Tags
While the text of the I.33 is obscured by bad church Latin, the images of the I.33 are even worse. The illustrations of the I.33 manual are flawed. They are a stylish medieval piece of art of more or less talented artists. The artists concentrated more on copying the drapery of the clothes from contemporary art than the real postures of the body. And they followed the typical display of feet and leg painting in that century. Unable to present three-dimensional objects, they moved every object to the frontal or side view. So if a object is somewhere between side and front, it was moved to an extreme. The body is always displayed in a rotated side view (3/4 view), so that the face shows both eyes. This is in no regard to the real body position.
But the text of the I.33 makes a clear statement that the guards of the I.33 were very common. Therefore we can use contemporary art to analyse the guards of the manual and compare them.
In this article I collected and summoned illustrations of the first guard. By analyzing them I was able to collect little statistical data. I combined it with my personal knowledge and common interpretations of the manual by Richard Cole, Roland Warzecha, David Rawlings, and more. This is the result.
Where to put the sword
17 of the 23 images show the sword under the arm according to the text of the I.33. In the manual the the blade is under the arm while the handle is not. This is covered in other illustrations. If the sword is near the hip the handle is near the hip and not in front of it. There is no real functional difference in it. In both cases the sword hand is fairly out of reach hidden behind the buckler’s protecting area, or near the hip. In both cases the reach of the sword is obscured to the opponent. Thus it does not really matter if whether it is under the arm or next to the hip. Furthermore it is to observe that during a dynamic combat the first guard cannot be performed in that exact manner, so the sword on the hip is as good as the sword under the arm (following the text that says that guards are endpoints*).
*Thanks to Roland, i noticed that this “endpoints” may be “points of misunderstanding”. This article is about the “common fencer” in the I.33. The text points out that the common fencers use this guards to bring up seven strikes and that the “art” is found in the Langort. This is congruent with the GMN 3227a.
Where to put the buckler?
In 14 of the 22 images the buckler is in front of the right shoulder, in 7 images it is in front of the sword hand, and in one image it is protecting the head. Because the weapon hand is (near the body and therefore) physically out of reach the most probable explanation for buckler position in front of the hand is the protecting of the weapon hand and arm while “uncoiling” from the posture. So the buckler starts in front of the right shoulder. When the distances closes, it moves from the right shoulder to a more central position, or (a lot more likely) the buckler stays in place (in relation to the line of attack) while the body moves out of the line of attack. So the sword hand is using the protective zone of the buckler while coming forward to answer the attack or do a counterattack.
Which foot is in front?
7 images show the right hip forward, 5 the left hip, the rest is not to identify. In 11 pictures there seems to be the left foot forward, 5 have the right foot forward, and in the rest is not to see. Because of the influence of art-style in body posture the position of hips and feet are not easily to identify. There is a coincidence between the buckler in front of the right shoulder and the preference for having the right hip forward. Having the “buckler foot” forward needs the sword ready to protect the knee. As it is ready to do this on this side, there is another indication that the left foot is forward while the right hip is turned in front.
How to position yourself?
9 of the 23 images shows a normal stance, 12 a low stance, two are not to analyze because of the sitting position. While in the manual itself the low stance, with the upper body bend forward is found often, this is not that much reflected in contemporary art. There we find an slightly bend but more upright position of the upper body, and all that might be seen as a low stance are bend knees. It looks as they are sitting on a chair with bend knees. That offers the conclusion that the knees are bend in a close stance that will have most of the weight on the back leg if the upper body is upright. By leaning the upper body slightly forward the weight is a better distributed to both legs with keeping around 60%-70% on the back leg. With the right hip forward and the left leg too, the body is twisted and coiled. Thus the fencer is able to move very fast from this posture to another using the power from his sinews and muscles.
Exercises for this guard
To get into the guard the buckler is positioned in front of the right shoulder that turns forward (to the opponent) while the sword handle is moved to the left side (under the arm or to the hip). The right hip is supporting the movement. Thus it offers the farthest reach in a thrust or strike resembling a typical one handed weapon stance after the turning of the lower body (aligning it to the upper body). The upper body is lowered and slightly bend forward while the left leg is put forward. Now the body has two options to move while uncoiling from this twisted position: follow the upper body and let the sword lead the fight, or follow the lower body and let the buckler have the lead (in the manual both options are used).
Moving in this guard must be trained. Most of the steps has to be the “Triangel” steps with the back leg doing falling steps. The way of stepping is familiar with the usual fencing steps but somewhat strange with the right hip in front. It is done with small steps. But as the keeping of a guard like this is just only for 1-2 steps (to find the proper distance) it should not be any hindrance.
The “uncoiling” from this guard should be trained that way that in one case the buckler and in the other the sword will take the lead. It could easily trained by a partner who keeps hold on the sword or buckler hand, so it cannot be moved. The fencer should learn how to keep steady with that arm and at the same time to step lightly around that anchor-point.
The first guard in the i.33 manual
 |
I.33 Plate 01
|
 |
I.33 Plate 03
|
 |
I.33 Plate 05
|
 |
I.33 Plate 07
|
 |
I.33 Plate 10
|
 |
I.33 Plate 12
|
 |
I.33 Plate 16
|
 |
I.33 Plate 22
|
 |
I.33 Plate 29 up
|
 |
I.33 Plate 29 down
|
 |
I.33 Plate 31
|
 |
I.33 Plate 40
|
The first guards in contemporary art
The display of I.33 style sword & buckler fencing in contemporary art reach back from the 11th century to 16th century. The prevalent appearance is in the 13th and particularly in the 14th century.
 |
The Meeting Of Sir Lancelot And Queen Guinevere, In ‘The Romance Of Lancelot Du Lac”, Shelfmark: Royal MS 20 D.iv ; Folio 1r, dated to 1300-1370.
|
 |
Unknown source and date.
Because of the body of an animal there is no further analysis of the body posture. |
 |
Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste-et-Saint-Étienne bzw. Cathédrale Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Lyon, dated to the beginning of the 14th century.
|
 |
The Sachsenspiegel, Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, Cod. Guelf. 3.1 Aug. 2° Folio 26r, dated to the last quarter of the 14th century.
|
 |
Romance of Alexander, MS Bodleian 264, Folio 61v, dated to the second half of the 15th century.
|
 |
Tours – BM – ms. 0568 – f. 031v, dated to the 13th century.
Because of the sitting body of an animal there is no further analysis of the body posture. |
 |
Tours – BM – ms. 0568 – f. 115v, dated to the 13th century.
Because of the sitting body of an animal there is no further analysis of the body posture. |
 |
British Library, MS Royal 6 E VI, 115r, dated to 1360-c. 1375.
Because of the style of illustration the position of feet and hips is not analysed.
|
 |
Universitätsbibliothek Karl-Franzens, Graz, MS 32, f 91v, dated to the 14th century.
|
 |
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, Medallion with Two Warriors, Limoges, France, dated to 1240–60.
|
Images added later to the article (statistics not updated)
 |
Hans Talhoffer, Thott 290 2º , dated to 1459
|
 |
BNF Français 123, fol. 137v, dated 1275-1280
|
 |
BNF Français 123, fol. 55, Combat d’Hector de Mares et de Marigant, dated 1275-1280
|
 |
Bodley, MS. Douce 131, fol. 020r, English, dated ca. 1340
|
 |
Paris, Nouvelle acquisition latine 1673, fol. 93v, dated 1390-1400
|
 |
New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, Acc. no. II, 2-25, fol 14v, sketchbook, Naples, dated 1370
|
 |
Getty, Vidal Mayor, ms. ludwig XIV 6, Spanish, about 1290 – 1310
|
Related Guards
There are guards displayed in art, that represent not the first guard and not the guard over the left shoulder but something in between. This guard seems related to the first guard and the special guard of the priest in the I.33.
 |
Book of hours, Abbeville – BM – ms. 0016, Folio 001v, dated to the second half of the 15th century.
The picture is probably not showing the first guard.
|
 |
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, Casket with Warriors and Mythological Figures, Constantinople, 10th–11th century.
The picture is probably not showing the first guard.
|
Thanks for the great collection of contemporary images and the cohesive analysis.
Much appreciated.
I have two comments. The first is actually a question:
Where in I.33 does it say that wards are end positions, as you write in the second paragraph on sword position? It is true that in one play one swordsman retreats from longpoint to First Ward, however, without delivering an attack. Also, sometimes wards are used as obsesseos, but again not as what I understand as a final position.
I rather think that the text advises to end any sword action with the point extended forward. This is at least how I interpret the lines on 1r, where it says that all actions of the guards and of the sword finish or have their conclusion in Langort.
Thus I think that I.33 pretty clearly recommends to NOT use wards as end positions, no?
Secondly, I disagree that it makes no differnece whether the sword is held at the hip or high under the arm with the pommel at shoulder height (as usually shown in I.33). Because if you start from the hip, the blade has to rotate around the wrist to move the point forward, which is detrimental for your joint and also results in a wide cutting arc. If you hold your sword high, as depicted in I.33, you can move the sword around its natural center of rotation, which is located between the middle of the blade and the point of balance. This makes for a smaller arc for the point to travel, it does not strain your wrist and, because of better leverage, requires less strength, yet results in a more explosive blow. As always, easier to demonstrate than to describe.
This is yet another detail that, in my opinion, shows the sophistication of I.33′s fencing. So while there is an abundance of depictions that show Underarm held at the hip, I consider this inferior.
Thanks for your research and informative blog. Say hello to Richard Cole,
Roland Warzecha
Dear Roland,
thank you for reading my blog and putting up your comment. It had been 4 years ago that we had an discussion on guards and strikes in a German/Austrian forum which I started with “is there a technique in the I.33, that requires a strike/cut from above to down below”. As the dynamic of this forum was, I never had the chance to bring my conclusion to an proper end. It ended that you rethought your reconstruction and I kept my further thoughts with myself (btw I really liked what Roland F. had shown me in Dijon).
I still have the same opinion: there is no such technique. So you are right on this. But what may have puzzled you is that I am talking about the “The first guard of the common(!!!) fencer in the I.33″. Before I start writing about the I.33 in this blog, I bring up my reconstruction the common fencer part. This is/was very difficult, but I hope I can manage it. I think it may help us all to understand the I.33 better.
So if you take the “omnes actus custodiarum sive gladij determinantur in ea i. finem habent” everything has to end in the Langort. But the “Dimicatio est diversarum plagarum ordinatio & diuiditur in septem partes ut hic” tells us that from those guards comes the strikes and that the common fencers use them. So the “common fencer” strikes from guard to guard and he is doing it that way, that the strikes pass the mostly static buckler (using the shield only in special conditions). This is interesting because it would lead us back to larger shields (and it will lead to the roots of other teachings of the buckler in later centuries).
What you say about the position of the sword under the arm in the I.33 has my support. Again I am writing about fencers using guard as end-/start-points having nearly static buckler work. For those the 1st guard is an transition and therefore it is used dynamically. And again it may have to do something with larger shields, but I am not sure about that fact.
Best regards and all the best to Toke,
JPK
Hi JPK,
kind of nice to get in touch here after so long a time. Still virtual, which is not approprate regarding the subject, but, alas, better than nothing, right?
I now understand what you mean, and I am happy to see that you found my comment useful.
I perfectly agree that it should be our endeavour to reconstruct the so-called common buckler combat before turning our eyes to I.33. It is what Toke and I tried to do with our Agilitas DVD, too. Not an easy task. So I am familiar with the problems and would like to know more about your approach.
There are a few hints in the manuscript regarding what the common swordsmen do: They do use Half-Shield, for instance, and they deliver a so-called common blow from there against First Ward (the only general blow shown and it ends with the point extended forward).
Some attack with Langort (not the ward, I assume) as an obsesseo versus First, which the author considers inferior.
They also use the ward Fiddlebow.
And they use Fifth and Sixth, so they certainly know how to thrust. And thrusts ultimately end in langort.
Regarding Second and Fifth, they at least sometimes try from there to separate Half-Shield’s weapons with a downward strike.
I think that is about it. The manuscript doesn’t bother to deal very much with direct strikes from wards.
But I neither see any evidence for the generales to cut from ward to ward. I mean, you could be right. But what exactly makes you think, they did?
Regarding your comparison to older fencing systems with large shields: This is a wide field and I am not sure if I understand what exactly you mean.
Best regards and thanks for your work,
Roland
Roland, you are already five steps forward of this blog entry. And yes the common fencers do all these things and more (like protecting). My plan is to present the seven guards and following that strikes and thrusts of the common fencer in one posting after the other. If this is done, we should get back to your points. They are worth to keep in mind. I am sorry but due my work load this must take its time. We could easily have worked that out on an afternoon sword in hands. But as we both are quiet busy and live in that distance, the internet is a unsatisfying but useful medium. After all this is already better than a forum, where the whole work is spammed by personal pettiness.
I will be on the sword & buckler cycle now for a year before I get back on the Messer, so there is a good chance to get it done this year
Great to have you here. Kind regards.
JPK, sounds great. I am looking forward to reading more. Thanks for your efforts and time. Good to see more buckler related material again.
All the best,
Roland
Thank you for posting this article. I really like the idea of trying to get an idea of sword and buckler before I.33 (let’s say vol.1 ). Must be full of schildslac/stichschlag coombinations: ’cause , as Dieter Bachmann nicely said: “The author of I.33 got that combination totally out of sword and buckler fencing…”
Thank you again, Roland F. and I will follow your developments with high interest.
Anthony
Dear Anthony, I try to reconstruct the fencing of the common fencer inside of the I.33. Sadly the treatise is very obscure and so I need to extend my research. And furthermore the contemporary sources are not exactly an instruction for fencers. So it is a weird puzzle and I do not think that my researches will bring enough evidence to be called a proven fact, because there is no such thing. But I hope it will help the next researcher on her/his way.
And yes, there are the terms like Halbschild, Stichschlag, Schildschlag that I need to focus on. But I should not forget, that Luitger may have created or misused a given term. Halbschild for example was a term belonging to a small halfmoon shaped shield since the first translations of Ovid or Virgil. So what does that say about Luitger’s Halbschild? Much, nothing or something in between. Let’s see about that later on.
Best wishes,
JPK
Pingback: Sword & Buckler – The first guard of the common fencer in the I.33 « Hans Talhoffer | Grauenwolf's Study of Western Martial Arts
Thanks to Roland and others I added some more images showing the 1st guard. Latest is from Spain.