swords can and cannot be used for I.33. it also can present the wrong impression that this sword can only be used for I.33 techniques instead of other sword and buckler techniques like Paulus Kal. From a historical perspective, the art in the manuscript is not consistent enough to pinpoint a specific Oakeshott sword typology. Furthermore, the late 13th century to the early 14th century, when the manuscript was likely written, was a period of quite a large amount of variation in the traditional arming swords that are available. David Rawlings has an excellent video discussing this topic that I recommend for more information. Can this sword be used to execute I.33 techniques? Yes. Is this THE sword shown in the I.33 manuscript? Even if the full-contact I.33 sword had a diamond profile like the standard I.33 sword I by Regenyei, the answer would be inconclusive based on the art and the swords available at the time. Who I recommend it to When compared to the $225.00 Type XVI sword by VB currently available at Purpleheart Armoury, the Full-Contact I.33 Sword is a great arming sword at any fencing experience level. I would recommend this sword slightly over a Type XVI sword by VB because of the variability discussed in the product review for that sword. However, this sword may not be for everyone due to the lack of fuller and simple aesthetics. That being said, do not make the mistake of assuming the lack of aesthetics translates to not feeling like a real sword. This is a great training arming sword. Closing ThoughtsFor tournaments, I have been switching between my standard I.33 sword I by Regenyei and the full-contact I.33 sword by Regenyei. While I like the look of the standard I.33 sword more, the blade has a habit of getting chips and burs that I need to file out before and after use.
This highlights the main advantage of the full-contact I.33 sword for HEMA tournaments: the durability. In tournaments, various swords of different steels and weights are used, and this sword has proven to take a beating while still not damaging the blade. The sword has kept its shape with minimal damage, even against strong cuts aimed at breaking through my defense. The sword’s weight and handling allow me to execute the techniques I study, which makes it an easy recommendation for all HEMA practitioners at all levels.
0 Comments
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! 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. |
Proudly powered by Weebly