Hi sword people! Would you like to receive weekly up-dates on weapons research, sword-fighting, living history and more straight into your inbox? To read previous newsletters and to sign up, go here: exciting-pioneer-6049.ck.page/a8f72e8432
I think it can be explained from a didactic perspective too: If you're in a time and place where combat generally revolves around the shield, it follows that the most pragmatic way to teach sword & buckler is via a system that emphasises shield usage. Why focus on the sword, when you focus heavily on your shield when fighting with other weapon combinations? If people are increasingly fighting without shields (be it with polearms, two handed swords or single swords or whatever), then it becomes more practical to learn sword and buckler with a system that emphasises the sword, as that's more in line with the existing skill-set. Build up on what you already have, instead of laying another set of foundations. Even if you learn to fight with the sword and buckler before other weapons, it's good to then use a system that would later help in learning to fight with other weapon combinations of the time.
I totally agree something that many practitioners overlook the context of why and how the sword art was shaped and formed based on arms and armor used at the time or lack there of, Excellent video! Hope all is well for you and yours and we get to meet again soon shield brother.
A general note on this comment section: I am grateful for your interest in my videos. They are but one means of sharing the results of my research into historical combat with sword & shield with everybody who sees value in my work. Any video reflects my knowledge at the time of making. Because I am constantly learning, older videos might be out-dated, and I will eventually unlist them. However, you can still find them on my Patreon pages: www.patreon.com/Dimicator/posts On repeated request, I have re-opened comment sections with recent videos. So you are welcome to leave a comment if you feel you have something substantial to contribute on topic. I very much appreciate being pointed to relevant historical sources. I am not interested in hear-say and unreflected opinions. If a relevant question of yours has been left unanswered, then I might have missed it or the subject was already addressed elsewhere. I only check comments occasionally, so have some patience, please. Personally, I feel that constructive discussion on martial arts only exists in the analogue world, in a salle or a dojo. Please consider that your own valuable personal martial or military experience is inevitably reduced to mere assertions in a comment section. That is the nature of online media. There is zero competence control. This why I tend to shy away from such discussion. I find they are prone to misunderstanding, and generally a waste of time. Time that is better spent with actual research, practice and hands-on discussion. I am always open for the latter, and anyone with a serious interest is welcome to get in touch via private channels. Bad manners, boasting and babbling are a pest of the digital age. They have no place here.
An enduring example would then be Manciolino (1531) and Marozzo (1536) who both starts with s&b before teaching sword alone or sword with another companion weapon. This seems to change in Italy around the middle of the 16th c. with Viggiani, dall'Agocchie, notably Agrippa and then the "rapier masters" who starts with sword alone. Really nice video, especially the part about "efficiency".
speaking of bucklers, one thing i considered is the question of swords biting into bucklers, if a buckler is organic and the sword hits it with thrust OR cut, it more easily bites in, allowing for elements of bind and tactile feedback... and earlier bucklers seem to be have more often organic faces and rims to some extent but as we reach the later 14th and the 15th century expecially, bucklers become all steel, and in th 16th century, steel faced rotellas become a lot more common however you can slide around steel a lot more easily without biting in...and thrusts will much more easily glance off (though they can still bite if the sword is point enough... "how does having the ability for a shot to bounce around your buckler or glance away change your strategy
What I find interesting is, that in I.33 the people always seem to balance on their toes, never using the full foot to stand on. In Talhoffer the weight much more often rests on the heel, or the back foot is even turned sideways for better support.
Seeing any representation from a distant culture (in time or space), you can't just assume what is depicted is naturalistic figuration. It can be conventional representation, not carrying any specific "meaning". In the end you would believe ancient Egyptians walked sideways. One must be extremely careful not to misinterpret sources, and sometimes to simply accept there is just no way to tell convention from naturalistic figuration, and in doubt it's better to consider the representation doesn't provide any meaningful information.
"consider the representation doesn't provide any meaningful information" That is certainly not how Roland treats those illustrations, if you look how sorrowly he interprets even little details - and the convincing results he gets from it. Whoever drew this was extremely aware and knowledgeable of body mechanics. I can't see how that would suddenly change in regards to the foot stance and only the foot stance.
I believe I read somewhere that people naturally walked on the balls of their feet more so back when shoes and soles were less thick. As shoes and soles became better and better people started standing and walking on the sides and heels of their feet because it takes considerably less energy. Standing and walking on the balls of ones feet really works the calves if you were to try walking like that for a while.I also believe that art depicting people's calves are noticably larger compared to modern day because of this. Take all of this with a grain of salt obviously. I am just a nerd not a professional in any respect.
Brandon, yes indeed. Walking in turn shoes on slippery or uneven terrain makes you adopt a gait with a forefoot or mid-foot strike pretty quickly. And I completely accord with your observation that, in medieval art, calves are almost always really large.
Where in the Nuremburg Hausbuch does it state that Longsword fencing is based on Langesmesser fencing? Do you mean at 82r where they state that the principles of the knife are the same for the sword? Just wondering since I hadn't perceived that connection before.
Cool video with some good points made, but I'm not proficient enough with sword and shield or buckler for my opinion to count for much. I don't know one system, much less enough to compare all of them. Looking forward to learning enough that I can fully appreciate this. Thanks.
I believe that Lignitzer is more closely connected to fighting with Large Shields. We see a greater variety of cuts from different angles . We see misdirection. We see changing cuts. MS 1.33 is more closely related to later period Rapier fencing, which relies more on blade on blade contact and leveraging. Here is a link to my interpretation of Lignitzer applied to a large shield with a Type X battle-sword. th-cam.com/play/PL9-SCqO6Heuro5UX6yOU0X5Sr-CfN060Z.html
Hi sword people! Would you like to receive weekly up-dates on weapons research, sword-fighting, living history and more straight into your inbox? To read previous newsletters and to sign up, go here: exciting-pioneer-6049.ck.page/a8f72e8432
I think it can be explained from a didactic perspective too:
If you're in a time and place where combat generally revolves around the shield, it follows that the most pragmatic way to teach sword & buckler is via a system that emphasises shield usage. Why focus on the sword, when you focus heavily on your shield when fighting with other weapon combinations?
If people are increasingly fighting without shields (be it with polearms, two handed swords or single swords or whatever), then it becomes more practical to learn sword and buckler with a system that emphasises the sword, as that's more in line with the existing skill-set. Build up on what you already have, instead of laying another set of foundations.
Even if you learn to fight with the sword and buckler before other weapons, it's good to then use a system that would later help in learning to fight with other weapon combinations of the time.
Absolutely.
I totally agree something that many practitioners overlook the context of why and how the sword art was shaped and formed based on arms and armor used at the time or lack there of, Excellent video! Hope all is well for you and yours and we get to meet again soon shield brother.
Thanks my friend. I hope to be back in the US in 2019.
A general note on this comment section:
I am grateful for your interest in my videos. They are but one means of sharing the results of my research into historical combat with sword & shield with everybody who sees value in my work.
Any video reflects my knowledge at the time of making. Because I am constantly learning, older videos might be out-dated, and I will eventually unlist them. However, you can still find them on my Patreon pages: www.patreon.com/Dimicator/posts
On repeated request, I have re-opened comment sections with recent videos. So you are welcome to leave a comment if you feel you have something substantial to contribute on topic. I very much appreciate being pointed to relevant historical sources. I am not interested in hear-say and unreflected opinions. If a relevant question of yours has been left unanswered, then I might have missed it or the subject was already addressed elsewhere. I only check comments occasionally, so have some patience, please.
Personally, I feel that constructive discussion on martial arts only exists in the analogue world, in a salle or a dojo. Please consider that your own valuable personal martial or military experience is inevitably reduced to mere assertions in a comment section. That is the nature of online media. There is zero competence control. This why I tend to shy away from such discussion. I find they are prone to misunderstanding, and generally a waste of time. Time that is better spent with actual research, practice and hands-on discussion. I am always open for the latter, and anyone with a serious interest is welcome to get in touch via private channels.
Bad manners, boasting and babbling are a pest of the digital age. They have no place here.
"Bad manners, boasting and babbling" did exist in the medieval period as well, especially among fencers. 😉
An enduring example would then be Manciolino (1531) and Marozzo (1536) who both starts with s&b before teaching sword alone or sword with another companion weapon. This seems to change in Italy around the middle of the 16th c. with Viggiani, dall'Agocchie, notably Agrippa and then the "rapier masters" who starts with sword alone.
Really nice video, especially the part about "efficiency".
Thank you.
speaking of bucklers, one thing i considered is the question of swords biting into bucklers,
if a buckler is organic and the sword hits it with thrust OR cut, it more easily bites in, allowing for elements of bind and tactile feedback...
and earlier bucklers seem to be have more often organic faces and rims to some extent
but as we reach the later 14th and the 15th century expecially, bucklers become all steel, and in th 16th century, steel faced rotellas become a lot more common
however you can slide around steel a lot more easily without biting in...and thrusts will much more easily glance off (though they can still bite if the sword is point enough...
"how does having the ability for a shot to bounce around your buckler or glance away change your strategy
Wonderfully presented hypothesis, I have nothing to add.
The editing was clean and very helpful for newcomers, I would imagine.
Great video :D
Thank you very much.
Nice, concise and informative. Also I like the respectful discussion here.
Yes, I am happy with the tonality of comments at the moment, too.
Thank you for sharing your insights 😊.
You are welcome.
loving this
What I find interesting is, that in I.33 the people always seem to balance on their toes, never using the full foot to stand on. In Talhoffer the weight much more often rests on the heel, or the back foot is even turned sideways for better support.
Seeing any representation from a distant culture (in time or space), you can't just assume what is depicted is naturalistic figuration. It can be conventional representation, not carrying any specific "meaning". In the end you would believe ancient Egyptians walked sideways. One must be extremely careful not to misinterpret sources, and sometimes to simply accept there is just no way to tell convention from naturalistic figuration, and in doubt it's better to consider the representation doesn't provide any meaningful information.
"consider the representation doesn't provide any meaningful information" That is certainly not how Roland treats those illustrations, if you look how sorrowly he interprets even little details - and the convincing results he gets from it. Whoever drew this was extremely aware and knowledgeable of body mechanics. I can't see how that would suddenly change in regards to the foot stance and only the foot stance.
I believe I read somewhere that people naturally walked on the balls of their feet more so back when shoes and soles were less thick. As shoes and soles became better and better people started standing and walking on the sides and heels of their feet because it takes considerably less energy. Standing and walking on the balls of ones feet really works the calves if you were to try walking like that for a while.I also believe that art depicting people's calves are noticably larger compared to modern day because of this.
Take all of this with a grain of salt obviously. I am just a nerd not a professional in any respect.
Stefan, I have written up an extensive reply, including exemplary images, for you (and everyone else) here: www.patreon.com/posts/21497215
Brandon, yes indeed. Walking in turn shoes on slippery or uneven terrain makes you adopt a gait with a forefoot or mid-foot strike pretty quickly. And I completely accord with your observation that, in medieval art, calves are almost always really large.
Where in the Nuremburg Hausbuch does it state that Longsword fencing is based on Langesmesser fencing? Do you mean at 82r where they state that the principles of the knife are the same for the sword? Just wondering since I hadn't perceived that connection before.
Exactly.
Super erklärt 👍
Dankeschön.
I'm just taking a moment to appreciate the nice bucklers, with flat handles. Especially like the one on the right.
Cool video with some good points made, but I'm not proficient enough with sword and shield or buckler for my opinion to count for much. I don't know one system, much less enough to compare all of them. Looking forward to learning enough that I can fully appreciate this. Thanks.
I believe that Lignitzer is more closely connected to fighting with Large Shields. We see a greater variety of cuts from different angles . We see misdirection. We see changing cuts.
MS 1.33 is more closely related to later period Rapier fencing, which relies more on blade on blade contact and leveraging.
Here is a link to my interpretation of Lignitzer applied to a large shield with a Type X battle-sword.
th-cam.com/play/PL9-SCqO6Heuro5UX6yOU0X5Sr-CfN060Z.html
Cornelius' buckler looks interesting, is it based on the persian seppar?
A find from Norway if I recall correctly.
It is based on an English original: www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=31985&partId=1
Sounds like it would be accurate to call one Buckler and Shield and the other Shield and Buckler...
You mean sword & buckler and buckler & sword?