Half armour sword & buckler vs sword & dagger sparring Nick vs Michael 

Wwee loove youuu mett euston

+Merlinose Yeah, it really changes the game as the torso is very well protected.

No, those are aimed at the head, and both arms, and quite a number found those targets, sometimes it connected with the buckler because it was parried, over times because the attack was driving through the buckler, so you can see and hear it making initial contact.

Have you watched your own video? You didn't move the buckler an inch. I've seen other videos where you masterfully block, but this isn't one of them.

You know what, I take it back, after looking a bit more carefully I do see movement. Still the dude aims at your protected side...

Didn't move the buckler an inch? I wonder if you are even watching the same video. And yes, aiming at a protected side, or what an opponent believes is a protected side is often very effective, using a range of techniques that can defeat those guards, postures, or parries. That is at the core of many sword fighting systems.

+Shutendoji My experience has been that you get some minor damage and pitting on the edges, but the seem to hold up pretty well. The Black Fencer swords in particular in my opinion seem to be made in a slightly harder, more granular plastic than the stuff that Rawling's use, and as a result are a bit tougher and burrs less (I believe both are described as 'nylon'. but plastics can be complicated, and there's definitely a difference in the material they use). Both types can be used against steel wasters though, or used in pell work (hitting a pole for drilling). Whilst I wouldn't expect them to stay in mint condition, I've seen more steel break than nylon, and it certainly sounds like they would be better than foam. Another way of putting it is that people pretty regularly use nylon bucklers whilst sparring with steel, and I've never heard of this being an issue, although again the edges will get chewed up a bit more. I'm by no means an a expert, just hoping to help by sharing my (limited) experience and oppinion. Hopefully some other people can give some advice.

+Shutendoji Thanks! They hold up just fine. The Knightshop (Red Dragon) nylon swords hold up fine too, but the Black Fencer ones even better because they are a bit more substantial. They take minor edge damage against the rims of steel bucklers, and the Cold steel Poly bucklers take edge damage from steel swords, but never anything of concern.

See our video about what bucklers are and why use them. Ultimately the largest advantage of a buckler over a shield is that they are small and light to carry on a daily basis, or small sidesarm in war.

Ok, thanks for the tip. :)

visibility. larger the shield .. the less visibility of your opponents attacks coming and possibly its heavier wearing you out.. from fatigue.. but i would much prefer a larger shield.. because.. arrows..

Bao Warrior yes for arrows, but generally attacks are blocked with the edge of the shield rather then the face. It allows you to parry without opening your torso

I once saw a demonstration from Skallagrim, that with a buckler you could also hold a dagger, in reverse-grip to also add an offensive capability.

Great, was just about to link you to it.

Academy of Historical Fencing Much appreciated. The video was excellent, very informative!

More parry frames

In part because buckler lead interferes with some sabre technique and the armour limits movement slightly too, but also some personal preference. Also because we work from Bolognese sources where the sword does at times lead, Ultimately when you practice a lot of lead foot forward fencing, whether it be sabre or say Capo Ferro rapier which we have done for many years, you will instinctively want to push the sword forward. Giganti who taught rapier and buckler shows both for example. Capo Ferro commonly lead with rapier when paired with dagger. We're also using Napoleonic sabres, and it would be logical to continue with a sword lead if comming from that school, as Briitsh officers did when picking up bucklers (dhals) in foreign service. I think there is also something to be said about blade lengths. When I use sideswords I tend to push the buckler forward, but the closer distance and quick rotations of the short sabres we practice with can cause the extended buckler to be easily decieved. It's certainly true that bucklers being extended forward was the more common stance.

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing thanks for the reply. It makes sense to stick to a sword lead style if that is the primary system you train in. It reminds me a bit of MMA fighters who come from a wrestling background. In striking arts, right handed fighters lead left foot forward. However right handed wrestlers lead right leg forward. When many right handed wrestlers make the transition into mixed martial arts they have to decide between re-learning their wrestling from a a left hand lead stance to match their striking stance... or some just chose to learn how to strike from right lead forward to match their wrestling stance. It can be confusing to mix and match styles so I guess keeping the buckler in the off hand makes it easier to slot into an existing system ( military sabre) rather than having to re learn a whole new style in order to incorporate the buckler.

I have also noticed that in Gatka tournaments, which are normally single stick and buckler to replicate dhal and tulwar, most of the fighters keep the buckler in the back hand and lead with the stick (sword). They do use a lot of passing footwork though and flow in and out of stances but 90 percent of it is sword lead forward. I agree buckler forward is a more defensive posture and limits offence, whereas sword lead is more aggressive and you have more attacking options

The current model of this sabre is the V5 1796 infantry sabre sold by Black Fencer. Check out their website, they have distributors around the world - blackfencer.com/en/

It's very difficult to parry a good cutting sword with a dagger, which is why the buckler was far more common as an offhand weapon until the rapier became the primary fashion. Also, with weapons like this, grappling wouldn't be hugely likely, as strikes with the offhand weapon would be the first resort at close range, and whilst yes the dagger is good up close, so is a buckler. The striking power of the boss and the rim is formidable, which is why we really have to hold back with these strikes. Almost a great many original bucklers had a large spike protruding from the boss, something we just cannot do safely.

Academy of Historical Fencing I was referring to a deflecting parry with the sword, but you make a good point.

We have done, upto and including full armour, but that isn't the point. You can see us using medium round shields in other videos. What we are most interested in is using what was used historically in the context we are studying. It was common in the renaissance to wear just a cuirass, and little if any other armour besides a helmet.

Academy of Historical Fencing I was thinking more along the lines of a Roman gladiator. Did they actually wear what I described though?

That is certainly something very different, gladiator armour and equipment varied immensely, and sometimes included greaves and vambraces of varying kinds yes.

ZPERO I imagine that gladiators had very, very, unique kits. They didn't follow any military role or so, and had to use whatever they were given to use. Sometimes it made unfair matches, I would assume.

***** Such strikes would probally leave you very open. And would, in a real fight, still leave the opponent able to strike if you made such a hit

Giovani Kubata I think it would depend on the reactions of both people. If the person with a dagger was very fast and went straight from parry to thrust, then yes. But if he tried grappling first, he could meet a buckler to the face, since this one is very light and small, perfect for that very situation

Sure thing.

This is done in historical manuscripts and treatises, but _very_ rare. After training in swird and dagger for a few months, the only play I can remember using the dagger offensively was Achille Marozzo's second play of the Primo Assaulta, and in this play the defender is meant to parry it, but he might not. In essence, the dagger has to cover way more distance to attack, making it slower and easier to react to, so you shouldn't try it much, though it is a useful thing to remember.

It does marginally increase edge wear yes, but not to any level that we find an issue. We have used the knightshop synthetics and Black Fencer against steel bucklers for many years (about eight for KS, four for BF).

+Robert R Perhaps it'd be likely if you're a cuirassieur who lost his horse. :)

+Robert R We weren't going for any particular representation of anything in this fight, it was merely just a test of the armour with whatever we had to hand. Though a multitude of sabre like weapons were carried by men wearing this level of armour throughout the 16th and 17th century, such as hangers, dussacks/tessacks etc, many of which could well be carry a dagger as well. Not a massively common combination, but far from unheard of. As for how useful are partial armours, the first thing I would do it look to history and see what they did. Throughout the renaissance it was incredibly common to see soldiers whose only steel armour would comprise a cuirass and usually a helmet (such as a morion or burgonet) Sometimes there would be the addition of tassets, sometimes arm armour or shoulder armour, or both. For an interested example of the variation used, have a look at this image of the battle of Rocroi - upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Batalla_de_rocroi_por_Augusto_Ferrer-Dalmau.jpg There you will see everything from no armour, to just cuirass and helmet, to half armour with or without helmet, including the use of steel shields. How useful is it? Pretty useful action.Being protected from almost all cuts and thrusts to the torso not only keeps you safe, it gives certain options in the fight. But the question of how much or little can you afford to wear, there is no answer to that. Particularly in this time period soldiers went to war in anything from no armour at all, to some coverage and partial armours to complete harnesses. Of course, there are some major advantages to wearing partial armours. For a start, they are a lot lighter and that can provide an agility and speed on the battlefield that can be put to good effect, like the Spanish sword and rotella men that they are famous for using, and in fact that setup will be something we do quite soon when we get those steel shields.

Academy of Historical Fencing Ok awesome, thanks. So what was the effect in the sparring here? I can see the video obviously but I don't know how much the unarmoured guy had to change his approach to get around it or how much the protection and weight of the cuirass effected the armoured guy.

+Robert R A cuirass would pretty much negate any hits to the area with a mere cutlass. Plenty of cutting tests have been made with iron and hardened steels such as 1050. Thrusts were only able to penetrate a few milimeters through thin stuff like 20ga (0.8mm) when hardened using 2h assisted thrusts and completely stopped by the clothing underneath. Even unhardened very thin sheet metals will provide a large modicum of protection against any 1h slashes. The armor in the video is also sloped which gives it an oblique striking surface. That leads to deflection being a factor that has to be considered. In short, everything protruding outside of the armor is vulnerable but the chest region is not. Cuirasses were worn to protect against lances, bayonets, and other penetrating weapons. The piece in the video is a Peascod breastplate which was worn by both noble mounted troops and lower class pikemen or musket armed troops. It would have been between 1.5mm and 2mm thick with the thinnest versions being used as munitions grade.

brainplay Yes of course. I'm asking what the actual effect was for each of the fighters in this bout.

+MrTryAnotherOne He's not trying to hit it, his opponent is just using it effectively against him

+MrTryAnotherOne Exactly as wdelvii said.

My eyes must be too slow, it seems. It really looks like he is hitting the buckler (without the buckler being moved).

I (in armour), would love for him to do that, as it would open him up completely. And the reality is that almost nobody is anywhere near as good with their secondary hand as they are their primary. Also, to switch, when? Try and do it in the fight and you'll get struck immediately.

Nylon/plastic.

We don't teach it as a primary style in the club, but we do the odd block of training with it, where we teach from Lignitzer, as well as teaching rapier/sidesword and dagger/buckler according to principals that you see in Giganti, which is essentially the same as Capo Ferro (my main area of study before taking up sabre), just with the additional mention of buckler.

Academy of Historical Fencing may I ask what the blades are made of?

A nylon/plastic material with steel hilt fittings. See the Blackfencer website who make them.

Nope.

Nasty-looking Navi people always say this on this channels videos. They claim it is to fool the opponent and create an opening where they can then quickly strike.

+Luke Michael It is called a boss, and is the one most punch grip shields/bucklers are designed. It's so that the hand can sit inside the shield/buckler and be protected, whilst also creating good balance for the shield.

boredom while sitting on the throne brought me here